Agree totally and to cap it off it is fair to all parties, which was the point I was making in my earlier post.
Labor's proposed franking credit changes
- Thread starter shortentaxlosers.com.au
- Start date
Agree totally and to cap it off it is fair to all parties, which was the point I was making in my earlier post.
PZ99
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,313
- Reactions
- 2,414
Completely reasonable. I wouldn't vote for him either if I was in your position.That is the way I like to work with the backbone stocks, in my portfolio, it is a shame Shorten has to mess with it.
If I had known the franking credits were going to be changed, I would have kept my PPR, rather than downsizing and sticking the money in super.
The problem is three elections ago, Labor were going to hit Million dollar home owners with the asset test, then next election they were going to tax super earnings above $100k, now it is franking credits.
There is no way, I would believe anything that slimy sod ever said, I wouldn't vote for him, if he had a gun to my head.
He couldn't lie straight in bed. IMO
My rant for the week.
I can't wait for this monster budget. ScoMo might bring the tax down to 10% which would end all our problems. LOL
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,203
- Reactions
- 8,447
Which when you think about it would sting, considering that the reason the capital gains exist is that the companies have been retaining after tax income to build their balance sheet.
Eg, they have earnt money and paid tax on it, but retained it to grow the balance sheet, the balance sheet grew, which created a capital gain, then they want to tax the capital gain.
————-
It’s like buying a money box for $1 and putting $20 after tax dollars in it from your wallet, then selling the money box for $21, and being taxed on a “capital gain”
At least the 50% cgt discount offsets some of this potential for double taxation.
But people that don’t understand how capital gains are formed seem to want us to pay tax on the same $20 twice.
That is the way I like to work with the backbone stocks, in my portfolio, it is a shame Shorten has to mess with it.
If I had known the franking credits were going to be changed, I would have kept my PPR, rather than downsizing and sticking the money in super.
The problem is three elections ago, Labor were going to hit Million dollar home owners with the asset test, then next election they were going to tax super earnings above $100k, now it is franking credits.
There is no way, I would believe anything that slimy sod ever said, I wouldn't vote for him, if he had a gun to my head.
He couldn't lie straight in bed. IMO
My rant for the week.
https://amp.smh.com.au/politics/fed...after-q-and-a-appearance-20190326-p517i3.html
So you’ll be voting this lot back in lol
Hip pocket voters
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,371
- Reactions
- 24,123
If you were coping a 30% hike in your tax, you would be voting the same way, but ATM your in the sweet spot.
You wont always be there.
It's always easy to be smug, when your not in the firing line, silly Billy relies on that and picks off the small target.
Always remember, what goes around, comes around.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,371
- Reactions
- 24,123
30% of what I was getting, it's ok to be smug and superior, but when you have your retirement shot to $hit, by changing the rules after 20 years in one hit.
What if your company said, by the way we are putting you, on the award rate?
That would get your attention, just because you follow a w@nker, doesn't mean you have to be one.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,371
- Reactions
- 24,123
OW.
- Joined
- 8 June 2008
- Posts
- 12,833
- Reactions
- 18,796
Another d#ckh##d on my ignore list
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,371
- Reactions
- 24,123
I obviously 'nailed it', with the example of going back to the award rate.
It certainly hit the nerve, just shows how even someone like yourself, can get a hit.
By the way, I retired because the place closed down, not because I wanted to.lol
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,201
- Reactions
- 17,223
For the record I don't recall anyone announcing an early retirement and I don't recall anyone here supporting the abolition of penalty rates (though admittedly I haven't checked every word that anyone ever posted to confirm that). 
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,371
- Reactions
- 24,123
Silly Billy gives a rats, he wants to rob me of my savings, to give you a tax cut. lol
Why would I buy an Indian at my age, because I would rather spend it on myself, than have don't care Chris dream up another way to steal it, of course.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,371
- Reactions
- 24,123
My statement with the penalty rates were, they should annualise the pay, to incorporate the penalties then they all get a pay rise. It lifts the base rate and is included in their super and holiday pay, but as usual people can't hear themselves, over their screaming. lolFor the record I don't recall anyone announcing an early retirement and I don't recall anyone here supporting the abolition of penalty rates (though admittedly I haven't checked every word that anyone ever posted to confirm that).
Last edited:
For the record I don't recall anyone announcing an early retirement and I don't recall anyone here supporting the abolition of penalty rates (though admittedly I haven't checked every word that anyone ever posted to confirm that).
Try reading the post above
- Joined
- 24 February 2013
- Posts
- 783
- Reactions
- 1,277
The proposed changes to capital gains tax is very stupid. Apart from the fact that corporate profits are already taxed hence meaning that capital gains tax is already a form of double taxation (they do not have capital gains tax in New Zealand), the reason that the CGT (capital gains tax) discount was originally set at a level of 50% was that under the previous system capital gains where indexed to inflation. Over a period of many years the ATO/government realized that this resulted on average people paying tax on 50% of the capital gain.
As part of various reforms at the time to simplify the tax system at the time they changed the inflation indexing system for calculating capital gains tax to the current flat 50% discount system. This resulted in a similar amount of revenue for the ATO (at the time) but with a much less complicated tax system. The current proposed change means that investors could end up paying unreasonably high taxes when you take the effect the impact of inflation on capital gains.
