# $900 handout



## damien275x (6 April 2009)

Hi,
I don't know whether I get this or not.
I did lodge a tax return last year. But I might have got it all back.

someone told me if you get all your tax back, then no $900.
Is that right? =( Is there some qualifying test you can take


----------



## Ashsaege (6 April 2009)

damien275x said:


> Hi,
> I don't know whether I get this or not.
> I did lodge a tax return last year. But I might have got it all back.
> 
> ...




Yeh you didn't earn enough. My younger bro was in the same case.


----------



## sinner (6 April 2009)

http://calculators.ato.gov.au/scripts/axos/axos.asp?CONTEXT=&KBS=ESB.xr4&go=ok

Make sure you have your last years tax return handy. Will let you know exactly what you qualify for.

I think the above post is incorrect.


----------



## damien275x (6 April 2009)

Ridiculous. How can you earn too little and not be eligible? 
I am 19, a trainee, I earn $300 a week for 38 hours and I do not qualify for any centerlink money because my parents have lots of money.I'm always getting absolutely nothing.  Might as well quit and move across the road and get the living away from home like everyone else around me seems to do, despite still being AT home most days. Im so sick of assholes getting money they don't deserve. I'm going to go home tonight and blow the whistle on every single person screwing the system around, friend or not. I've had enough.


----------



## damien275x (6 April 2009)

Actually I am eligible. Good. I'm still whistleblowing tonight


----------



## Bob (6 April 2009)

damien275x said:


> Ridiculous. How can you earn too little and not be eligible?
> I am 19, a trainee, I earn $300 a week for 38 hours and I do not qualify for any centerlink money .




Wait until you are 58.  It doesn't get any better - I don't get any either as I didn't earn enough


Bob


----------



## Prospector (6 April 2009)

If you have earnt over $18000 in the last 18 months and are studying then you will qualify under the Independent test for Youth Allowance, which is $125 per week.  Also needed to have left school for 18 months.


----------



## damien275x (6 April 2009)

Guess what? As soon as I hit 18 months out of school my trainee ship will be completed and I will be on a salary. That's great but it is such a pain in the ass that as soon as I am set to be 'entitled' .. I earn more. Talk about shocking timing.


----------



## kincella (6 April 2009)

on the ATO website you can check it out if you get the money or not...
and the reason they say to have your assessment is to check if you had a rebate of offset any tax...

most people earning money and receiving centrelink payments will not get any money back....because they did not pay any tax in the first place...
if there was some tax payable...but the rebates offset it,,,,then no bonus

but if you did pay some tax...eg 300...thats all you get back is 300...
I think a lot of people are going to be dissapointed..when they find out

heard of all those dole bludgers suddenly wanting to do a tax return so they can get back 900....but they paid no tax...so no bonus is due


----------



## prawn_86 (6 April 2009)

kincella said:


> but if you did pay some tax...eg 300...thats all you get back is 300...
> I think a lot of people are going to be dissapointed..when they find out




You sure about this?

As far as i am aware if you paid some tax, over and above what you got back, then you are eligible for the whole $900.

Got a link for your view? I guess i'll just wait and see...


----------



## sinner (6 April 2009)

I suggest everyone stop speculating as to who and when is eligible for what.

The ATO has provided a script with which you can check whether or not you are eligible. The link I have provided for this is above.

Do not trust random internet speculation, check for yourself.


----------



## beerwm (6 April 2009)

damien275x said:


> Ridiculous. *How can you earn too little and not be eligible? *
> I am 19, a trainee, I earn $300 a week for 38 hours and I do not qualify for any centerlink money because my parents have lots of money.I'm always getting absolutely nothing.  Might as well quit and move across the road and get the living away from home like everyone else around me seems to do, despite still being AT home most days. *Im so sick of assholes getting money they don't deserve.* I'm going to go home tonight and blow the whistle on every single person screwing the system around, friend or not. I've had enough.




why exactly do u deserve this money?

how much tax have u paid in your lifetime... like $1000?.. probably less.
I have no problem in giving money to those in NEED, disability, pensioners, but do u need it?

get real


----------



## kincella (6 April 2009)

prawn...you must have paid at least 900 to get it back....but its easy to check....like sinner said...go to the ato website...its too easy


----------



## Prospector (6 April 2009)

Thats interesting because when the announcement was made, I read in an article that even if you only paid $1 in tax you would get the full $900 back.  And in the announcements made by Rudd, they only state that $900 will be paid to people who paid tax had a taxable income of $80,000 or less; and then less if you earned more than that.  There has been no mention that if you had a taxable income of less than $80,000 that the bonus would be adjusted down according to the actual amount of tax you paid.

Ah, I just did a fake one in which I 'paid' $1 in tax as follows using the link above and 'I' will get the full amount:

    You are eligible for the tax bonus for the amount of:
$900
Based on the information you have provided you met the following eligibility criteria for the 2007 - 08 income year: 	

# you have lodged your 2007-08 income tax return before 30 June 2009
# your taxable income for 2007-08 income year was $100,000 or less
# you are an individual taxpayer
# you were an Australian resident for tax purposes for the 2007-08 income year

# Your taxable income was:
	$75,000
# Your tax on taxable income (Label A) was :
	$4,001.00
# Your Medicare levy and Medicare levy surcharge (Label O) was:
	$0.00
# Your tax offsets and other credits (Label G) was:
	$4,000.00


----------



## kincella (6 April 2009)

I saw the ads....badly worded...deliberate con ???? who knows....
but the truth is...the maximum you can get back is 900....they did not say the minimum...
but go to the web site...only takes a few minutes to find out the truth

anyway the pensioners got their money in dec....then the parents got it for the kids school in Feb(again pensioners).....and now its for the rest of the under privileged in society


----------



## Prospector (6 April 2009)

kincella said:


> but go to the web site...only takes a few minutes to find out the truth




I just did - see above amended post!


