13th Mar 2018

Labor targets wealthy retirees with $59b tax plan

Labor declares war on wealthy retirees
Janelle Ward

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has declared war on wealthy Australians who own shares with a plan to raise $59 billion over the next 10 years by axing cash refunds for excess imputation tax credits claimed by super funds.

Mr Shorten will announce the scrapping of the rebate in a speech to the Chifley Institute at the KPMG offices in Sydney today. This weekend, Labor faces a threat from the Greens as it seeks to hold onto the marginal seat of Batman.

Mr Shorten says the policy change will target about 200,000 of an estimated 600,000 self-managed super funds (SMSF) in Australia. A small number of “low-income, high-wealth” retirees would also be affected.

The policy would not apply to 92 per cent of the 12.8 million Australians who lodge annual tax returns, he says.



“Every dollar that slips through these loopholes is a dollar that cannot be invested in the Australian people and their potential,” Mr Shorten will say, according to a copy of his speech.

“Every dollar allocated to tidy little arrangements for people who already have millions of dollars is a dollar that can’t be used to repair the budget and bring Australia back to surplus.

“Firstly, this change only affects a very small number of shareholders who currently have no tax liability and use their imputation credits to receive a cash refund. These people will no longer receive a cash refund, but they will not be paying any additional tax. Let me repeat that, a small number of people will no longer receive a cash refund, but they will not be paying any additional tax.”

Mr Shorten claims the policy would return the imputation system, originally designed to stop double taxation, back to the original design implemented by the Bob Hawke-Paul Keating Government in 1987.

The scheme was expanded by the Howard Government in 2000 and changed again in 2006.

“The Howard-Costello subsidy entirely distorts the original design of the dividend imputation system,” Mr Shorten will say.

“In fact, it makes Australia the only OECD country with a fully refundable dividend imputation credit system. And every dollar our opponents spend on preserving exemptions for the top end of town is a dollar they have to cut from schools and hospitals, extracted from middle Australia in tax increases or forcing taxpayers to pay more interest on the nation’s debt.”

The Labor policy, according to Fairfax Media, is aimed at raising $5.6 billion in 2020 and a similar amount every year, equivalent to about $4800 on average each year for every taxpayer affected.

Do you agree with the mooted changes if Labor were to win office? Would you be affected?

Related articles:
Stop property punt
SMSF balances fall short
Super failing women





COMMENTS

To make a comment, please register or login
Grateful
13th Mar 2018
10:08am
Absolutely agree. The system was introduced so that there would be no double taxation i.e. the company paying tax and then the shareholder also having to declare that tax on their personal tax return.
BUT, people who DON'T pay ANY tax now receive that tax that the company paid as a cash refund!!
They pay NO tax remember so they are not being double taxed as the system was designed to address. So, why should they then receive a refund?
The proposal is for those very high wealth people and those with very clever tax arrangements who pay no tax at all, but, still receive Billions of dollars every year in refunds from the tax office.
Those people will not receive the refund BUT will NOT be paying any extra tax!!!
The current system is a GROSS distortion of the intended plan,the same as the 50% reduction inn capital gains tax, both implemented by a government desperate to retain power and causing massive repercussions on the overwhelming majority of Australians just to benefit the few.
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Mar 2018
10:20am
Yes, but the ''taxation'' is paid multiple times because of the assets test depriving people of the pension. This is another STUPID brain fizz that hasn't been thought out. Many of those affected don't have incomes as high as the aged pension. They will have a much greater incentive to squander their savings, gift them, or over-invest in housing.

Double taxation? Many affected are paying tax again and again and again and again and again. They paid tax when they put earned the money. They paid tax on the investment earnings. And now they pay a huge penalty for having those assets because they don't get a pension. How much more can retirees take? Shorten will NOT be elected if he pursues this IDIOTIC policy change.
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
10:54am
Correct OGR - the entire tax system and retirement packaging system needs to be overhauled NOW, and the Hidden Tax On Retirees via the assets test should be abolished forthwith and replaced by the UGRI (below), and income,fringe benefits and self-gifting through companies taxed above that according to the income tax scales.

If everyone was paid an UGRI, and tax came in at the tax free threshold - $18,200 plus single pension $23.254.40 = each individual (if all were paid at single pension rate - another issue), would earn $41,454.40 before any tax kicked in - and that at the lowest level.

In order to accrue $18,200 at (say) 3% - a person would need income-bearing assets of $606,000+. All personal assets (under my scheme) would not be included.

So it stands to reason that the vast majority of shareholders who jump and run and hide whenever 'tax' is mentioned in relation to their shares -would NOT be affected at all, many would be affected marginally if at all by paying at the lowest rate of income tax, and ONLY the fattest cats would pay.

