minimum wage earners are being offered nothing by labor. I expect they would love to be offered that child care pay rise though (make up for loosing conditions when shorten did the spotless deal). that is so true. this is not the Labor I vote for ..........
Dividend franking credits
- Thread starter Joel1st
- Start date
PZ99
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,303
- Reactions
- 2,402
They're being offered nothing by Liberal either.
But I would recommend you vote Liberal anyway. Not Labor.
At least Bill M and a million others can then refund their franking credits.
But I would recommend you vote Liberal anyway. Not Labor.
At least Bill M and a million others can then refund their franking credits.
after the election there will only be 1 government. it will matter little what the "other mob" offered, what will matter in 2020 is what the Government is doing to keep people employed.
Shorten talks of tearing up the independent wage system. He says we have a "wage growth problem" in aussie, but can only offer the use of government tax money as the main method to increase wages.
Labor does not seem to have any way to create jobs or increase wages EXCEPT through increasing tax on others. Shorten has a past history of reducing wages and conditions for the lowest paid and now REFUSES to say that the lowest paid deserve a pay rise.
Not too sure who actually deserves a wage rise first if it is not those that are lowest paid.
Shorten talks of tearing up the independent wage system. He says we have a "wage growth problem" in aussie, but can only offer the use of government tax money as the main method to increase wages.
Labor does not seem to have any way to create jobs or increase wages EXCEPT through increasing tax on others. Shorten has a past history of reducing wages and conditions for the lowest paid and now REFUSES to say that the lowest paid deserve a pay rise.
Not too sure who actually deserves a wage rise first if it is not those that are lowest paid.
PZ99
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,303
- Reactions
- 2,402
So I guess you'll vote Liberal right ?
After all, they too have a past history of reducing wages and conditions for the lowest paid.
After all, they too have a past history of reducing wages and conditions for the lowest paid.
lol (not sure why u focus on telling me how to vote, but what i do behind that screen is my business - if all u do is draw a penis on that page then the vote is junk - but if you fill the form out correctly and then draw dicks all over it the vote is still valid and must be counted)
what some may not realise about the labor policy to fund child care workers is that a wage claim is in front of the FWC now (pushed back for better details) ...... and the potential future Labor government has basically said no matter what the outcome of the determination they are going to give them a pay rise ..... is this political influence on an independent commission?
just as bad in my books as buying water that does not really exist.
PZ99
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,303
- Reactions
- 2,402
Your fascination with penises seems to have given you a need to falsely assert that I "told" you how to vote. I did no such thing.
1000%
lol ... but i digress
the big picture is what a government will do for the country - big minds focus on that ....... the little picture is to attack other posters with personal insults. What would Jesus do?
PZ99
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,303
- Reactions
- 2,402
Crikey mate - do a wiki on the words "recommend" and "tell" and see the difference.
Personal insults ?
Wanna digress from that too ?
The big picture in this thread is franking credits - which is a subject you've been avoiding ever since you started posting in here. I suspect Jesus would play fair but that's your choice.
FairWorkComm has been providing bipartisan remuneration expertise for 13 years ....... Labor has said they will just wipe it all away without any form of replacement. Where will workers go if the independent umpire is gone?
Labor will make poor people include franking credits as income for welfare purposes, even though Labor has pocketed this money and has NO intention of giving it back to poor peeps. How can a Labor government refuse to pay welfare on the basis of these peeps have too much income, but that same income has NEVER gone into the pocket of these poor peeps? That is not the Labor i vote for.
The one who is slack in his work is a brother to one who destroys. The name of the Lord is like a strong tower; the righteous person runs to it and is set safely on high. Some feel the need to speak, even with nothing to say.
(not sure if being told to read wiki, or a recommendation that i read wiki, or merely an observation that wiki is available - matters not though as i do not have the internet anyway)
Labor will make poor people include franking credits as income for welfare purposes, even though Labor has pocketed this money and has NO intention of giving it back to poor peeps. How can a Labor government refuse to pay welfare on the basis of these peeps have too much income, but that same income has NEVER gone into the pocket of these poor peeps? That is not the Labor i vote for.