----------



## kincella (6 April 2009)

prospector....go back and do it and instead of putting in tax credits...show rebates of 4000....
rebates offset a certain amount of tax payable....
so if your rebates amounted to 4000 then there is no 900

in the way you did it ...of course you get back 900....cause you paid tax of 4000


----------



## Prospector (6 April 2009)

kincella said:


> prospector....go back and do it and instead of putting in tax credits...show rebates of 4000....
> rebates offset a certain amount of tax payable....
> so if your rebates amounted to 4000 then there is no 900
> 
> in the way you did it ...of course you get back 900....cause you paid tax of 4000




There is no 'rebates' section in the calculator.


----------



## kincella (6 April 2009)

they used the term ....tax offsets

so I just put in a dummy...with tax payable and medicare = 5200
and tax offsets of 5200 = nil tax paid
and the answer is nil
heres the answer
http://calculators.ato.gov.au/scripts/axos/AXOS.asp


----------



## Prospector (6 April 2009)

I will show you again using just $1 difference from your example.

If you put in tax offsets of $5199 (ie $1 less offset than you just did) you get $900!
Eligibility for the tax bonus
Version 09.1

You are eligible for the tax bonus for the amount of:$900

 Based on the information you have provided you met the following eligibility criteria for the 2007 - 08 income year: 	


# you have lodged your 2007-08 income tax return before 30 June 2009
# your taxable income for 2007-08 income year was $100,000 or less
# you are an individual taxpayer
# you were an Australian resident for tax purposes for the 2007-08 income year

# Your taxable income was:
	$75,000
# Your tax on taxable income (Label A) was :
	$5,000.00
# Your Medicare levy and Medicare levy surcharge (Label O) was:
	$200.00
# Your tax offsets and other credits (Label G) was:
	$5,199.00


----------



## kincella (6 April 2009)

???? dumbfounded....I tested it on using offsets


----------



## kincella (6 April 2009)

***** Major apology*****on all posts this subject....totally wrong
I did calc's based on full tax offsets against the tax payble resulting in no tax paid....therefore there was no bonus...that part is correct
but look at this....

just did a dummy test with tax payable of 547....and tax offset of 546 = 1.00 tax payable....but they get 900 bonus
???????  I did not believe it was designed to be that way....if you only paid 1.00 then get 1.00 back


----------



## kincella (6 April 2009)

might be a lot of angry little vegemites out there....you pay 1.00 in tax ..get back 900
you did not pay 1.00 or .50,  get nothing....

this has to be a major stuff up....
some people may like to amend their tax returns and show some extra income..pay 1.00 more in tax ..get 900


----------



## Prospector (6 April 2009)

Umm, I always thought it was the case.


----------



## Duckman#72 (6 April 2009)

kincella said:


> might be a lot of angry little vegemites out there....you pay 1.00 in tax ..get back 900
> you did not pay 1.00 or .50,  get nothing....
> 
> this has to be a major stuff up....
> some people may like to amend their tax returns and show some extra income..pay 1.00 more in tax ..get 900




With all due respect Kincella - Prospectors right. I always thought that was the way. I didn't think it could be taken any other way until I read your interpretation. Remember it is part of a _Stimulus Package_. They are hardly going to go to the trouble of designing a system that hands out a stack of Stimulus Bonuses of $1!  

I don't think too many people will be angry over that. Although there has been much discussion about the phrase "Working Australians". It has been clearly misleading.

Duckman


----------



## kincella (6 April 2009)

Duckman...
how do you explain the identical situation...both taxpayers exactly the same...but one pays 1.00 in tax..and entitled to the bonus of 900...the other identical taxpayer does not pay 1.00 and receives no bonus....
might be a few taxpayers  amend their returns to show 1.00 difference..and then entitled to 900
sounds grossly unfair...doubt it was intended to be that way at all


----------



## jackson8 (6 April 2009)

kincella said:


> Duckman...
> how do you explain the identical situation...both taxpayers exactly the same...but one pays 1.00 in tax..and entitled to the bonus of 900...the other identical taxpayer does not pay 1.00 and receives no bonus....
> might be a few taxpayers  amend their returns to show 1.00 difference..and then entitled to 900
> sounds grossly unfair...doubt it was intended to be that way at all




have a couple of friends whom have told to do the exact same thing , as long as you have paid some tax doesnt matter how much you will get the $$

seems unfair i know, especially the people who need it the most those on low income miss out


----------



## Prospector (6 April 2009)

So lets look at this from a different position.  It is a *stimulus package*, meaning that the money will do the most good *if it gets spent*.  People who already have their major bills covered might therefore go out and spend it because they dont need feel the need to save as much; whereas people with less discretionary money might just put it in the bank or spend it on paying for things they have already bought.  Which wont do anyone any good at all.

The $1 issue is a bit of a red herring, although perhaps now some might make some adjustments to their tax return if it hasnt already been submitted.

Fairness, unfortunately for some, has nothing to do with it.


