Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Australian Federal Election - 2019

Jump to new
overhang said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is but it’s exactly the same as allowing just about everyone, even those earning $ millions a year, to pay no tax on their first $18,200 of income.

Shareholders are only wanting the exact same deal that everyone else is getting so that hardly seems unreasonable. That deal being 0% tax up to $18,200 then 19% up to $37,000. Even an actual billionaire gets that so it seems extremely harsh to say that someone who’s retired etc shouldn’t.

If the argument is that people shouldn’t have any income untaxed well then change that - for everyone not just a few.

Inconsistency is the problem. If there’s a valid reason to tax you at 30% on a low income then there’s a valid reason to also tax at 30% anyone else on the same income. That Labor wanted to exempt all but a few is what prompts the “class warfare” claim and it’s hard to see it any other way.

Same as people would be screaming if some were exempt from the road rules or any other law.

Same rule for all. Doing otherwise is just stirring up conflict for the sake of conflict.
 
Last edited:
rederob said:
Did you not view the embedded link?
There were many others, but those 15 linked were all above 47%.
Click to expand...
That’s referring to total tax collected from the population not specifically the subject of the franking credits issue.

Now at the extreme, well if someone pays 30% on their income and is also paying GST on just about everything, they’re paying car rego and so on well that’s certainly getting up there in % terms.

That’s the extreme yes but it’s of relevance when it happens to be those towards the bottom of the income scale who would cop it.
 
will just make the point that all tax collected is then returned to individuals (or companies) ..... that is the whole point of collecting tax.

it should not be seen as a handout that tax money was returned, unused, to the people that paid it (to preempt: and if they did not pay that tax why does it appear on their tax return as income?).

to preempt another thought train (i have never seen a hospital where cash was put inside the concrete, or a road laid over gold bullion) be careful if u think the tax money is somehow "inside" the hospital

what i mean is, if the tax to be collected on company profits is 30%, then why is that exact same profit taxed at 47% in the hands of some tax entities?
 
Last edited:
Smurf1976 said:
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.
Click to expand...
There are many factors that impact on what someone gets, and how they are taxed.
Without knowing specific details you cannot make comparisons.
You seem to have become judge, jury and executioner before charges are even laid!
 
rederob said:
You seem to have become judge, jury and executioner before charges are even laid!
Click to expand...
I just looked into how it was to work, found that the practical effect was to introduce a minimum 30% tax rate for some low income earners, and concluded that Labor was now the party for the rich and no longer represents ordinary workers trying to improve their circumstances.

Judging by the election results many reached the same conclusion. Labor’s focusing far too much on the rich and has forgotten the working class.

They are of course entitled to focus on the rich and those who are in the middle are entitled to take Labor’s advice on the subject and vote for someone else.

I say that as someone who most certainly isn’t a fan of the Coalition but it’s a strange world where a plumber or carpenter is better represented by the Liberals than Labor.
 
Smurf1976 said:
I just looked into how it was to work, found that the practical effect was to introduce a minimum 30% tax rate for some low income earners, and concluded that Labor was now the party for the rich and no longer represents ordinary workers trying to improve their circumstances.

Judging by the election results many reached the same conclusion. Labor’s focusing far too much on the rich and has forgotten the working class.

They are of course entitled to focus on the rich and those who are in the middle are entitled to take Labor’s advice on the subject and vote for someone else.

I say that as someone who most certainly isn’t a fan of the Coalition but it’s a strange world where a plumber or carpenter is better represented by the Liberals than Labor.
Click to expand...
I looked at how it was proposed and cannot for the life of me follow your arguments.
 
Whatever the debate about franking credits , the country has much bigger problems, including the price of electricity, one of the highest in the world which is shutting down industries, making us globally uncompetitive and putting people out of jobs.