The fear-mongering from the fat cat set is all about protecting themselves from paying ANY tax- and anyone who falls for it is a fool, pure and simple.

To get to the next level of income tax - $37000 - at 3% return on investment you would need to have a shares portfolio of $1.23million - and not too many have that.

You may juggle these figures as you like... I'm not sure what the current returns on shares are and they vary per portfolio, of course, but the figures are pretty simple.
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
10:54am
Correct OGR - the entire tax system and retirement packaging system needs to be overhauled NOW, and the Hidden Tax On Retirees via the assets test should be abolished forthwith and replaced by the UGRI (below), and income,fringe benefits and self-gifting through companies taxed above that according to the income tax scales.

If everyone was paid an UGRI, and tax came in at the tax free threshold - $18,200 plus single pension $23.254.40 = each individual (if all were paid at single pension rate - another issue), would earn $41,454.40 before any tax kicked in - and that at the lowest level.

In order to accrue $18,200 at (say) 3% - a person would need income-bearing assets of $606,000+. All personal assets (under my scheme) would not be included.

So it stands to reason that the vast majority of shareholders who jump and run and hide whenever 'tax' is mentioned in relation to their shares -would NOT be affected at all, many would be affected marginally if at all by paying at the lowest rate of income tax, and ONLY the fattest cats would pay.

The fear-mongering from the fat cat set is all about protecting themselves from paying ANY tax- and anyone who falls for it is a fool, pure and simple.

To get to the next level of income tax - $37000 - at 3% return on investment you would need to have a shares portfolio of $1.23million - and not too many have that.

You may juggle these figures as you like... I'm not sure what the current returns on shares are and they vary per portfolio, of course, but the figures are pretty simple.
George
13th Mar 2018
1:48pm
Shorten is a fool, and his Treasurer, Chris Bowen, is pathetic and cannot come up with any decent ideas. Bowen helped Labor to lose the last 2 elections, and will do so again.

Trebor, no need to say it twice! However, I agree with your comments "If everyone was paid an UGRI, and tax came in at the tax free threshold - $18,200 plus single pension $23.254.40 = each individual (if all were paid at single pension rate - another issue), would earn $41,454.40 before any tax kicked in - and that at the lowest level." as a possible solution, i.e. an Universal Aged Pension system without Assets or Income Tests based on Single Rates only, but with actual Income taxed above specified limits after allowing capped non-taxable income from Super.

BTW, I cannot understand how the wealthy can get an actual refund if they are indeed wealthy - get the tax loopholes removed, the morons in Labor! Implement a Minimum Tax system based on Gross Income! Then they don't need such stupid rules to plug holes!
Veritas
13th Mar 2018
4:56pm
I so agree George, especially about that pathetic excuse for a shadow treasurer - Chris Bowen - God help us if he get's his hands on the nation's coffers.
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
7:37pm
Double tap - not something you do to your friends. Don't know how that happened.
Mork
13th Mar 2018
10:10am
About time.
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Mar 2018
10:21am
Yep! Let's just eliminate ALL gain from working and saving and make EVERYONE poverty-stricken in retirement. Great idea? Tax them over and over and over again, deny them any pension benefit, make them blow all their savings and live out their old age in hardship. And when NOBODY wants to work or save, ask WHY?
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
10:56am
Read again, Rainey. Do some figures.... you're jumping up and down and responding to the fear-mongering of the real fat cats.
Adrianus
13th Mar 2018
12:02pm
Mork you must be one of the few who don't have any money tied up in a super fund? It doesn't matter what fund you're in because ALL Super funds will be affected. This is a time when you really shouldn't believe the bullshit!
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
12:39pm
I bring you the AGRO..... you won't get a concession for money deposited in a super fund, but you won't be taxed on that income derived from that investment, either, since it is set aside and untouched for retirement.

ONLY when you retire - if your income AFTER you are paid your AGRO is sufficient - you will pay some tax, ONLY on the income.