----------



## son of baglimit (6 April 2009)

oh what fun to read the masses discussions on important issues - "do i get it?"

ok try this one - if you get nothing from centrelink, but taxable income over $11000 from wages/self employed/bank interest/dividends/foreign income/capital gains, you have then paid 'some tax', and will get the $900, as long as that taxable income is below $100k (it does reduce over $80k)

now if you received some taxable pension from centrelink (parenting/youth/newstart/aged/disability) and thats your only income, you dont pay tax, and so wont get it.

if you received a centrelink pension AND other income, and as a result paid 'some' tax, then youll get it.

and yeah, if you BS your return to get it, theres a fair chance it wont be detected - but thats another issue.


----------



## Wysiwyg (6 April 2009)

son of baglimit said:


> oh what fun to read the masses discussions on important issues - "do i get it?"
> 
> ok try this one - if you get nothing from centrelink, but *taxable income over $11000* from wages/self employed/bank interest/dividends/foreign income/capital gains, *you have then paid 'some tax', and will get the $900*, as long as that taxable income is below $100k (it does reduce over $80k)




Not quite true my friend because if the taxable income remains above the tax free threshold of  $6k after deductions AND you have paid income tax on those earnings then you are entitled to it.


----------



## Julia (6 April 2009)

damien275x said:


> Ridiculous. How can you earn too little and not be eligible?
> I am 19, a trainee, I earn $300 a week for 38 hours and I do not qualify for any centerlink money because my parents have lots of money.I'm always getting absolutely nothing.  Might as well quit and move across the road and get the living away from home like everyone else around me seems to do, despite still being AT home most days. Im so sick of assholes getting money they don't deserve. I'm going to go home tonight and blow the whistle on every single person screwing the system around, friend or not. I've had enough.






beerwm said:


> why exactly do u deserve this money?
> 
> how much tax have u paid in your lifetime... like $1000?.. probably less.
> I have no problem in giving money to those in NEED, disability, pensioners, but do u need it?
> ...



Thank you, beerwm, for beating me to it as far as Damien is concerned.
Damien, get off the grass!!  How much have you contributed to the tax system?  Why do you think you deserve $900???





Prospector said:


> Fairness, unfortunately for some, has nothing to do with it.



Now, ain't that the truth.
I have paid a heap of tax via my SMSF which holds all my assets.
Therefore as an individual I have not paid any tax.
Therefore I don't get any $900.

Fair?  I don't think so.


----------



## son of baglimit (6 April 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Not quite true my friend because if the taxable income remains above the tax free threshold of  $6k after deductions AND you have paid income tax on those earnings then you are entitled to it.




low income tax offset means any resident individual with taxable income effectively $11000 or less pays no tax, and therefore not eligible.

julia - at the end of the day you have made a decision to remove your assets from the individual tax system and apply the super rules - good decision.
is your superfund about to go out and spend $900 on something - doubt it.

the needy & non-tax payers (pensioners etc) got their bonuses back in december, and this one is for those low & middle earners who have missed out so far. and sure, there will be plenty who missed out somehow on anything, cos the rules (which applied to the clear majority) simply didnt cater to those few individuals. BUT how many out there would be crying blue murder if the slow lazy incompetent public service were asked to go and ensure each possible individual would receive the payment. the searching would take years and only serve to employ more public servants. at least canberra retailers could enjoy their wages being spent.


----------



## kingcarmleo (7 April 2009)

In damien's defense I understand where he is coming from. I am a full time uni student and I work 15 hours a week and didn't manage to make it to the required 11k. I just think it's wrong for someone that earns 95k a year will recieve a payment but someone that earns 8-10k won't, I understand most people will say "what tax have you paid" but my answer to that is I am doing everything that is expected of an 18 yr old. A good idea would of been to give uni students the money to pay for 2 units or to pay off some of their HECS debt , that way the money isn't getting spent on irrelevant plasma screens.The retail sector is the only sector that will significantly gain from this payment. The worst thing about this whole thing is that K Rudd is just gaining younger peoples votes , unfortunately  people of my age group don't know much about politics or economics. I heard a student at uni say " John Howard never gave us any money" K rudd has lured in young voters for the next election. I miss you John and Pete!

Just my thoughts

King


----------



## son of baglimit (7 April 2009)

kingcarmleo said:


> A good idea would of been to give uni students the money to pay for 2 units or to pay off some of their HECS debt , that way the money isn't getting spent on irrelevant plasma screens.The retail sector is the only sector that will significantly gain from this payment.




king - remember the purpose of this payment - for people to SPEND IT.
reducing the hecs balance of uni students aint gonna do that.
and as for the retail sector - the biggest employer of part time and casual workers - who then earn a wage that they then go and spend, putting money thru the economy - again the purpose.


----------



## numbercruncher (7 April 2009)

Julia said:


> Now, ain't that the truth.
> I have paid a heap of tax via my SMSF which holds all my assets.
> Therefore as an individual I have not paid any tax.
> Therefore I don't get any $900.
> ...





Hiya Julia,


But your SMSF pays heaps less tax as a % than individuals so you are miles ahead .....

Your right, not fair, an individual should be able to enjoy the same low tax rate ! superfunds should/will be in the Goverments cross hairs when the time comes to repay this ridiculous gigantic debt.

Cheers.


----------



## rcm617 (7 April 2009)

Are people aware here that if they paid their tax by way of franking credits they are not entitled to the $900. I work part time, but with mature workers offset and other offsets and franking credits on top, I will not be eligible, mainly because my savings are in shares whereas people who save in bank accounts will be eligible. They have not been hit in this downturn but my share portfolio has taken a major haircut in the last two years.


