- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,060
- Reactions
- 12,629
So put a means test on franking credit rebates. There is no reason why someone earning $150k from investments should benefit from such a loophole.
When a worker earns $10,000 =($7000 paid in cash + $3000 withheld as tax)
When they do their tax return, they will get the $3000 that has been with held as a tax refund, because they earned under the $18k.
When a share holder earns $10K = ($7000 cash dividend + $3000 franking credit), the new plan would not allow them to receive their refund.
I think that would be unfair, every other type of earnings is tax free up until $18k, this plan unfairly eliminates tax free allotment for low income earners just because the earnings happen inside a company rather than another structure.
So put a means test on franking credit rebates. There is no reason why someone earning $150k from investments should benefit from such a loophole.
An individual who earns $150k from dividends & franking credits would have income tax at a personal level of approx $40k due.
Paying $40k tax doesn't seem like much of a benefit to me!
ah...so it is the taxing of income earnt in the Super structure which is the issue.Not if that individual received a large amount of tax free super.
M
ah...so it is the taxing of income earnt in the Super structure which is the issue.
Perhaps a better policy would be to leave franking credits as they are and once the member reaches 60/65 the earnings of their Superfund go into their Personal tax return and taxed at marginal rates.
So put a means test on franking credit rebates. There is no reason why someone earning $150k from investments should benefit from such a loophole.
Not if that individual received a large amount of tax free super.
It simply doesn't make sense, 2 people could own the exact same asset and simply because one person owns it under a company structure he is taxed where as the person holding it directly pays no tax.
How does that make sense? why only attack people holding assets in company structures?
So buy it in your own name, you have the choice. .
Companies give you legal separation from your company and allows you to limit your risk,
Does it bother you that under this policy some one could still be earning $150K from their super, while still claiming the tax free threshold on Property investments, businesses, cash holdings, bonds and a million other possible investments, but you are only targeting people holding those assets under company structures?
Of course it bothers me. I can see no good reason why super income should not be taxable. Can you ?
I struggle to follow what is written often due to loose terminology.
when peeps talk of super earnings in the same sentence as tax free threshold....what is this about? Is this tax the 0% and 15% tax amounts payable in pension or accumulation funds? or are peeps using the $18K PAYG type tax threshold here as being somehow linked to super?
But the smaller investors are the ones that will get screwed, just because they chose to invest in a company (which we need more people to do), instead of a direct investment property (which is already saturated) they will be over taxed.
Pensioners, what about everyone else? eg the other small investors, self funded retirees and low income earners.
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?