- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,382
- Reactions
- 17,785
As a broad concept that makes a lot of sense.
It also reduces the incentive to find ways around it if the tax rates are modest.
As a broad concept that makes a lot of sense.Personally I think the way to go is widen the tax net and reduce the rates.
It will certainly be interesting, I wont get into a debate about it or the NG or the CGT any more, because it has all become too emotional IMO.Detailed analysis in ABC on the issue of Labour reducing dividend imputation . The Coalition is saying that 84% of people affected by the proposal have a taxable income less than $37k. But what does that actually mean ?
For example consider this scenario which is probably close to those who have done well in their working life.
In a recent submission to a House of Representatives Inquiry, the Grattan Institute gave the following example.
"Take the example of a self-funded retiree couple with a $3.2 million super balance, plus their own home, and $200,000 in Australian shares held outside super. Even drawing $130,000 a year in superannuation income, and $15,000 a year in dividend income, they would report a combined taxable income of just $15,000 and pay no income tax whatsoever."
Will Labor's dividend imputation policy overwhelmingly affect the low paid?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-30/fact-check-labors-dividend-imputation-policy/10626204
My personal belief is the suggested changes won't affect the 'rich' at all, they hold their assetts in trusts and other vehicles and structures.i feel super is complicating this debate.
what about the individuals in that report that are outside of the super structure, it is significant
they get the refund because they are low income earners
why should they not get the refund, its double dipping, taking from one member of the community and handing it to the scabs who live on welfare, community housing, DSP fraudsters etc
Just another load of BS, that gets pedelled to the ill informed, which they regurgitate with gay abandon.Because your superannuation sits outside your will when you die, superannuation is used as a key part of estate planning by the wealthy – that is, saving a lot of money to pass on to your children as an inheritance. As Australia does not have death duties, this wealth is passed down tax free.
This leads to significant intergenerational wealth transfer and, ultimately, reduces social mobility and exacerbates economic inequality.
Another view on how the current dividend imputation rebate scheme is working
Taxpayers should not be subsidising lifestyle of wealthy retirees
.....The various tax concessions in the superannuation system allow high-income earners to build up very large super balances. Those with the means can sacrifice part of their income to put extra money into superannuation, tax free. Many high-income earners operate their superannuation funds as vehicles to minimise tax and build up large capital savings.
As a result of such incentives, the aim of wealthy retirees is to live off the earnings of the dividends from their self-managed super funds, but not to draw down on the capital by selling any shares.
Because your superannuation sits outside your will when you die, superannuation is used as a key part of estate planning by the wealthy – that is, saving a lot of money to pass on to your children as an inheritance. As Australia does not have death duties, this wealth is passed down tax free.
This leads to significant intergenerational wealth transfer and, ultimately, reduces social mobility and exacerbates economic inequality.
The current imputation cash refund system is, essentially, a reverse death duty: low and middle-income earners are subsidising the estates of the very wealthy by giving them cash payments from general revenue – that is, from all taxpayers’ contributions to the federal budget – so they don’t have to draw down on their own savings but can hoard that money for their own kids.
It’s both unfair and, at an annual cost of more than $5billion in forgone revenue annually, unsustainable.
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/bu...tyle-of-wealthy-retirees-20190206-p50w1u.html
No franking credit, for the lower income spouse.Perhaps we should introduce Death Taxes too? Shorten really has managed to brainwash many people into thinking that paying MORE tax is a good thing. Although I suspect that supporters of tax hikes, are not those who would personally have to pay those taxes.
Just remember, you will retire one day too, and after 40 odd years of giving away 30% - 40% of your salary to the Government every year you will now have no salary, and may not be excited by the prospect of continuing to pay high rates of tax. Furthermore, you might not want the Government to receive a windfall of your hard-earned savings when you die.
I would rather they taxed the pension, than change the franking credit system, it doesn't just effect pensioners. like I said earlier, there isn't many ways for a blue collar worker to get ahead, these changes are closing all the avenues. It will end up a drop in living standards, for the working class. IMO15% tax on super contributions, tax free in pension stage, the hoohah over franking rebates really smacks of children having a lolly taken away from them before they get fed their dinner.
a low income worker (like someone that scrubs toilets 3 days a week) and has some CBA shares might get a refund from the ATO of $600.
that person will NOT get that $600 under labor. they will lose $600 'income' from their pocket when old mate up the road on $400K pa does NOT LOSE ONE CENT.
Just introduce a progressive tax on super pensions,
sure, happy to help the discussion with actuals ....Can you please expand and explain how that works?
Thx
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?