Value Collector although I agree with you that CGT is a stupid tax for the reason you mention, technically what you are saying does not apply in all cases. For example you could buy shares in a loss making micro-cap company for $1 and then one year later when the share price goes to $2 (and the company is still loss making) due to hype, etc. you sell the shares for a capital gain. That capital gain was clearly not generated by retained profits and the company paid no corporate profit tax to the government. But yes generally and in aggregate your point remains valid and I agree with it.
Also the way labour paints the "cost" of the capital gains tax discount here https://www.alp.org.au/negativegearing is absurd. It is flawed accounting and they are trying to present a that a lower than otherwise growth rate in capital gains tax receipts/revenue (note capital gains tax receipts still grow over time) as being equal to an increase in costs to the economy.
What labour is saying would be like me saying I get paid $100,000 this year and my employer agreed to increase my salary to $103,000 next year. In previous years my employer always gave me a 5% pay increase. The 'cost' of only getting a 3% salary increase instead of the 5% I should have gotten is a $2000 (pre-tax) 'cost' to my bottom line. Thereby my employer 'cost' me $2000. Can everybody see how absurd that sounds?
As part of various reforms at the time to simplify the tax system at the time they changed the inflation indexing system for calculating capital gains tax to the current flat 50% discount system. This resulted in a similar amount of revenue for the ATO (at the time) but with a much less complicated tax system. The current proposed change means that investors could end up paying unreasonably high taxes when you take the effect the impact of inflation on capital gains.
Value Collector although I agree with you that CGT is a stupid tax for the reason you mention, technically what you are saying does not apply in all cases. For example you could buy shares in a loss making micro-cap company for $1 and then one year later when the share price goes to $2 (and the company is still loss making) due to hype, etc. you sell the shares for a capital gain. That capital gain was clearly not generated by retained profits and the company paid no corporate profit tax to the government. But yes generally and in aggregate your point remains valid and I agree with it.
Also the way labour paints the "cost" of the capital gains tax discount here https://www.alp.org.au/negativegearing is absurd. It is flawed accounting and they are trying to present a that a lower than otherwise growth rate in capital gains tax receipts/revenue (note capital gains tax receipts still grow over time) as being equal to an increase in costs to the economy.
What labour is saying would be like me saying I get paid $100,000 this year and my employer agreed to increase my salary to $103,000 next year. In previous years my employer always gave me a 5% pay increase. The 'cost' of only getting a 3% salary increase instead of the 5% I should have gotten is a $2000 (pre-tax) 'cost' to my bottom line. Thereby my employer 'cost' me $2000. Can everybody see how absurd that sounds?
Last edited:
- Joined
- 24 February 2013
- Posts
- 783
- Reactions
- 1,277
New Zealand has no capital gains tax. They do this to encourage investment. Estonia has a flat 21% corporate tax rate except that they have an offset for reinvested earnings, therefore in Estonia companies pay zero tax on earnings that are reinvested into the country. They do this to encourage investment. But in Australia because we are fast becoming a socialist banana republic we need to target all of those "wealthy" people with investments. Even the working class man with a $60,000 per year salary who has only a $40,000 share portfolio. If he can afford to buy shares he must be 'wealthy', therefore we must make him pay a lot of tax.
The man in the example above payed tax (PAYG) on his salary. After paying his taxes he then decided to save a portion of that salary every year to invest in shares. The company he bought shares in then payed corporate profit tax to the government. The shares pay him a fully franked dividend. He must then pay some tax on the dividend because his top marginal tax bracket is 32.5% (not even including the medicare levy) whereas the dividend is only franked to 30%. The company he owns shares in reinvests a portion of the profit each year. After 5 years he sells some shares to realize a capital gain (thanks to the reinvested profits of the company). He must then pay a capital gains tax when he sells the shares. With the proceeds of the share sale he spends a little bit of it on consumer goods (where he pays 10% GST) and the rest of the money goes towards the deposit on purchasing a property where he must pay stamp duty on the purchase, as well as annual land tax, council rates and a capital gains tax when he eventually sells the property. How many ******* times does this poor working class bugger have to pay taxes to the government? No wonder its so hard for anybody to get ahead in this socialist banana republic called Australia.
The man in the example above payed tax (PAYG) on his salary. After paying his taxes he then decided to save a portion of that salary every year to invest in shares. The company he bought shares in then payed corporate profit tax to the government. The shares pay him a fully franked dividend. He must then pay some tax on the dividend because his top marginal tax bracket is 32.5% (not even including the medicare levy) whereas the dividend is only franked to 30%. The company he owns shares in reinvests a portion of the profit each year. After 5 years he sells some shares to realize a capital gain (thanks to the reinvested profits of the company). He must then pay a capital gains tax when he sells the shares. With the proceeds of the share sale he spends a little bit of it on consumer goods (where he pays 10% GST) and the rest of the money goes towards the deposit on purchasing a property where he must pay stamp duty on the purchase, as well as annual land tax, council rates and a capital gains tax when he eventually sells the property. How many ******* times does this poor working class bugger have to pay taxes to the government? No wonder its so hard for anybody to get ahead in this socialist banana republic called Australia.
Last edited:
