Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Australian Federal Election - 2019

Jump to new
wayneL said:
Robeee just make your point without the ad hom, is that possible?

I would point out the distinction between tax paid on retained company profits and those paid out as dividends to shareholders.
Click to expand...
Please learn what an ad hominem is because like your logic, it's faulty thinking. I comment on what people write.

Your point on company tax is obviously relevant to company tax arrangements, but we are here discussing how the taxed portion of their dividend is treated, where the company actually declares a dividend and where some or all of it was taxed.
 
rederob said:
Labor’s reforms to excess dividend imputation credits proposed to remove a fiscally unsustainable tax arrangement seeing billions of dollars in lost revenue. .
Click to expand...
Except for those, who were already getting non taxed money, from the Government.:eek:
 
I reckon the Libs will be very relieved the SSM postal vote went through as a yes. I said at the time - that had that vote not occurred - this election would've been a referendum on SSM and practically nothing else and the outcome might've been vastly different :)
 
SirRumpole said:
Loos like religion is still a factor in politics, like it or not.

Does Albo go to church ?

If not , he'd better start going and pray for a miracle. :D
Click to expand...
Albo should have been in the last 3 years or the prior. I doubt he has a chance now. He left it too late.
Why they picked Shorten only the union knows.
 
SirRumpole said:
Is that the latest social media lie after the "death tax" ?
Click to expand...
It would be irrational if that wasn't the case.

If the 0% and 19% tax rates are removed for one source of income then why would you keep them for a different source of income?

Or to put that another way, if it's a 30% minimum rate of tax from one source then why would you allow someone else to pay 0%?

The inconsistency, rather than any particular tax rate per se, is the problem with all this since there's no rational explanation for that inconsistency which doesn't involve arguments of either "class warfare" or "who's next?" and both are political poison.

If Labor's argument is that we shouldn't have a 0% tax rate up to $18,200 well then scrap it for everyone. Under their proposal someone earning $ millions a year from one source would have kept it whilst someone earning $20K from a different source would have lost it. That ain't fair by any reasonable definition.

I don't mind many of Labor's policies but they need to start seeing welfare as something we should definitely have as a last resort when all else fails. Of course we should have the Age Pension and of course we should have Newstart, I'd even go as far as saying the payment rate for the latter should probably be increased, but nobody should ever find themselves being effectively punished for taking steps to keep themselves off welfare and a higher rate of tax fits into the "punishment" category pretty clearly at least in terms of perceptions which is what matters in this context.

Have a safety net most definitely but reward effort, or at least take a neutral view of it, don't ever punish it. :2twocents
 
rederob said:
Australia is the only country in the world with a fully refundable imputation system.
Click to expand...

It is but the rate of those taxes in Australia is also high by world standards.

Labor forgot to include reducing the tax rates as part of their proposal.

Labor’s dividend imputation was to remain, but cash payments would no longer be made to people who managed to reduce their tax rate to zero or have paid no income tax.
Click to expand...

Which means that a barrister or TV presenter earning serious $ from work keeps the imputation credits but some unemployed person in their 50's loses them.

If they were going to discriminate it should have been the other way around - make it only for people with lower incomes not only for people with higher incomes. :2twocents
 
smurf1976 said:
If they were going to discriminate it should have been the other way around - make it only for people with lower incomes not only for people with higher incomes. :2twocents
Click to expand...

I completely agree, the whole franking credit thing was mismanaged.

I doubt if it was the complete cause for Labor's defeat though, the vast majority of people have never heard of franking credits, I certainly had not before the election. The negative gearing policy had a lot more thought put in and I thought it was quite reasonable.

There is also no doubt that the franking credit rebates are a huge drag on the budget as are other forms of "welfare" like family tax benefits. These will have to be addressed by any government, but I think changes will in future be done after a Party has got into government, they will never be taken to an election.