Unless Scomo solves this problem as a priority, we are in a much worse position than we should be if the economy goes sour.

https://www.power-technology.com/features/australia-energy-prices/
 
SirRumpole said:
Whatever the debate about franking credits , the country has much bigger problems, including the price of electricity, one of the highest in the world which is shutting down industries, making us globally uncompetitive and putting people out of jobs.
Unless Scomo solves this problem as a priority, we are in a much worse position than we should be if the economy goes sour.
https://www.power-technology.com/features/australia-energy-prices/
Click to expand...
True, and there is a thread for that.
Here, I am trying to understand how people drew the conclusions they did regarding Labor's election policy on franking credits.
I remain confused.
The principles were easy to follow, and it may not have been to everyone's liking (including mine), but these other ideas seem to come from left field (or the right wing :p).
 
rederob said:
True, and there is a thread for that.
Here, I am trying to understand how people drew the conclusions they did regarding Labor's election policy on franking credits.
I remain confused.
The principles were easy to follow, and it may not have been to everyone's liking (including mine), but these other ideas seem to come from left field (or the right wing :p).
Click to expand...
can i ask what is ur response to my previous explanation about how the franking proposal would have impacted upon accumulation phase super accounts (did that get sorted out?)
 
HelloU said:
can i ask what is ur response to my previous explanation about how the franking proposal would have impacted upon accumulation phase super accounts (did that get sorted out?)
Click to expand...
There was no change to the accumulation phase.
 
Smurf has summed it up well for a many months. What was confusing about it or that you don't understand?

Australia can have whatever tax policy it chooses.
 
rederob said:
There was no change to the accumulation phase.
Click to expand...
ummm .... under labor the accumulation accounts also would have lost franking refunds from the ATO. There were no changes to the funds but the tax treatment under labor would have certainly changed. The changes were going to be to the tax laws not the super laws.
 
rederob said:
Nope. They are treated concessionally within SMSFs.
The other points you made lack clarity.
Click to expand...
can i just clarify your position:

are you saying that under the labor proposal, if an accumulation fund had an excess of imputation credits (ie, an amount above the total fund tax liabilities owing) then you are saying that they would still get the refund of those credits from the ATO.

have i got your understanding correct?
 
Smurf1976 said:
It is but it’s exactly the same as allowing just about everyone, even those earning $ millions a year, to pay no tax on their first $18,200 of income.

Shareholders are only wanting the exact same deal that everyone else is getting so that hardly seems unreasonable. That deal being 0% tax up to $18,200 then 19% up to $37,000. Even an actual billionaire gets that so it seems extremely harsh to say that someone who’s retired etc shouldn’t.
Click to expand...

I can see the similarities you point out but I feel like there is an important distinction, the shareholders rebate comes from a different income stream (company taxes), you are being paid an income by the government to which a company has paid. I feel this is quite different from either not paying tax on money you as an individual have earnt or being refunded tax that you have paid. It's bad enough we have a difficult time getting company tax from these companies with their numerous methods of tax avoidance and then when they do finally pay tax it's given straight to an individual and again the government receives zero tax to that dollar.

Ultimately Labor's policy was poorly thought out but it was a shitty policy to begin with that should have never been implemented, it was just another middle class welfare policy the Howard government was renowned for. Is it even in the countries best interest to have SMSF retirees retiring from the workforce early? It's often a skillset that has left the workforce, it's another income tax that is no longer contributing to government coffers, it's on the back of a government handout in the way of untaxed company profits. And the earlier these SMSF retirees begin drawing down on their super the sooner in some cases they run out of self funding and require the pension at a later time.
 
will make the point that the age at which peeps can access their super does NOT vary with where that account is being held. Smsf, industry, retail ...it is all the same age for access.
 
overhang, if the problem is the imputation of tax, then why not just get rid of imputation.

i mean, why have a system where the exact same company profit can be taxed at 0%, 30%, or 33%, or 47% depending where it went. this is what we have now.

right now franking is included as assessable income. some peeps want to treat it differently to income and tax derived from manual effort. this, to me, is very dangerous.
 
HelloU said:
can i just clarify your position:

are you saying that under the labor proposal, if an accumulation fund had an excess of imputation credits (ie, an amount above the total fund tax liabilities owing) then you are saying that they would still get the refund of those credits from the ATO.

have i got your understanding correct?
Click to expand...
Nothing changes, nor was proposed to change to SMSFs in accumulation.
Where did it say different?
 
Top