----------



## Duckman#72 (7 April 2009)

kincella said:


> Duckman...
> how do you explain the identical situation...both taxpayers exactly the same...but one pays 1.00 in tax..and entitled to the bonus of 900...the other identical taxpayer does not pay 1.00 and receives no bonus....
> might be a few taxpayers  amend their returns to show 1.00 difference..and then entitled to 900
> sounds grossly unfair...doubt it was intended to be that way at all




It is just a line in the sand. They wanted to get money out into the economy quickly. Those that pay tax get it those that don't pay tax don't get it. I am not agreeing with it but those are the rules that have been set.

I guess the other way is to have a shaded-out period, but that creates a lot more complexity for very little gain to the economy. Remember this isn't supposed to be about the individual but rather the economy.

Regardless of wherever you put the fence, there will always be disappointed people on the other side.

Duckman


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 April 2009)

kingcarmleo said:


> In damien's defense I understand where he is coming from. I am a full time uni student and I work 15 hours a week and didn't manage to make it to the required 11k.
> King




You don't have to earn 11k. If your taxable income (amount after claims/deductions) is above the $6k tax free threshold AND you paid income tax (anything above zero), then you are entitled to it.

Is that so freakin' difficult to understand you clowns. 

Where does the $11k amount come from.


----------



## Duckman#72 (7 April 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> You don't have to earn 11k. If your taxable income (amount after claims/deductions) is above the $6k tax free threshold AND you paid income tax (anything above zero), then you are entitled to it.
> 
> Is that so freakin' difficult to understand you clowns.
> 
> Where does the $11k amount come from.




Be careful WYSWYG.

Do you play cards? If you are going to go "all in" you need to be pretty sure of your hand......and that of your opponents. I'm going to watch the next move. (I'm betting on your opponent).

Duckman


----------



## rcm617 (7 April 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> You don't have to earn 11k. If your taxable income (amount after claims/deductions) is above the $6k tax free threshold AND you paid income tax (anything above zero), then you are entitled to it.
> 
> Is that so freakin' difficult to understand you clowns.
> 
> Where does the $11k amount come from.




Its your tax minus offsets and minus franking credits that it is calculated on. I earned over $30,000 but because i had several thousand dollars worth of franking credits i'm not eligible.


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 April 2009)

rcm617 said:


> Its your tax minus offsets and minus franking credits that it is calculated on. I earned over $30,000 but because i had several thousand dollars worth of franking credits i'm not eligible.





This conversation is in reference to the low income earners and if they are eligble. What I typed is truth.

If you made $9000 and paid $1100 in tax, then after your deductions/claims, your taxable income is say $8500 then your tax payable is calculated on this amount.
If paid more tax .. a refund, if paid less tax .. more to pay.If you have paid more than zero income tax you are eligble.


----------



## Duckman#72 (7 April 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> This conversation is in reference to the low income earners and if they are eligble. What I typed is truth.
> 
> If you made $9000 and paid $1100 in tax, then after your deductions/claims, your taxable income is say $8500 then your tax payable is calculated on this amount.
> If paid more tax .. a refund, if paid less tax .. more to pay.If you have paid more than zero income tax you are eligble.




You're missing the devil in the detail about the offsets. The Low Income Offset kicks in at $6000 and ensures that (as a general rule) tax is not payable where the taxable income is less than $11,000.

The example you've given is not possible (or at least highly unlikely). If your taxble income was $8500 then you have not had to pay any tax. You are confusing the PAYG amounts deducted as "tax payable".

Duckman


----------



## Junior (7 April 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> This conversation is in reference to the low income earners and if they are eligble. What I typed is truth.
> 
> If you made $9000 and paid $1100 in tax, then after your deductions/claims, your taxable income is say $8500 then your tax payable is calculated on this amount.
> If paid more tax .. a refund, if paid less tax .. more to pay.If you have paid more than zero income tax you are eligble.




If you earn $11,000 then your tax payable would be $750.  However you would be entitled to the 'low income tax offset' of $750.  Hence you pay no tax and are not entitled to the bonus.


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 April 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> You're missing the devil in the detail about the offsets. The Low Income Offset kicks in at $6000 and ensures that (as a general rule) tax is not payable where the taxable income is less than $11,000.
> 
> The example you've given is not possible (or at least highly unlikely). If your taxble income was $8500 then you have not had to pay any tax. You are confusing the PAYG amounts deducted as "tax payable".
> 
> Duckman




So are you saying the tax free threshold is effectively $11k?

Therefore any tax paid will be refunded!!!!


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 April 2009)

Junior said:


> If you earn $11,000 then your tax payable would be $750.  However you would be entitled to the 'low income tax offset' of $750.  Hence you pay no tax and are not entitled to the bonus.




Okay got it from the ATO site calculation and the offset of $750 nullifies the tax payable on $11000.


----------



## Gerkin (7 April 2009)

Can someone please answer this query.
If my mum (non employed) had income of $13,000 Capital Gain not eligible for discount, $1000 interest income. Is she eligible for the bonus.

Thanks and best regards


----------



## rcm617 (7 April 2009)

Junior said:


> If you earn $11,000 then your tax payable would be $750.  However you would be entitled to the 'low income tax offset' of $750.  Hence you pay no tax and are not entitled to the bonus.




And if you are over 55 you get a senior offset of $500, if you got a dependent wife you get a dependant offset of $2100 which all have to get taken off the tax payable as well as any franking credits. A lot of people  are going to miss out who think they will be getting the bonus.


