Your tin foil one should do
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.?
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.?
Any sort of sensible limit would have worked, be it sensible deposit size, number of NG properties, or actual $limit.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
Just don't mention franking credits...
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 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.
No, a company is just a conduit in which investors aggregate funds to make investments.Companies and their shareholders are separate entities and should be taxed seperately.
A husband and wife are separate entities and should be taxed separately.Companies and their shareholders are separate entities and should be taxed seperately.
What if the company has one director which is the only shareholder?Companies and their shareholders are separate entities and should be taxed seperately.
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.What if the company has one director which is the only shareholder?
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?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.
If shareholders benefit from the advantages of the 'corporate veil', then yes.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?
What benefit from a corporate veil is there for a shareholder in Sausage Software as opposed to Joe Bloggs Lawnmowing Pty LtdIf shareholders benefit from the advantages of the 'corporate veil', then yes.
Or even large private companies such as Hancock Prospecting?
Lmao.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.
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.Lmao.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Even Keating realised it was unfair, hence why double taxation was abolished
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?