The one who is slack in his work is a brother to one who destroys. The name of the Lord is like a strong tower; the righteous person runs to it and is set safely on high. Some feel the need to speak, even with nothing to say.
(not sure if being told to read wiki, or a recommendation that i read wiki, or merely an observation that wiki is available - matters not though as i do not have the internet anyway)
PZ99
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,303
- Reactions
- 2,402
Franking credits (which have nothing to do with the FWC) are at risk if Shorten wins Govt (likely) and passes the law through the senate (unlikely). IMV
So I think ScoMo should pledge to reinstate the credits whenever they return to Govt. (very likely)
To say nothing is to accept being led - which is an antonym of independent thinking. (No dice)
I also believe wireless internet is transmitted from many strong towers (insert smiley)
So I think ScoMo should pledge to reinstate the credits whenever they return to Govt. (very likely)
To say nothing is to accept being led - which is an antonym of independent thinking. (No dice)
I also believe wireless internet is transmitted from many strong towers (insert smiley)
PZ99
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,303
- Reactions
- 2,402
Franking Credits
PZ99
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,303
- Reactions
- 2,402
Speaking of franking credits > https://www.news.com.au/finance/mon...x/news-story/ee1fcad2902159e7a85bae4fd5f0c00a
THE CRITICS
However, opponents of the changes argue plenty of ordinary Aussies stand to lose out.
The Association of Independent Retirees acting president Wayne Strandquist told news.com.au most affected members did not have millions sitting in the bank, and that on average, those impacted by the proposed changes would lose up to $10,000 a year — or around 20 per cent of their annual revenue.
He said most were self-funded retirees who only just missed out on the pension, and who were now being penalised for following sensible investment advice.
“I’d say on average most of our affected members stand to lose $6000-8000 in franking credit refunds, and when you’re dealing with retirees on $30,000-$40,000 per annum, $8000 is 20 per cent of their income — what would politicians do if they lost 20 per cent of their income?” he said.
Mr Strandquist said members were also angry that the policy would not be grandfathered — unlike other major proposed changes such as negative gearing.
“Since 2000 franking credit refunds have been available and people have factored it into their plans,” he said.
“Most affected people are over 70 so they can’t put any more money into super, therefore they’re stuck because if they liquidate their share investments at their age, they’re not confident they will be able to find an alternative.”
He said members were also concerned that the policy had been amended soon after its initial announcement.
“The association believes the franking credit cash refund policy must have been put together with very superficial research because very soon after its announcement, it was significantly amended to exempt hundreds of thousands of pensioners,” Mr Strandquist said.
Last year, the Coalition announced that a House of Representatives standing committee on economics would hold an inquiry into Labor’s proposal, and public hearings have been held across the country.
THE CRITICS
However, opponents of the changes argue plenty of ordinary Aussies stand to lose out.
The Association of Independent Retirees acting president Wayne Strandquist told news.com.au most affected members did not have millions sitting in the bank, and that on average, those impacted by the proposed changes would lose up to $10,000 a year — or around 20 per cent of their annual revenue.
He said most were self-funded retirees who only just missed out on the pension, and who were now being penalised for following sensible investment advice.
“I’d say on average most of our affected members stand to lose $6000-8000 in franking credit refunds, and when you’re dealing with retirees on $30,000-$40,000 per annum, $8000 is 20 per cent of their income — what would politicians do if they lost 20 per cent of their income?” he said.
Mr Strandquist said members were also angry that the policy would not be grandfathered — unlike other major proposed changes such as negative gearing.
“Since 2000 franking credit refunds have been available and people have factored it into their plans,” he said.
“Most affected people are over 70 so they can’t put any more money into super, therefore they’re stuck because if they liquidate their share investments at their age, they’re not confident they will be able to find an alternative.”
He said members were also concerned that the policy had been amended soon after its initial announcement.
“The association believes the franking credit cash refund policy must have been put together with very superficial research because very soon after its announcement, it was significantly amended to exempt hundreds of thousands of pensioners,” Mr Strandquist said.
Last year, the Coalition announced that a House of Representatives standing committee on economics would hold an inquiry into Labor’s proposal, and public hearings have been held across the country.
the welfare aspects get zero airtime.
welfare entitlement is based upon assessable income.
