Your tin foil one should doI don't think Albo should have done a complete 180 turn, the fundamentals of Labors ideas were sound, as usual the implementation was woeful.
Only allowing negative gearing on new builds, when middle and low income earners can hardly afford a house, isn't going to work.
As we said at the time just put a cap on negative gearing and allow first home buyers to claim their interest as a tax deduction.
But no Labor was only going to allow the rich to negative gear and also give them a guaranteed gov income if they rented to the hard up, no wonder there was a massive swing to Labor in the wealthy suburbs, it would have been a license to print money for the rich.
Meanwhile it would have trashed the value of houses in blue collar areas, so the working class wouldn't have the collateral to get up the ladder.
The same ridiculous approach was suggested for franking credits, take in them of low income earners and self funded people, while allowing industry funds and billionaires to keep them was weird and only designed to force SMSF's into industry funds IMO.
Just remove the franking credits completely, for a period of time and then weigh up the outcome. At least that would be fair and reasonable and would have also been a net benefit to Australia and given the ATO some real numbers to work with.
Albo has only ditched the negative gearing and franking credit proposals completely, because he knows that the scare tactics on them being introduced when they get in office, would be a problem in the election campaign.
Albo is doing fine, at least they have a leader with a bit of common sense, rather than just a massive ego and an even bigger nasty streak as the last leader had IMO.
Now I will just slip on the flack jacket and crash helmet and wait for the ton of rust to hit.?
Federal Labor Party discussion
- Thread starter Joe Blow
- Start date
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,452
- Reactions
- 24,251
Then we would be twins.lol
People would only be able to tell us apart, by the fact you wear blinkers. ?
People would only be able to tell us apart, by the fact you wear blinkers. ?
Last edited:
I don't think Albo should have done a complete 180 turn, the fundamentals of Labors ideas were sound, as usual the implementation was woeful.
Only allowing negative gearing on new builds, when middle and low income earners can hardly afford a house, isn't going to work.
As we said at the time just put a cap on negative gearing and allow first home buyers to claim their interest as a tax deduction.
But no Labor was only going to allow the rich to negative gear and also give them a guaranteed gov income if they rented to the hard up, no wonder there was a massive swing to Labor in the wealthy suburbs, it would have been a license to print money for the rich.
Meanwhile it would have trashed the value of houses in blue collar areas, so the working class wouldn't have the collateral to get up the ladder.
The same ridiculous approach was suggested for franking credits, take in them of low income earners and self funded people, while allowing industry funds and billionaires to keep them was weird and only designed to force SMSF's into industry funds IMO.
Just remove the franking credits completely, for a period of time and then weigh up the outcome. At least that would be fair and reasonable and would have also been a net benefit to Australia and given the ATO some real numbers to work with.
Albo has only ditched the negative gearing and franking credit proposals completely, because he knows that the scare tactics on them being introduced when they get in office, would be a problem in the election campaign.
Albo is doing fine, at least they have a leader with a bit of common sense, rather than just a massive ego and an even bigger nasty streak as the last leader had IMO.
Now I will just slip on the flack jacket and crash helmet and wait for the ton of rust to hit.?
If they simply said " all investment loans require a 10% unencumbered deposit" it will stop excessive NG and the workers who want a spare house can still invest in real estate.
It is the multiple excessively geared BS artists fudging their figures for low doc loans that create upward pressure on the lower priced houses IMO
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,452
- Reactions
- 24,251
Any sort of sensible limit would have worked, be it sensible deposit size, number of NG properties, or actual $limit.
The problem with the proposal as it was, the gap between the rich and the poor would have been made much bigger. The poor would be caught in a rental trap, the middle class would have had their PPR value trashed and the rich would have started land banking, to build government funded rental slums as demand increased.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,452
- Reactions
- 24,251
I bet Penny and Tanya aren't happy campers. 
Good move by Albo, who said he wasn't smart?
www.smh.com.au
Good move by Albo, who said he wasn't smart?
NSW Labor powerbroker backs Kristina Keneally switch amid backlash
The former NSW premier’s switch to a lower house seat in western Sydney has split the NSW Right and caused unrest within the local community.
Last edited:
Just don't mention franking credits...
Speaking of which this has resurfaced.
"As part of the 2016‑17 Mid‑Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, an integrity measure was announced to prevent the distribution of franking credits where a distribution to shareholders is funded by particular capital raising activities.
The Government has prepared exposure draft legislation giving effect to this measure, which will prevent companies from attaching franking credits to distributions to shareholders made outside or additional to the company's normal dividend cycle, to the extent the distributions are funded directly or indirectly by capital raising activities that result in the issue of new equity interests.