----------



## rcm617 (7 April 2009)

Gerkin said:


> Can someone please answer this query.
> If my mum (non employed) had income of $13,000 Capital Gain not eligible for discount, $1000 interest income. Is she eligible for the bonus.
> 
> Thanks and best regards




Depends if she put in a tax return, what age she is and what deductions she had.


----------



## Gerkin (7 April 2009)

rcm617 said:


> Depends if she put in a tax return, what age she is and what deductions she had.




No Deductions
Age 54.
Tax return lodged and tax paid via cheque to ATO

Thanks


----------



## insider (7 April 2009)

damien275x said:


> Ridiculous. How can you earn too little and not be eligible?
> I am 19, a trainee, I earn $300 a week for 38 hours and I do not qualify for any centerlink money because my parents have lots of money.I'm always getting absolutely nothing.  Might as well quit and move across the road and get the living away from home like everyone else around me seems to do, despite still being AT home most days. Im so sick of assholes getting money they don't deserve. I'm going to go home tonight and blow the whistle on every single person screwing the system around, friend or not. I've had enough.




Buddy buddy buddy... This is the exact same reason why I got into the stock Market... I'm better for it and so are you... I'm not going to have fun with that $900... Most people are gong to pay off their bills with it... Don't worry about the a**holes because one day you'll be one in your Ferrari... Get my drift...  Also owning more than $5000 in liquid assets makes you ineligible for  lots of benefits...

But maybe you should move out on paper and defraud the government of money... They go on taxpayer funded holidays often I hear...

Life isn't fair... It's a good thing


----------



## Prospector (7 April 2009)

Gerkin said:


> No Deductions
> Age 54.
> Tax return lodged and tax paid via cheque to ATO
> 
> Thanks




If your mum paid more than $1 to the ATO as a result of the lodgement and receipt of Tax assessment notice; or she had money taken from PAYG by her employer, not all of which was sent back to her by the ATO, then she should receive the stimulus.


----------



## Julia (7 April 2009)

numbercruncher said:


> Hiya Julia,
> 
> 
> But your SMSF pays heaps less tax as a % than individuals so you are miles ahead .....



Of course Super receives a tax advantage!  There has to be some incentive to lock your funds away and to encourage people to save for their retirement, thus hopefully not being a burden on the taxpayer.

The reduced tax goes some way towards offsetting the considerable costs involved in running a SF.

Miles ahead?  You'd have to be joking!


----------



## kingcarmleo (7 April 2009)

wyswig don't you blow your top off at me, It is not my fault the government handled this so poorly. There was an add in the paper a few weeks ago saying "if you earn under 100k you are probably eligible for a $900 payment" the government don't even have a clue themselves!


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (7 April 2009)

Julia said:


> Of course Super receives a tax advantage!  There has to be some incentive to lock your funds away and to encourage people to save for their retirement, thus hopefully not being a burden on the taxpayer.
> 
> The reduced tax goes some way towards offsetting the considerable costs involved in running a SF.
> 
> Miles ahead?  You'd have to be joking!




GRAAAGH - Super rant engage now.

Blargh *Shudder* *twitch*

Super is bad..make bad super calculations go away now.

Guess how much I have in super Julia?

I've personally never made a contribution to super, never salary sacrificed, never co-contributed.  The only thing I have in super is MANDATED employer contributions into a SMSF and baby when I hit 55, Transition to Retirement scheme will be pulling those funds out quicker than you can say maximum deduction please.

There is a particularly labour orientated, well known professor at a university in NSW who advises the government on all sorts of issues to do with superannuation.  Some of the things this amazingly educated financial genius recommends to the Govmint that they should do things like... a) make it impossible to remove money as a lump sum b) require 30% of all pension phase Super Schemes to be in ANNUITIES:chainsaw: And they are LISTENING TO HIM.

When setting up the Superannuation scheme the Govmint asked the insurance and annuity companies to do some projections, and several years later there was a senate inquiry into why the projections (You know those things that are meant to keep us off the bread line in our dotage) were miniscule in comparison to the projections, and why the fee's that the annuity and superannuation fund managers seemed to be so excessive... to which the response was "well we haven't got enough money yet for economies of scale." 

WTF? The government actually bought this pile of steaming horse manure, while the super and insurance companies rubbed their hands with glee and thought up more ways to rip everybody off. I mean seriously? - Here look after billions and billions of dollars but we're trusting you not to take more than you need to ok? It's like giving the fox the keys to the hen house and asking him to look after it over the weekend.

Go look at the legal action where the Government won against a whole raft of companies who breached the Superannuation fee guidelines, jointly they paid out 1.3 BILLION dollars in fines for breaching the rules (which considering the amount of money they were bringing in was a slap on the wrist).  

That isn't even to mention that aside from seemingly coating yourself in barbeque sauce and inviting the sharks to take a bite from your left butt cheek, superannuation because of the severe limitation on gearing, *despite the "tax advantage"* screws your long-term earning potential. 

$100k invested through a SMSF (and trust me a properly managed SMSF Sh!ts all over Managed funds), versus $100k with minimal gearing, and risk management in place? There is no comparison over the longer term. The SMSF ends up with a ****load of opportunity cost. 

Me I want my long-term money under my control, not subject to whatever freaking interest group can lobby (bribe) the government in giving them a greater ability to take chunks of net worth away from my kids and grandkids.


rant end now.

