How to retire early... or simply survive

[Humid]

That's not really true, it is any average wage earner, who has their head screwed on.
But you believe what you like, I know from working in a workshop most of my life, all the guys used negative gearing.
The ones who did well, also bought shares in their non working wife's name also.

I need a job in this workshop.....

Pay off your own home
Have an investment property
Shares and the Mrs doesn’t have to work

The time frame you suggest I would think they would of done better on the capital gain on the property rather than the tax break.
Interest only?

 

[Junior]

Franking credits and 50% capital gains tax discounts are important measures designed to prevent double taxation, Without them the shareholders will be unfairly taxed twice on their earnings.

eg, If a company earns $100, it will pay $30 in tax leaving $70 that can be paid as a dividend to the company owner/share holder, When that shareholder gets the $70 if you tax him on it, he may pay another $31.50 in tax.

Meaning that $100 company profit ends up being taxed at 61.5% by the time the share holder/owner get the profit in their pocket, that is simply not a fair tax rate.

By allowing the share holder to have the franking credit for the tax already paid at the company level it means the company profits just get taxed at the tax bracket of the individual share holder, which is a much fairer system.

-------------
Same with capital gains discount, the "capital gain" is often the result of the company retaining after tax profits and reinvesting them,

eg. IF company earns $100M, pays $30M in tax and retains $70Million, its market cap will probably increase by $70Million, when a long term shareholder sells and gets a "capital gain", its partly due to the after tax profit the company retained which has already been taxed at the company level, charging the investor tax on the full capital gain will result in double taxation.

I guess the issue which does need addressing is where so many shareholders are on a MTR of less than 30% (0% for pensioners) and claiming refunds.....a proportion of those company profits effectively aren't taxed at all.

 

[Value Collector]

I guess the issue which does need addressing is where so many shareholders are on a MTR of less than 30% (0% for pensioners) and claiming refunds.....a proportion of those company profits effectively aren't taxed at all.

If a person is earning less than $18,000, its true the tax rate would effectively be zero on the portion of the companies profits paid as a dividend to that person.

But that is true regardless of where that persons first $18,000 comes from, if they earned $18,000 mowing lawns it would still be tax free, there is no reason earnings obtained by owning a partial interest in a company should be any different to earnings obtained mowing lawns. So the Franking credits are an efficient way of making sure each person is only taxed at their appropriate tax rate, and not double taxed.

Also, almost no company pays out 100% of earnings as a dividend, Most retain a large portion of after tax earnings, so that portion of earnings still gets the 30% tax paid on it regardless of the shareholders tax bracket.

 

[SirRumpole]

So the Franking credits are an efficient way of making sure each person is only taxed at their appropriate tax rate, and not double taxed.

Double taxation is a bit of a furphy, when normal taxpayers are taxed on both income and spending, we are all double taxed anyway so I don't see why share income is any different.

Remember we are one of only three countries (+ New Zealand and Malta) where full dividend imputation exists at all.

 

[moXJO]

Double taxation is a bit of a furphy, when normal taxpayers are taxed on both income and spending, we are all double taxed anyway so I don't see why share income is any different.

Remember we are one of only three countries (+ New Zealand and Malta) where full dividend imputation exists at all.

Its already been explained a few times.

 

[Value Collector]

1. Double taxation is a bit of a furphy, when normal taxpayers are taxed on both income and spending, we are all double taxed anyway so I don't see why share income is any different.

2. Remember we are one of only three countries (+ New Zealand and Malta) where full dividend imputation exists at all.

1. People earning their money through investing also spend, so if you are saying “normal taxpayers” are double taxed, then without the franking credits the investors would be triple taxed.

Eg, investor would pay company level tax + personal level tax + spending related taxes, while a wage earner only paid the last two.

2. Other countries often have much lower flat rate taxes for dividends and capital gains.

For example I think the USA is 15% for dividends and capital gains, so that would limit total taxation to about our top tax bracket.

Removing franking credits and capital gains discount, in favor of he USA system would just mean low income earners pay more tax, high income earners would pay about the same.

So just remember removing the tax credits only hurts low income earners with investments, eg those trying to build savings or those of limited means trying to be partially self funded.

 

[SirRumpole]

So just remember removing the tax credits only hurts low income earners with investments, eg those trying to build savings or those of limited means trying to be partially self funded.

I'm not saying imputation should be removed, just that taxpayers should be grateful that it exists at all, but that it allows high income earners a significant benefit and in these days of a budget deficit it can be wound back a bit for the sake of a financial saving for the budget.

 

[Value Collector]

I'm not saying imputation should be removed, just that taxpayers should be grateful that it exists at all, but that it allows high income earners a significant benefit and in these days of a budget deficit it can be wound back a bit for the sake of a financial saving for the budget.

Grateful that we don’t get double taxed? (or triple taxed if you include spending taxes).

That’s a bit like saying be grateful we don’t rob you, we should expect not to be robbed.

What do you think is a fair tax rate on earnings?

Just because an asset is owned under a company structure doesn’t mean you should have to pay more tax than some one who operates as a partnership or sole trader.

People would go nuts if you raised the taxes on an individual to over 60%, or to 30% for a low income earner, yet just because we are organized as a company you expect us to be “grateful”

Not to mention the fact that without franking, if a company was owned by another company, then there would be triple tax,

 

[tech/a]

There is of course another way.

