tech/a
No Ordinary Duck
- Joined
- 14 October 2004
- Posts
- 20,447
- Reactions
- 6,477
Do you really think that someone getting tax free super of say $100k per year (no dependents) should get a refund on franking credits when someone working, trying to raise a family and earning $100k would pay $24k in tax is fair ?
Yes of course it’s fair.
He was in the same place as struggle street at some time!
That's a lot different to someone earning $100k and paying no tax.
Can't really make generalised comments on an issue like this. If you earn $x from whatever sources you should pay tax on it.
and the imputation credits would still be of value, as they would still count as 'tax paid' and therefore allow the individual to generate income over and above the $18,000 before they would need to pay any income tax on top of tax the company has already paid.
Interest income is interest paid to you by the bank, on the balance of your cash savings.....nothing to do with company profits, it is income generated by a different type of asset. It is taxed at MTR of the individual, or whichever entity earns the interest.
The confusion is where you originally stated someone receives a dividend of $18,000.....well they haven't received $18k. They have received $12,600.
The $5,400 is an imputation credit which they won't necessarily receive, in terms of a cash payment.....this is what we are discussing!
If over time you place yourself in that position then why shouldn’t you be able to maximise your position.
I never said they received a dividend of $18,000. I said their share of the companies distributed earnings were $18,000.
the process works like this.
1, Company earns $18,000 in share holder profits.
2, Company pays $5,200 in tax
3, Company pays $12,600 as dividend with $5,400 franking credit = $18,000
4, Investor declares $18,000 income on tax return.
5, tax office says no tax is payable on the $18,000
6, Tax office hands back the $5,200 franking credits
7, Investor now has $18,000 to spend, just as if they earned $18,000 in bank interest.
CONCLUSION: Bill Shorten, in effect, is penalising people for owning shares.
Resorting to humour in this debate or do you seriously believe that everyone should be government supported after their working life?Based on your analysis I'd say you are correct. But Shorten is obviously playing to his electorate who most likely aren't big share owners just like the Libs played to theirs by wantonly extravagant schemes like 15% tax on super contributions and tax free super for over 60's and the franking rebate.
Resorting to humour in this debate or do you seriously believe that everyone should be government supported after their working life?
Yes 100% correct. Currently the wife and I are self funded, maybe we should put all of our $$$ into cash and get a measly 2%. Then draw it down, spend up big on holidays, buy new cars and blow the lot. When we turn 65 put our hands out and get free public money and health coverage for the rest of our lives at the publics/governments expense, is this what that D!CKHEAD SHORTEN wants? No brains that bloke, sorry.CONCLUSION: Bill Shorten, in effect, is penalising people for owning shares.
No need to apologise for stating a factYes 100% correct. Currently the wife and I are self funded, maybe we should put all of our $$$ into cash and get a measly 2%. Then draw it down, spend up big on holidays, buy new cars and blow the lot. When we turn 65 put our hands out and get free public money and health coverage for the rest of our lives at the publics/governments expense, is this what that D!CKHEAD SHORTEN wants? No brains that bloke, sorry.
You've got a lot to thank your Dad for, firstly he was a business owner, which gave you the frame of mind not to be scared of owning your own business.
Secondly he obviously showed you that owning a business, wasn't all pi$$ and skittles.
Thirdly you had the brains, to work out, you put F all in you get F all out.
There is a lot of people with your background, that blow the family fortune, and there are a lot of people from poor backgrounds that break through the glass ceiling.
The problem is the current crop of idiots, both Labor and Liberal, want everybody to believe they can make it through higher education whether they can or can't.
As long as it keeps them off the dole, it's good.
It is time the Government realised privatisation has been a disaster, and took it back in house, it just means the taxpayer is paying wages rather than the dole.
Let's be honest a lot of failed ex Government businesses, if re established, would be great employers and skill generators.
By the way I'm no spiv, just love nice engineering, never owned a big cube V8 when all my mates did, I drove a 1969 Toyota Crown, that took balls in a mining town.
Now you know the scenario.lol
Okay I do see your point that at a certain level, income doesn't need tax relief. Introducing thresholds would work do you think?Of course not but an income of $100k + super tax free is putting an unnecessary burden on those still working to pay for it.
Introducing thresholds would work do you think?
So what ?
I'm beginning to think you're a commie Rumpole.
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?