Sir O


----------



## son of baglimit (7 April 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> Be careful WYSWYG.
> 
> Do you play cards? If you are going to go "all in" you need to be pretty sure of your hand......and that of your opponents. I'm going to watch the next move. (I'm betting on your opponent).
> 
> Duckman




and i aint laying that bet for anyone lol



Wysiwyg said:


> Okay got it from the ATO site calculation and the offset of $750 nullifies the tax payable on $11000.




sorry wys - knowing this rubbish is my job - its still a very simplified version thou, cos once you get centrelink as well, it gets real ugly.

and yes, for those who cruelly get refunded all their tax thru franking/medical expenses/medical insurance/mature age or other offsets, they become ineligible too.

fyi - the $11000 becomes $14000 in 2009 - what a wonderful world.


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 April 2009)

son of baglimit said:


> and i aint laying that bet for anyone lol
> 
> sorry wys - knowing this rubbish is my job - its still a very simplified version thou, cos once you get centrelink as well, it gets real ugly.
> 
> ...




Yeah sorry man, next time I will leave the taxation ruling comments out.

Aint this forum the best for learning.


----------



## jackson8 (7 April 2009)

does anyone know about this or have received their payment the same

having received my tax assessment as a sole trader i now owe ato certain amount for 07/08 have another month to pay it.

last week i logged on line to tax portal and found that i have $900 credited to my tax account.....no explanation and cant find any information to this kind of payment from ato site

as far as i know payments weren't being released till this week anyway as the gov were waiting on court judgment

am half hoping that i am going to receive another $900 in the bank account as well over next few weeks.

gary


----------



## son of baglimit (7 April 2009)

jackson8 said:


> does anyone know about this or have received their payment the same
> 
> having received my tax assessment as a sole trader i now owe ato certain amount for 07/08 have another month to pay it.
> 
> ...





yeah ive seen that too gary - i assume they have allocated the money to those eligible, but still have to 'release' it, as they normally do with gst & other refunds you see thru the portal. i understand that process is going to take 6 weeks for everyone.


----------



## Julia (7 April 2009)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> $100k invested through a SMSF (and trust me a properly managed SMSF Sh!ts all over Managed funds), versus $100k with minimal gearing, and risk management in place? There is no comparison over the longer term. The SMSF ends up with a ****load of opportunity cost.
> 
> Me I want my long-term money under my control, not subject to whatever freaking interest group can lobby (bribe) the government in giving them a greater ability to take chunks of net worth away from my kids and grandkids.
> 
> ...



I have a SMSF which, as you point out, means my funds are under my control.  Without holding funds in Super I'd be paying more tax so I have no problem with using Super as a vehicle.

Agree entirely about managed funds, but also recognise that your average Australian is simply not sufficiently interested to consider self managed fund and/or has insufficient funds tomake this viable.


----------



## freebird54 (8 April 2009)

Always talk to your accountant - and change him if unhappy
I did and the new one got all my imputed credits back on my divs - and its a company!!!

never got that before before

I wonder how many millions are submitting an amended tax return to get the 900 - and if they do will the ATO blacklist them ;-)


----------



## sinner (8 April 2009)

What Rudd would spend $900 on

http://www.news.com.au/business/money/story/0,28323,25307319-5017313,00.html


----------



## clowboy (8 April 2009)

hey, can someone explain for me what label g consists of

Specifically would qrtlerly installments paid but no longer owed (ie last year made a profit but this year made a loss) be included in label g?

Thanks


----------



## robots (8 April 2009)

hello,

no

have you done your tax return?

i assume you talking Label g on tax assessment notice, 

tax offsets and credits

thankyou
robots


----------



## clowboy (8 April 2009)

no, tax return has not been done, hence the question

and yes thats what im talking about.

is yr no, u cant explain or no it isnt included?

thanks


----------



## robots (8 April 2009)

hello,

no it is not included in label g

thankyou
robots


----------



## matt1987 (16 April 2009)

has anyone received this yet?

some friends of mine received it today, but not me unfortunatelyt 

c'mon krudd!


----------



## Struzball (16 April 2009)

matt1987 said:


> has anyone received this yet?




I got it last Thursday, I put it straight in a savings account in protest to show how stupid and pointless it is.


----------



## Uncertain Times (16 April 2009)

The wifes and mine arrived today. Spent it before it arrived. Thats the problem with renovating there is always something that needs replacing.

Thanks Kevin09. Any chance of some more in June. Still plenty to do around this old place.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 April 2009)

kingcarmleo said:


> I just think it's wrong for someone that earns 95k a year will recieve a payment but someone that earns 8-10k won't



Agreed. 

I'm pretty close to that person earning 95K who's getting a $250 payment. And what am I doing with it? Bottom line is I run a substantial surplus anyway which is used to either increase long term investments or pay off debt. My surplus just got $250 bigger this week, that's all. It's sitting in my Etrade account as of today awaiting further use. 



> unfortunately  people of my age group don't know much about politics or economics.



That's totally by choice. 

I was 16 (literally) when I asked a few difficult questions of a Liberal candidate about taxation reform and I was 18 the first time I attended a proper political meeting with real members of parliament. Unusual maybe but certainly not impossible - and I was the key non-MP speaker at that meeting.

It comes down to personal interest what you do and don't know about.


----------



## BradK (16 April 2009)

Today the wife and I went out and spent $1729.30 - a brand new BBQ and a 9 piece outdoor dining set for the new deck... courtesy of Kevin Rudd. 

And then I thought - 'Hey, I better check that we are eligible for this money.' 

So, I rang the good people at the tax office and discovered that both my wife and I were not eligible for the payment!

