Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Australian Federal Election - 2019

Jump to new
The only people it’s thieving from is all other tax payers, company tax is a pivotal part of any economy, giving this away is inept.
 
Just like the welfare expenditure.

And your obese neighbour, who ate her way to 200kgs probably then expects everybody to pay hospital fees, maxicabs, crane to lift her, thief
 
Toyota Lexcen said:
Just like the welfare expenditure.

And your obese neighbour, who ate her way to 200kgs probably then expects everybody to pay hospital fees, maxicabs, crane to lift her, thief
Click to expand...
You sound like such a loving sole, no doubt you would have employed her to save the tax payer a burden.
 
Yes i am.

I engage new immigrants for my work. Others wont work, or turn up, have an excuse, carry-on. They can because the system allows it. Hopefully the Libs can turn the screws on the rorting more.
 
Nothing like that cheap foreign labor from workers who have no idea of their entitlements. I too hope the Libs can look at the the negative gearing rorts and the franking credits rorts
 
overhang said:
A policy that results in zero company tax paid to the dollar isn’t a good policy regardless of how hard those worked for it. It’s middle class wellfare at its finest
Click to expand...
question:
should that company profit be taxed at a rate higher than 30% ? i mean, if it is paid to a high income earner presently then that exact same profit ends up taxed at 47%. Should it only be taxed at 30% because it is a company profit?
 
what i am trying to ask is (and no responses are being offered) if refunds to peeps on less than 30% is considered "thieving" from other taxpayers, then what is the rationale for taking more than 30% from other taxpayers for the same dividend ?

same as before, if 30% is the good amount for tax to be paid on dividends, then what is the reason some pay more than 30% ?
 
there are 2 ways to come at tax

1. every single cent of income should go as tax, and peeps need to justify why they need some of that money back, and

2. no tax is paid, and every single service is user pays. Only the services that are wanted will be paid for.

we are somewhere in the middle.

when peeps say more tax should be paid i always ask "at what point will you say that we have paid enough tax? ". for many of those people they cannot tell you how much tax is enough, so they do not have a point at which enough tax has been paid, so they will always want more tax. That is not a logical position to have.
 
HelloU said:
question:
should that company profit be taxed at a rate higher than 30% ? i mean, if it is paid to a high income earner presently then that exact same profit ends up taxed at 47%. Should it only be taxed at 30% because it is a company profit?
Click to expand...

For consistency there is merit to what you are asking. There are two things at play here though, 1 is company tax and the other is personal income tax. I personally think two checkboxes need to be ticked here, the 1st is that company tax was paid on the profit, the 2nd is any additional income tax paid on earnings above and beyond the level of company tax paid.
 
I see in today's AFR, the coalition is going to commission a review, into the retirement income system. Hooray at least it may prove to be better than back of the napkin policy making.
 
sptrawler said:
I see in today's AFR, the coalition is going to commission a review, into the retirement income system. Hooray at least it may prove to be better than back of the napkin policy making.
Click to expand...

So if they come up with the recommendation to wind down franking credit rebates you would be happy ?

:cool:
 
overhang said:
For consistency there is merit to what you are asking. There are two things at play here though, 1 is company tax and the other is personal income tax. I personally think two checkboxes need to be ticked here, the 1st is that company tax was paid on the profit, the 2nd is any additional income tax paid on earnings above and beyond the level of company tax paid.
Click to expand...
cheers, yeah i had assumed that was ur thoughts .....
i will just say that our present system, 20 years old now and well understood, is that company retained profits are taxed at the legislated company rate because that money is kept inside the company (the profits went to the company itself), and that profits that are not retained within the company are taxed at the legislated rate of the tax entity that receives that profit (dividend), because that profit has been removed from the company (imputed) and the profit went to the owner of the company.

That is why the grossed up figure is used when the div is paid to another company or to an individual, and the associated company or individuals tax scales used to work out the tax owing on non-retained profits. That profit is no longer regarded to be the profit of the company, but has been imputed to be the profit of the recipient (profit = earnings - costs)

the alternate of taxing all company profits at the company rate is ok with me. i see nobody arguing for this to happen but to me this is the only other choice to the existing system. but i think it would then be unfair to add further taxes when that already taxed money is handed out to the owners. that would not be logical (and that is why we use the current system). eg, do peeps want a system where you bring home ur after tax weekly pay packet, and when u give $50 to the wife she has to pay tax on that $50 ...... that is what happens when peeps talk double taxation of pre-taxed coy divs that are distributed then again taxed) we do not live in a system that places a tax on already taxed money that is transferred to another person.

i am not sure if our current system is fair, but i do think it is logical. the profit was either made by the company and then taxed at company rate, or the profit was imputed to the owner and tax paid according to the tax scales that apply. at the what labor wanted to do was not logical under our current system, they wanted a bit from here, and a bit from there (but only on mondays when it was a full moon and the date had a 2 in it type thinking). they could not big picture an alternate system ... it was inequitable because it sometimes threw away the existing tax scales for only some people and only some of the time.
 
SirRumpole said:
Labor enjoyed the biggest swings towards it in electorates with a highest level of franking credits — a broad proxy for share ownership.

In seats such as McNamara, Higgins and Curtin, where high-income earners make up about four in 10 or more of the voters, the Coalition suffered huge swings against it and Labor made big inroads.
Click to expand...

It would be difficult to assess the relevance of this without further breakdown of the income of those who voted in relation to whom they voted for. But for high income earners, franking credits are not an issue as they have other taxable income to apply the credits to.
 
overhang said:
Nothing like that cheap foreign labor from workers who have no idea of their entitlements. I too hope the Libs can look at the the negative gearing rorts and the franking credits rorts
Click to expand...

I get quotes from companies and choose the most suitable. In my experience, "new" Australians deliver.
 
The system is not broken. It was packaged up by Labor into a 10yr saving of 50bil to make it look substantial.

They also highlighted 1 or 2 situations where it seemed like a rort, of which the presentation still doesn't make sense.

They have dumped it and released it cost them an election.
 
bellenuit said:
It would be difficult to assess the relevance of this without further breakdown of the income of those who voted in relation to whom they voted for. But for high income earners, franking credits are not an issue as they have other taxable income to apply the credits to.
Click to expand...

True, but I wonder how many on lower incomes have the money to buy shares anyway.
 
When your taxable income is assessed in June, if you have paid too much tax you are entitled to a refund, full stop, end of discussion.

What Labor seems to miss repeatedly, is that if you change the rules people stop playing the game. The massive dollars they expected to retain by not giving people their tax refunds would quickly disappear because people would change their investment strategies.

Move from franked divis to unfranked divis and problem solved, Labor need someone who actually understands how working savers think.

Like Bill and SP we saved for retirement and the thousands of folks like us save OZ a lot of money every year. Discourage this by changing SF rules every budget and the next gen gives up and plans for the aged pension.
 
sptrawler said:
I see in today's AFR, the coalition is going to commission a review, into the retirement income system. Hooray at least it may prove to be better than back of the napkin policy making.
Click to expand...

This worries me a little.

One of the reasons I didn't want Labor to win was that they were going to fiddle with Super contribution rules again.

I'm fed up with the moving goalposts and this review might lead to recommendations for more changes.
 
Top