Welfare is not based upon the taxable income.
Jesus says that there will need to be a welfare cash top-up for some peeps who are denied credits from their assessable income ( to maintain equity in the welfare system ).
Jesus says the lord taketh, but then the lord has to giveth back.
welfare entitlement is based upon assessable income.
Welfare is not based upon the taxable income.
Jesus says that there will need to be a welfare cash top-up for some peeps who are denied credits from their assessable income ( to maintain equity in the welfare system ).
Jesus says the lord taketh, but then the lord has to giveth back.
Bill M
Self Funded Retiree
- Joined
- 4 January 2008
- Posts
- 2,132
- Reactions
- 740
They had to amend it because they knew that they would lose most of the Labor voting Pensioners. Then when the penny dropped they came to say "all those on government benefits will be entitled to keep their franking credits". Now all those rusted on Labor voters will not jump ship.
What I would like to know is who thinks this **** up? Some guy/gal with no clue about how these things work? Why don't they get a working party together with real ordinary people like an Accountant, self funded retiree, financial planer etc. and go through each and every scenario? You could thrash out a perfect solution in a day. I don't mind giving away some of my franking credits if I have to with a fairer approach but to wipe them out completely without the thought of the consequences to low income self funded retirees is just unfair. Why won't they listen now? Many have spoken up? They don't seem to care. Talk about arrogant.
---
Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen has doubled down on Labor’s tax agenda, telling retirees who are unhappy with Labor’s policy on dividend imputation they are “entitled to vote against us.”
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/labor-s-unprincipled-attack-on-refunds-20190131-p50uyo.html
---
PZ99
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,303
- Reactions
- 2,402
I don't think it's going to happen in any form. The last week of campaigning from the ALP would have to be one of the worst I've seen. People are changing their minds and I reckon we're up for another minority Govt with a hostile senate and nothing getting done for the entire term.
I'm happy to be proven wrong but I seriously believe this policy will be dead, buried, cremated.
I'll even flip a smiley on it >>
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,652
- Reactions
- 11,950
I don't think it's going to happen in any form. The last week of campaigning from the ALP would have to be one of the worst I've seen. People are changing their minds and I reckon we're up for another minority Govt with a hostile senate and nothing getting done for the entire term.
I'm happy to be proven wrong but I seriously believe this policy will be dead, buried, cremated.
I'll even flip a smiley on it >>
It's a matter of how many people are adversely affected and if they would have voted Liberal anyway.
I think it's a cleverly targetted policy designed not to impact core Labor voters.
PZ99
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,303
- Reactions
- 2,402
Trouble is it affects a lot of low income self funded retirees who may have never voted Liberal.
But it's also now the fallout from the arrogance of Labors' "take it or leave" attitude.
It's a very Kommy approach that might spectacularly backfire. Look what happened in NSW.
- Joined
- 6 October 2011
- Posts
- 107
- Reactions
- 126
"Franking credits changes cop another lashing
Eliot Hastie
One investment firm has said that in its current form the proposed Labor changes to the franking credit regime do not pass the fairness test for Australian investors.
At an investment day, Stephen Bruce from Perennial Value Management Limited said that while an economic argument could be made the bottom line was that the proposal wasn’t up to scratch.
“Our view is that you can make an economic argument that refunding franking credits should be stopped and wasn’t part of the original imputations system but the bottom line is that the current proposals fail both the fairness test, as they clearly treat different classes of investors differently and they are also likely to be circumvented by those with the largest balances anyhow,” said Mr Bruce.
Mr Bruce is the director portfolio manager for Perennial and said that while the majority of people would be unaffected it was still unfair.
“The important point in this debate is that three quarters of people will see no change, it’s the one quarter that will be affected in a way we think is unfair,” he said.
It is this percentage of people affected that is currently the cause of debate amongst the two major parties leading into the election.
Labor claims that the policy is closing down a tax loophole that costs $8 billion a year and only generates more wealthy for the already wealthy.
“Much of this goes to high-wealth individuals, with 80 per cent of the benefit accruing to the wealthiest 20 per cent of retirees.