Over time become involved in ventures which will return a passive or semi passive income.
The “opportunities “ are endless.

 

[SirRumpole]

What do you think is a fair tax rate on earnings?

A fair tax system is one where people actually pay tax not avoid it.

If more people/companies paid tax the overall rate could be lower.

 

[Value Collector]

A fair tax system is one where people actually pay tax not avoid it.

If more people/companies paid tax the overall rate could be lower.

Do you not think that many sole traders, partnerships and employees dodge tax? Why single out just the company structure to be double taxed?

the answer to your post is to enforce the tax law, not just say “oh well, better charge more tax to those willing to pay it or that one particular structure”.

Simply charging one lawn mowing group 60% vs 30% for another just because the first was a company structure but the second was a partnership is stupid.

Best way is to have a system where each persons earnings, what ever the source is, flow through to their personal tax brackets, the current system achieves that.

 

[SirRumpole]

Do you not think that many sole traders, partnerships and employees dodge tax? Why single out just the company structure to be double taxed?

If you actually read my posts you will see that I said imputation should stay. But getting a refund of taxes you haven't paid is absurd. That it was the discussion is about.

 

[Value Collector]

But getting a refund of taxes you haven't paid is absurd. .

Who gets a refund for taxes they haven't paid?

 

[SirRumpole]

Who gets a refund for taxes they haven't paid?

http://www.afr.com/personal-finance...es-financial-planners-respond-20180315-h0xj16

The biggest losers from Mr Shorten's proposals will be individuals who pay little or no tax, given that the ability to use franking credits to offset taxable income will remain intact.

 

[basilio]

http://www.afr.com/personal-finance...es-financial-planners-respond-20180315-h0xj16

Very good analysis. Good find

 

[Value Collector]

http://www.afr.com/personal-finance...es-financial-planners-respond-20180315-h0xj16

Your claim was that there are people claiming back tax that they haven't paid, you said this

But getting a refund of taxes you haven't paid is absurd.

No one is claiming back tax they haven't paid.

Low income earners are simply claiming back the taxes they have already paid at the company level, but don't have to pay because their earnings are lower than the $18,000 tax free threshold.

It works like this.

1, The company earns $100, then pays $30 in tax.

2, The shareholder then gets a dividend of $70 cash + ($30 franking credit).

3, Shareholder declares the full $100 earnings on their Tax form ($70cash + $30 tax credit).

4, Government sees they have only earned $100, which is under the $18,000 tax-free threshold so they refund the $30 they had previously taken from the $100.

So the $30 refund is coming from the $30 tax they have already paid to the government on their $100 of earnings, but aren't required to pay because their total earnings are under the Tax free threshold.


So your claim that they are getting a refund of money they haven't paid is bogus

 

[SirRumpole]

So your claim that they are getting a refund of money they haven't paid is bogus

Semantics. Someone over 60 getting $100k in super tax free also gets a refund of franking credits doesn't pass the pub test.

 

[PZ99]

Your claim was that there are people claiming back tax that they haven't paid, you said this


No one is claiming back tax they haven't paid.

Low income earners are simply claiming back the taxes they have already paid at the company level, but don't have to pay because their earnings are lower than the $18,000 tax free threshold.

It works like this.

1, The company earns $100, then pays $30 in tax.

2, The shareholder then gets a dividend of $70 cash + ($30 franking credit).

3, Shareholder declares the full $100 earnings on their Tax form ($70cash + $30 tax credit).

4, Government sees they have only earned $100, which is under the $18,000 tax-free threshold so they refund the $30 they had previously taken from the $100.

So the $30 refund is coming from the $30 tax they have already paid to the government on their $100 of earnings, but aren't required to pay because their total earnings are under the Tax free threshold.


So your claim that they are getting a refund of money they haven't paid is bogus

Thanks for articulating it well VC.

My question is this. What happens if my imputation credit is lower than the tax I paid?

I guess I don't get my $30 refund in cash?

So the only way to get my refund is to avoid paying tax either through not working or from having a very good accountant

To me that comes across as a message that conflicts with our need to mitigate budget deficits.

What I'd like to know is why the Howard Govt handed out these cash refunds in the first place?

 

[Value Collector]

Semantics. Someone over 60 getting $100k in super tax free also gets a refund of franking credits doesn't pass the pub test.

if the earnings are meant to be tax free because of some rule regarding their super, then yes they should get a refund for the company tax paid.

I would need I better description of the actual situation you are describing.

 

[Junior]

In my view: It is unfair (unsustainable) that workers might be paying income tax at a rate of up to 49%, whilst others over 60 years old with significant assets (in some cases) not only pay no income/earnings/CG tax AT ALL, they actually receive a cheque from the ATO each year. Given the state of the Budget and the outlook for the Aus economy, this is simply too big a disparity to have some people on a very high rate and others receiving tax refunds. This is especially true as the population ages and we have a bigger proportion of people in retirement.

The common rebuttal is that "I paid taxes all my working life, why should I pay any more now". Nice in theory, but that assumes the Government actually set aside money during those years. Our Government is incompetent and squandered the lot, so current day workers have to pay for the majority of retirees, unfortunately.