Oh well, as the wife said, we probably would have spent about $700 less if we new it was our own money! Turned out it was - but, I'm a glass half full type of a fella. 

Brad


----------



## Trevor_S (16 April 2009)

Uncertain Times said:


> Thanks Kevin09. Any chance of some more in June. Still plenty to do around this old place.




 A lot of the interest you are paying on it (from your taxes) is interestingly going overseas.

Got your bonus ? they want it back



> As the federal budget sinks deeper and deeper into the red, the Rudd Government has begun raising about $1 billion a week this way through sales of treasury bonds to institutional investors.* About 60 per cent are sold to offshore buyers*






> It's just a drop in the ocean compared with the total funding requirement over the next four years which is approaching $200 billion.





> The same Government has just told them to "spend, spend, spend" to save the economy, and now it's urging them to "save, save, save" with infrastructure bonds. The whole thing smacks of a Hollowmen-style exercise, designed to drum up jingoistic sentiment while the nation's finances plunge even deeper into the red.






> But only about 10 people a week think it makes sense to do that now. Think about that before rushing in to do your new patriotic duty.




"Investors" too busy buying property (ie. taking each others washing in) off each other I guess, to bother investing in Australia


----------



## Julia (16 April 2009)

Uncertain Times said:


> Thanks Kevin09.






BradK said:


> Today the wife and I went out and spent $1729.30 - a brand new BBQ and a 9 piece outdoor dining set for the new deck... courtesy of Kevin Rudd.




Oh boy, how this annoys me!!
The money isn't courtesy Kevin Rudd, it's courtesy your fellow tax payers.
As someone who has paid a heap of tax and gets no stimulus payment, would the rest of you who are happily spending up large just recognise that Rudd in his populist behaviour is racking up expensive debt that we will all have to pay back in the future.

At the same time, just wait for the cuts that will happen in the Budget to essential services.

So people go out and spend money that has to be borrowed for the purpose on stuff they don't necessarily need, while such measures as the pharmaceutical safety net which assists people with high medical costs, gets wiped or severely cut.  Plus heaven knows what else.

Just so (a) the Rudd government continues to shine in the polls, and (b) the next quarter's figures don't look too bad.  The latter is merely postponing the inevitable unless something very substantial changes.


----------



## JTLP (16 April 2009)

Julia said:


> Oh boy, how this annoys me!!
> The money isn't courtesy Kevin Rudd, it's courtesy your fellow tax payers.
> As someone who has paid a heap of tax and gets no stimulus payment, would the rest of you who are happily spending up large just recognise that Rudd in his populist behaviour is racking up expensive debt that we will all have to pay back in the future.
> 
> ...




God Bless you Julia.

I am young, am entitled to the bonus but feel it is the most reckless use of money one can imagine. It should be noted as a form of bribery because as you said...it's securing votes via populist methods (in this case...money handouts). Seriously, was this method thought up by a bunch of year 12's sitting in there Economics class or whatever?

I am just putting the money towards another trip overseas. Whilst this man is in power I can not tolerate Australia and its backwards thinking...adios my fellow countrymen. 

The taxes that will inevitably come one day, as well as the lack of funding which will lead to cracks in other services...will all bite back on the bottoms of the people who have received this money...and boy will they be the first to whinge!

I also heard on radio today (Drive with Hinch) that they want to increase the amount of money going towards unemployment services/dole money basically. Absolute LOL...where is this money going to come from exactly?

Kennas you got a spare room? I'm a dab hand in the kitchen...


----------



## matt1987 (16 April 2009)

i agree julia, it is poor economic management by krudd. this money could have been used for any of a number of other purposes, all being more beneificial for the australian economy in the longer term.

the thing that annoys me most about it is that there will be a lot of people out there that think this handout is the best thing since sliced-bread, and will be life-long krudd voters because of this bonus payment.

enough ranting, does anyone know how the distribution of the handout works. im still waiting for mine .........


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 April 2009)

Ever wondered what "helicopter money" would look like in practice? 

Well now you know...


----------



## ShareGuy (17 April 2009)

Just for my own interest who do people think would have won the election if only ASF members voted? I think it would confirm my belief that most people who take an interest in finance and politics can see that the Rudd government is all spin, hence the popular cash handouts.

A friend told me how he would spend the money:
Add $100 to the $900 whack it in super to get $1500 co-contribution and you've got a nicely geared investment for $100.


----------



## Mr J (17 April 2009)

kingcarmleo said:


> I just think it's wrong for someone that earns 95k a year will recieve a payment but someone that earns 8-10k won't, I understand most people will say "what tax have you paid" *but my answer to that is I am doing everything that is expected of an 18 yr old.*




So? This is essentially a tax rebate. Someone who earns 95k a year and pays a hell of a lot more tax is certainly entitled to it more than you are. After all, it is _their_ money that they're getting back. This isn't a "gift" or a "handout", it's simply the government giving us back some of our own money. The mob is easily entertained.


----------



## numbercruncher (17 April 2009)

Do your bit to end the madness - withdraw the 900 and burn it, turn it into dust 

Atleast get some gold then ....


----------



## BradK (17 April 2009)

Julia

My point was that I am NOT getting the money. Thought I was but it ended up on the Mastercard. Priceless. Still, I'm doing my bit to keep the economy going. 

xox


----------



## beamstas (17 April 2009)

Why would Krudd need $900 to buy books?

He is already a millionaire

If he's such a good bloke why doesn't he go out and spend his own money in the economy - not taxpayers!