The Government is seeking stakeholders’ views on the exposure draft legislation and accompanying explanatory material implementing this measure.
You can submit responses to this consultation up until 05 October 2022. Interested parties are invited to comment on this consultation."
Franked distributions and capital raising | Treasury.gov.au
As part of the 2016‑17 Mid‑Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, an integrity measure was announced to prevent the distribution of franking credits where a distribution to shareholders is funded by particular capital raising activities.
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,230
- Reactions
- 8,479
I wish the Government would just forget about their obsession with changing the franking credit system. The Franking credit system is the most fair way to treat company earnings being paid as dividends that have already been taxed at the company rate.Speaking of which this has resurfaced.
"As part of the 2016‑17 Mid‑Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, an integrity measure was announced to prevent the distribution of franking credits where a distribution to shareholders is funded by particular capital raising activities.
The Government has prepared exposure draft legislation giving effect to this measure, which will prevent companies from attaching franking credits to distributions to shareholders made outside or additional to the company's normal dividend cycle, to the extent the distributions are funded directly or indirectly by capital raising activities that result in the issue of new equity interests.
The Government is seeking stakeholders’ views on the exposure draft legislation and accompanying explanatory material implementing this measure.
You can submit responses to this consultation up until 05 October 2022. Interested parties are invited to comment on this consultation."
Franked distributions and capital raising | Treasury.gov.au
As part of the 2016‑17 Mid‑Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, an integrity measure was announced to prevent the distribution of franking credits where a distribution to shareholders is funded by particular capital raising activities.treasury.gov.au
The sad part is that the people who are against franking credits and franking credit refunds normally don't even understand what franking credits are or why they exist. They also often use a bunch of silly examples about what they shouldn't be paid or why they shouldn't be refunded.
-------------------------------
One of the most annoying things that is often pointed out is that some retirees get refunds for franking credits paid in their super, But that is simply because super in the pension phase is Tax free, and all the super funds earnings from all sources is tax free hence the tax paid gets refunded.
If you want retirees to pay more in tax, raise the tax rate on all super profits, don't just target company earnings/dividends.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,967
- Reactions
- 12,457
Companies and their shareholders are separate entities and should be taxed seperately.
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,230
- Reactions
- 8,479
No, a company is just a conduit in which investors aggregate funds to make investments.
There is no logical reason that an investment should be taxed at a higher rate just because it is owned via a company structure rather than directly.
For example if the government is ok with a super fund paying 0% tax on $100 earned in a direct real estate investment, why shouldn’t it also be ok with handing back the $30 it took from an investor that held a similar real estate investment via a company?
In the current system both investors get to keep their $100 earnings tax free, in a system that doesn’t allow for franking credits the company structured investment is taxed at 30% and the investor only gets to keep $70, when the folks rich enough to do direct investments get taxed at 0%
———————————
If they want to raise more revenue, just raise the taxes on super, and keep the franking credits in place. This would be far more fair.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 19 February 2016
- Posts
- 946
- Reactions
- 1,528
A husband and wife are separate entities and should be taxed separately.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,834
- Reactions
- 13,057
What if the company has one director which is the only shareholder?
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,967
- Reactions
- 12,457
Pretty unlikely , public companies must have at least 3 directors, but in any case the law says that directors an d shareholders are separate entities, shareholders can't be sued for company debts and vice versa.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,834
- Reactions
- 13,057
So you're saying public companies should be taxed differently to private companies. That shareholders of public companies should suffer double taxation where as private companies won't?
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,967
- Reactions
- 12,457
If shareholders benefit from the advantages of the 'corporate veil', then yes.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,834
- Reactions
- 13,057
What benefit from a corporate veil is there for a shareholder in Sausage Software as opposed to Joe Bloggs Lawnmowing Pty Ltd
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,834
- Reactions
- 13,057
Or even large private companies such as Hancock Prospecting?
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,967
- Reactions
- 12,457
If a company is constructed under the Companies Act , as far as I know the shareholders can't be sued for the debts of the company, they are separate entities and should be taxed separately.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,834
- Reactions
- 13,057
Lmao.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Even Keating realised it was unfair, hence why double taxation was abolished
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,967
- Reactions
- 12,457
We are one of only 4 countries in the OECD that allow this form of tax avoidance. Thanks to the Libs and their massive debt and deficit we just can't afford it any more.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,834
- Reactions
- 13,057
Firstly, it is not tax avoidance, it is a legal, claimable tax credit (whether cash refunds on imputations should be allowed is a separate argument.
Secondly, one must look at taxation on the grand scale, Australia has one of the highest levels of corporate taxation in OECD.
For a share investor, I find it incredible you'd lobby for double taxation on already high levels, that is financial masochism.
Oz in red, OECD average in black
Similar threads