“Labor does not think it is fair to spend $8 billion a year on a tax loophole that mainly benefits millionaires who don’t pay income tax – not when school standards are falling and hospital waiting lists are growing longer,” said the Labor release.
The Liberal party, after a controversial and much criticised inquiry into the proposal determined that the policy affected more than just the wealthy.
“The ALP’s policy will unfairly hit people of modest incomes who have already retired, and who are unlikely to be able to return to the workforce to make up for the income they will lose,” said Liberal MP Tim Wilson, who chaired the inquiry.
Luckily for investors it seemed that the proposals would not make it into legislation said Mr Bruce.
“Fortunately at this stage at least, regardless of the election outcome the senate cross bench would be unlikely to support the proposal at least in its current form,” he said.
If the proposals did make it through then it was unlikely to have a huge impact on dividends which performed strongly without franking said Mr Bruce.
“I've just highlighted how important dividends are to total return outcomes and that doesn’t include franking credits.
“With the market trading on a dividend yield of 5 per cent excluding franking, that still stacks up very well compared to fixed income and term deposits.”
A potential solution would to be impose a cap on the credits said Mr Bruce which would protect the average balances.
“Maybe one solution is that we will end up with a regime where we do allow a refund of franking credits but with a cap on it which protects the typical person with an average balance but stops the very wealthy from getting millions of dollars,” he said."
Interesting article. If there were to be a change to franking credit law I would support consideration of the last paragraph. This seems, in one sense treat all investors equally plus gets at the wealthy that Labor claims is there intention.
Eliot Hastie
One investment firm has said that in its current form the proposed Labor changes to the franking credit regime do not pass the fairness test for Australian investors.
At an investment day, Stephen Bruce from Perennial Value Management Limited said that while an economic argument could be made the bottom line was that the proposal wasn’t up to scratch.
“Our view is that you can make an economic argument that refunding franking credits should be stopped and wasn’t part of the original imputations system but the bottom line is that the current proposals fail both the fairness test, as they clearly treat different classes of investors differently and they are also likely to be circumvented by those with the largest balances anyhow,” said Mr Bruce.
Mr Bruce is the director portfolio manager for Perennial and said that while the majority of people would be unaffected it was still unfair.
“The important point in this debate is that three quarters of people will see no change, it’s the one quarter that will be affected in a way we think is unfair,” he said.
It is this percentage of people affected that is currently the cause of debate amongst the two major parties leading into the election.
Labor claims that the policy is closing down a tax loophole that costs $8 billion a year and only generates more wealthy for the already wealthy.
“Much of this goes to high-wealth individuals, with 80 per cent of the benefit accruing to the wealthiest 20 per cent of retirees.
“Labor does not think it is fair to spend $8 billion a year on a tax loophole that mainly benefits millionaires who don’t pay income tax – not when school standards are falling and hospital waiting lists are growing longer,” said the Labor release.
The Liberal party, after a controversial and much criticised inquiry into the proposal determined that the policy affected more than just the wealthy.
“The ALP’s policy will unfairly hit people of modest incomes who have already retired, and who are unlikely to be able to return to the workforce to make up for the income they will lose,” said Liberal MP Tim Wilson, who chaired the inquiry.
Luckily for investors it seemed that the proposals would not make it into legislation said Mr Bruce.
“Fortunately at this stage at least, regardless of the election outcome the senate cross bench would be unlikely to support the proposal at least in its current form,” he said.
If the proposals did make it through then it was unlikely to have a huge impact on dividends which performed strongly without franking said Mr Bruce.
“I've just highlighted how important dividends are to total return outcomes and that doesn’t include franking credits.
“With the market trading on a dividend yield of 5 per cent excluding franking, that still stacks up very well compared to fixed income and term deposits.”
A potential solution would to be impose a cap on the credits said Mr Bruce which would protect the average balances.
“Maybe one solution is that we will end up with a regime where we do allow a refund of franking credits but with a cap on it which protects the typical person with an average balance but stops the very wealthy from getting millions of dollars,” he said."
Interesting article. If there were to be a change to franking credit law I would support consideration of the last paragraph. This seems, in one sense treat all investors equally plus gets at the wealthy that Labor claims is there intention.
