This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Maintain the current dividend imputation system

Jump to new
nah Humid
plenty of people do not have any numbers in that box ...... and by people i mean peeps that do really hard jobs at their own risk .......... the sort that if they do not go out and look for their own work every day then they do not get paid type peeps.

so will say again
i mean what is currently included as assessable income in the annual tax return that most peeps fill out - the section where peeps put in the income figures from the various income sources. They all get added together at present - to produce a single income figure (that is used to calculate taxable income)

any discussion about NOT including franking credits as assessable income has not been had yet
 
I don't like losing a tax perk but the original objective of the dividend imputation system was to eliminate double taxation of company profits, once at the corporate level and again on distribution as dividend to shareholders.

If you're not paying tax then even without the refund (that was added after imputation was introduced) you're still not paying double taxes on dividends. The company pays it once and you don't.

No one is forcing you to be overweight in tax and dividend paying Australian companies and have all your investments in super. You've done it for the tax perk? There's a reason why this discussion is unique to Australia?
 
SirRumpole said:
So, tax pensions over $100k at 20% ?

Would you be ok with that ?
Click to expand...

No...because we don't know what portion of that pension is capital and what portion is earnings.

For example, lets say one has $1m accumulated in Super over a lifetime.

Lets say that for the entire financial year this $1m was held in a non interest bearing bank account within Super.

This person withdraws $100k as a pension, the remaining Super balance now $900k.

Is it fair that this person pays tax on withdrawing their own money from Super?

It is my opinion only EARNINGS of the fund should be eligible for taxation.

And to make things simple, perhaps just apply marginal tax rates to EARNINGS of the fund once preservation age is reached.
 
nah Humid
plenty of people do not have any numbers in that box ...... and by people i mean peeps that do really hard jobs at their own risk .......... the sort that if they do not go out and look for their own work every day then they do not get paid type peeps.

That don’t pay tax?
 
Humid said:
What did people do prior to this?
It’s not like it’s been around forever.
Click to expand...

A few things.

First, pretty much anyone could get a job without major difficulty. So someone in their 50’s who just got made redundant only needed to apply to a few factories or the public service and they’d be back in work in no time.

Second is the dole was dead easy for anyone not in emploment to get and with no making people jump through endless hoops applying for jobs they’ve no chance of getting.

Third is that banks paid decent interest rates on deposits not the joke they are today.

That latter point in particular forced a lot of people into shares as the only way they could get even a modest return on their funds.

In any event, why shouldn’t someone choose to invest outside of super (itself arguably a tax avoidance rort) in order to avoid reliance on welfare? This is a stock market forum after all so presumably those here have at least some interest in investing and making a profit.
 
Smurf1976 said:
Third is that banks paid decent interest rates on deposits not the joke they are today.

That latter point in particular forced a lot of people into shares as the only way they could get even a modest return on their funds.
.
Click to expand...

That is the big one smurf, a mate of mine had a huge win on selling a block 12 years ago, made $1m retired and put it in a SMSF term deposit 10% P/A.
Now he get 2.5%, so bought a few shares, which have gone down.

Well things aren't so rosy now, he will qualify for the pension, real soon.
 
brisman said:
No one is forcing you to be overweight in tax and dividend paying Australian companies and have all your investments in super.
Click to expand...
The issue affects investments outside of super not just within it.

As for the choice of what to invest in, there’s a simple solution.

Put interest rates up to a decent level and that kills two birds with the one stone.

First it enables those seeking a decent return on low risk investments to achieve it. That would mostly be older people.

Second it should bring down house prices which benefits mostly younger people.

The property developers and banks would be outright fuming at the thought though.
 
sptrawler said:
Well things aren't so rosy now, he will qualify for the pension, real soon.
Click to expand...

The message I’m getting here is certainly that Labor is trying to steer people toward welfare.

I’m not opposed to the existence of the dole and the aged pension but both should be considered a last resort with the emphasis being on working, saving and investing to provide for yourself with everyone encouraged to do so.
 

I think the idea behind the changes, is to push SMSF people into Industry Funds, the problem is as usual with Labor's brain farts, it will backfire in a huge way, watch this space. lol

I've already worked out plan B, stuff Bill and his cronies.lol
 
Smurf1976 said:
I think a lot of people will have worked out a way around it by the time it comes in and that’s the silliest aspect of the whole thing.
Click to expand...
IMO the ones who will suffer from this the most are the 40 year olds, the problem will be two fold.
One their parents will spend the inheritance, as they will be forced to.
Secondly, by the time they get to pension age, it will be an annuity and it won't be sunshine and lollypops.

IMO there is an underlying reason, why our education system, is dumbing down our kids.
 

So the company pays the government tax and then the government gives that to you

Welfare ring a bell
 
Humid said:
So the company pays the government tax and then the government gives that to you

Welfare ring a bell
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be easier, to just apply a progressive tax on super pensions, as they proposed last election?
Rather than a one size fits all dumb ar$e approach?
 
sptrawler said:
Wouldn't it be easier, to just apply a progressive tax on super pensions, as they proposed last election?
Rather than a one size fits all dumb ar$e approach?
Click to expand...

Then everyone would hate them
This is class warfare man started with a union RC and the cherry on top cut penalty rates....announced by a smiling filthy rich banker which rhymes with....
 
Smurf1976 said:
Put interest rates up to a decent level and that kills two birds with the one stone.

First it enables those seeking a decent return on low risk investments to achieve it. That would mostly be older people.
Click to expand...

I think interest rates have to be left to market forces, because regardless of the rate, 50% of people are losers.

High interest rates are great for those with term deposits in the bank. But for shareholders, interest rates are like gravity on company profits. That means lower dividends and lower share price growth.

In housing, high rates keep down house prices which, on the surface, may sound great for first time buyers. But if you've got a mortgage and you're struggling to meet your repayments because the interest rates are so high, you're at risk of defaulting on your mortgage.
 
Humid said:
Then everyone would hate them
This is class warfare man started with a union RC and the cherry on top cut penalty rates....announced by a smiling filthy rich banker which rhymes with....
Click to expand...
Oh well everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
 
Smurf1976 said:
I find it truly bizarre that government would want to encourage people onto welfare rather than have them provide for themselves.
Click to expand...

I think you’d take a 10k hit on half a mill if that sort of money is going to hurt you I think you’ll end up on the pension anyway
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How to avoid Shorten's plan to abolish the refund of excess franking credits
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
13K
Value Collector
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...