This thing is a bloody disgrace

Doesn't everyone realise that they'll be paying back the $900 PLUS INTEREST over the next few years. 

You don't think the Government would give out $900 no strings attatched do you? They need to refill the coffers somehow.

Disclosure: I don't get the $900

Brad


----------



## Kez180 (17 April 2009)

jackson8 said:


> have a couple of friends whom have told to do the exact same thing , as long as you have paid some tax doesnt matter how much you will get the $$
> 
> seems unfair i know, especially the people who need it the most those on low income miss out




There is a rebate for anyone with a centerlink benefit as well you know....


----------



## Uncertain Times (17 April 2009)

One of the certainties in life is tax. People try to get around it and those earning more than $100k are more likely to be avoiding it more so than those of us under $75k.
I am talking about things like negative gearing, using businesses to pay less tax, setting up trust funds for kids, etc.
So those who missed out should be thanking there hard work, luck, whatever that they don't need a $900 "tax rebate".
The governement will need this money back at some stage but by then it will be the Liberal Governments turn in power and they will be spruiking how Labor did this to us all and they will use that to stay in power for a couple of terms.
Enjoy the money if you got it spend it, save it, burn it, whatever makes you feel good.
Just remember though if we stop spending then we all lose our jobs, companies that we want to invest in will go broke, and the whole economy will go under.



> *In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing. Theodore Roosevelt*


----------



## awg (17 April 2009)

beamstas said:


> Disclosure: I don't get the $900
> 
> Brad




LOL


rushing to finalise my 07-08 tax for me and MRS before June 30..what a PIA

I think our incomes will be just low enough to qualify

mine will just be absorbed back to the ATO, as i always have a bill


----------



## Julia (17 April 2009)

BradK said:


> Julia
> 
> My point was that I am NOT getting the money. Thought I was but it ended up on the Mastercard. Priceless. Still, I'm doing my bit to keep the economy going.
> 
> xox



Yes, I did realise that, Brad, and I should have been clearer in my response.  Sorry.  It's just the phrase "thank you Mr Rudd" which I seem to have heard ad infinitum recently and so demonstrates the insightless non-comprehension of reality by so many people.

The following is an extract from Colin Twiggs' latest newsletter.  It's timely.



> Herbert Hoover is one of the most competent administrators, in my opinion, to have ever graced the White House and his reputation as the father of the Great Depression is undeserved. He was, however, the first president to encounter a financial melt-down on the scale of the 1929 collapse and was unprepared for the consequences. His attempts to meet a typical slow-down in the business cycle with accelerated government spending programs and efforts to maintain employment and wage levels proved inadequate to deal with this new threat: a complete loss of faith in the financial system. Having to make up the game plan as he went, and with no real precedent, the result was inevitable.
> 
> Hindsight tells us that a federal guarantee of bank deposits may have saved a large number of the eventual 10,000 banks from collapse. And that state-declared bank holidays, in an effort to slow the effect of the run on local banks, merely fuelled the panic. But Hoover's real nemesis was the fall in revenue collection. Rapidly declining private incomes and high default levels meant that state and federal revenue collections shrunk rapidly, curtailing government spending programs and forcing increases in state and federal taxes.
> 
> ...


----------



## insider (22 April 2009)

Has anybody entitled to the stimulus package NOT received a letter in the mail?
I haven't


----------



## glads262 (22 April 2009)

insider said:


> Has anybody entitled to the stimulus package NOT received a letter in the mail?
> I haven't




Don't be too worried insider - not many people I know have got theirs yet either. you have until may 16th. They are distributing randomly by postcode - and only a % of people in that postcode will get a payment on a particular day. Just a way to make sure that everyone doesn't get it all at once and rush the shops...

Or perhaps the AOFM is waiting for the latest bond proceeds to replenish the RBA account?? It must be getting low by now!


----------



## insider (22 April 2009)

glads262 said:


> Don't be too worried insider - not many people I know have got theirs yet either. you have until may 16th. They are distributing randomly by postcode - and only a % of people in that postcode will get a payment on a particular day. Just a way to make sure that everyone doesn't get it all at once and rush the shops...
> 
> Or perhaps the AOFM is waiting for the latest bond proceeds to replenish the RBA account?? It must be getting low by now!




Cheers  I was feeling a little left out and rejected...


----------



## Prospector (22 April 2009)

I hardly know anyone who HAS received it.  Three more weeks before it is time to worry insider.


----------



## pacestick (22 April 2009)

I have told my family not to buy tickets in lotteries four of is entitled and not one recieved yet


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (22 April 2009)

I haven't recieved mine yet either, its about 50/50 with the people I know, most are students though who recieved theirs a while ago.


----------



## JimBob (22 April 2009)

I got mine today, my wife hasnt got hers yet though.  We are both putting our $900 into our house deposit fund.  I know a few others who have received their cheque, but quite a few others who havent.


----------



## sam76 (22 April 2009)

my wife made a capital loss last year.

She paid her taxes but got it all back due to the loss.

is she entitled?

(she fits all the other 'entiltlement' criteria)

I hate everything to do with tax.


----------



## gav (22 April 2009)

Got mine today.  Half towards my new mortgage (settlement was yesterday), half towards charity.


----------



## wicked (22 April 2009)

Tax Bonus Overview

Use the Tax bonus Calculator to find out if your eligible! I just got my yesterday! It went straight into my credit card. I think it is done alphabetically.



> The 7.6 million people who lodged their 2007-08 tax return before the end of March 2009 will receive their payment between early *April and mid May 2009.*


----------