People should have learned from John Hewson, the GST was supported by Keating until someone else adopted it, and John Howards "never ever" GST, the biggest lie in our political history imv.
 
the rebates are said to be $5B (?) you would need to trawl thru tax documents to find this statistic - i have never done that. no idea if this quoted figure is from the times BEFORE the $1.6M cap was put on super or not (cos tax data is already a couple of years old when it is actually published and that cap has not been around for all that long in a tax sense)

from the budget papers for 2018/19, welfare spend is $172B (or $175B or something - i have quoted the source in earlier posts but this is a government figure and not hard to find)

i am able to identify which of those figures (5 or 175) is the bigger number when analyzing where the government spends it tax take (which means why the government has to collect tax money from people/companies that work/invest in the first place).
 
i really dislike the promises made during elections by potential governments. "Oh, you will get a new hospital or road if u vote for us"

surely the job of a government is to identify where the next hospital or road or whatevs is needed and then provide it.

i mean, was the hospital needed because there was an election?, or was it needed cos a hospital was needed?
 
↑
It is but the rate of those taxes in Australia is also high by world standards.
We are not even close to being in the race. In any event, disposal income is not the whole story when it comes to living costs in other countries.
↑
Labor forgot to include reducing the tax rates as part of their proposal.
Quite deliberately so, because it had a range of policies, like $1000 dental credits for pensioners, which relied on a stable tax base.
↑
Which means that a barrister or TV presenter earning serious $ from work keeps the imputation credits but some unemployed person in their 50's loses them.
Not sure of the level of detail that Labor went into, so I will instead give an easy to follow example for a person who lost a job during the tax year, had some shares, and also received Newstart:
Newstart + wages income = $20,000
Dividend paid = $1,000
Franking credit = $300
Assessable income = $21,300​

Gross tax payable on $21,300 is $590 (equal to difference between assessable income and tax free threshold, which is $3,100, multiplied by the tax rate of 19%).
However, the franking credit rebate needs to be applied:
Gross tax = $590
Franked rebate = $300
Tax payable = $290
​
So in this example the imputation credit is not lost.
 
rederob said:
We are not even close to being in the race.
Click to expand...
Which countries which could reasonably be considered as economic or lifestyle competitors to Australia have a company tax rate significantly higher than 30%?

France is a bit higher but not hugely so and the global average is considerably lower.
 
rederob said:
Not sure of the level of detail that Labor went into, so I will instead give an easy to follow example for a person who lost a job during the tax year, had some shares, and also received Newstart:
Click to expand...
If someone in their 50’s needs Newstart then either they’ve had incredibly bad luck or they’ve failed to save and invest for themselves.

Now, assuming no welfare and that the person is self funded how much tax do they pay?

If the answer is more than someone who’s failed to plan and is on welfare, well that’s what those in the middle have had enough of and a big part of why they’ve rejected Labor.

If two people do the same job, one invests and the other doesn’t, and both become unemployed age 55 then no way should the one who has sensibly saved and invested be paying a special tax for having done so. All that does is encourage reliance on welfare as the default plan.

Welfare for those who suffer genuine misfortune sure but it shouldn’t be something that’s actively encouraged for everyone.

Who’s going to bother working more, investing or running a business if they’re punished for doing so?
 
Smurf1976 said:
Which countries which could reasonably be considered as economic or lifestyle competitors to Australia have a company tax rate significantly higher than 30%?

France is a bit higher but not hugely so and the global average is considerably lower.
Click to expand...
Did you not view the embedded link?
There were many others, but those 15 linked were all above 47%.
 
wayneL said:
It's.
Not.
Welfare.

It's taxation policy.

By your logic, any sort of tax credit or refund is therefore welfare.

Lets suppose someone earns 50k on a wage and is taxed accordingly...12k or whatever it is, taken from your wages.

Then let's suppose that person starts a business on the side, with every intention of making a profit, but actually loses 40k in the same financial year.

That person's gross income therefore becomes 10k and subject to a 0% marginal tax rate and is due a refund of that 12k from the ATO.

Is that 12k cheque, therefore welfare?
Click to expand...

This is not comparing apples with apples. In your example the individual is receiving that 12k cheque because they made such a loss that puts them into the tax free threshold, who exactly is put out in this situation, the individual is no better off from losing 40k and ultimately tax payers aren't affected because if that 40k had turned into 80k then this individual would owe more than just the 12k.

But with franking credits a company pays the 30% tax rate because a profit has been made. When individuals are able to receive a cheque from the tax office for that 30% we have a situation where zero tax has been paid on the dollar for that company profit. This is a welfare payment, there is profit that should be taxed, that should go into the government revenue stream but is instead paid to individuals. This is a tax payer funded handout.
 
Top