It's a good deal.
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Mar 2018
3:36pm
It's a good deal for people who have a pension, or for those who have high incomes and pay tax. As usual, it stuffs the retirement plans of the hard-working, self-sacrificing battlers who saved for a reasonably adequate retirement but are a long way from wealthy.
Rickrick
13th Mar 2018
10:15am
I suppose every politician will be immune though
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
11:15am
Of course - that's why they won't go for the AGRO.....
Rae
14th Mar 2018
9:18am
Well they got a 5% parries last month which says it all really doesn't it.
Pamjean
13th Mar 2018
10:19am
It is not only wealthy people who will be affected. I get a nice little bonus every year which is much appreciated.
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Mar 2018
10:23am
It forms a substantial portion of the income of many low income earning retirees who don't qualify for a pension. They will have a strong incentive to dispose of all assets, spend up big, and put their hands out. Is he TRYING to wreck the economy?
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Mar 2018
10:23am
Guess a lot of retirees will dump their shares and invest in other assets. What will that do to share prices?
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
10:57am
Can you explain in plain English why you should get a tax refund when you pay no tax?
ozirules
13th Mar 2018
11:24am
as I understand it Trebor, I get a tax refund from my few shares because the company paid this tax on my behalf although my total earnings for the year put me below the tax threshold. So I am only getting back what tax I paid in the first place through franking. The franking system is in place to ensure investors who are liable to pay tax cannot avoid it as it's paid before dividends are distributed.

The oppositions plan is to treat income from share dividends differently from other sources of income and that is an unreasonable proposition.
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
11:39am
So..... how exactly to YOU go about paying for franking?

Dividends are paid out of net profit, neh (or theoretically so - but we know that isn't the accounting' case - if it were countless companies permanently in the red would not e giving out dividends.

If the company you hold shares in pays tax on the income from which you derive dividends, and then claims that as a tax deduction... even though that tax paid by the company may reduce the dividend pool - HOW are you paying for it?

That company is simply paying its way, as it should. You are simply receiving income, and are thus liable for tax on it. If the tax paid by the company offsets your personal liability -the tax you are liable for should be neutral - not negative so as to recoup a return.
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Mar 2018
1:10pm
Trebor, the bottom line is that we all calculate tax incorrectly. Net tax = total tax paid LESS total benefits/pensions received. So in fact many pensioners pay far less tax, despite having earned far more over a lifetime, than those who scrimped and saved to be as self-sufficient as possible in old age.

We pay tax on earnings. We pay tax on investment earnings. Then we are tax over and over again in retirement by not getting a pension. And yet people with minimal incomes are denied a tax rebate while the wealthy fat-cats who earn enough to pay tax still get their franking credits. Not sure how anyone can justify that! But what I can be certain of is that a massive dump of shares will follow this policy introduction, probably driving more investment in - guess what? REAL ESTATE. Pushing house prices up further! Great idea! Got a problem. Let's introduce DUMB policies to make it a thousand times worse.
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
1:53pm
Yes - but you've got to have money in continuity to have all those things, Rainey - try working like a dog for years and then being dumped and ending up with zero assets and starting again.

I fine life experience and will solidify your thinking.

The retirement packaging system is flawed, we all know - and unbalanced towards the fat cats - and deliberately so.

That is the problem. People with a little share portfolio imagine themselves tycoons, when the reality is that the majority of any shares in any corp etc are held by an insider few. the rest are just punting and hoping the horse will run on the day, since they are unsecured and are not in receipt of remuneration for board member, president etc that the insider group hand to themselves.

You don't seriously believe all those stories about poor bankrupt business people, poor as church mice, while they continue to live in multi-million dollar mansions etc, do you?

You don't really think they're 'one of us', do you?

If YOU went bust the bank would want your home.... but if you use cut-outs - all is good...
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Mar 2018
3:52pm
Trebor, I DID work like a dog for years to pull my family out of extreme poverty, and then I worked like a dog to ensure my partner and I didn't live in poverty in old age. If I didn't now work, well past retirement age, I'd be draining my limited savings at the rate of $25K a year, rising with inflation, just to keep pace with a pensioner. And that's NOT counting the $38,000 I'll pay out this year in medical costs for my partner and I, and the $9,000 I'll pay out in about two years to save my eyesight. Like many, I worked like a dog and saved to cover those costs, and now, if I didn't work, that saving would be costing me so heavily that it would be worthless. But because I work and pay tax, I'll keep those franking credits. How is that reasonable?

The tax is paid by the company. To only give it back to those with high enough incomes to pay tax is yet another gift to the rich at the expense of the battlers who keep this country afloat. It's unjust. It's STUPID in the extreme. And it will harm the economy.
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
7:42pm
I see your point, Rainey. This system needs a full review and full rationalisation.

I also have a vague idea that healthcare should be part of full pension, but like many such thought bubbles, I've done no costing etc, so I'm on a par with government of two parties on that one.

It always seems, with all of these issues, to come down to government shirking its responsibility for revenue capture from those who are making off with the mine.

I've panned the 'globalisation' trade deals the Cambra Clownshow sign us up to, and strive to find ways to raise this country out of its deepening and darkening morass.

I have only the power of the written word, since at heart I am an extremely shy person- so no - I am not politician material, just an advisory type.
Captain
14th Mar 2018
7:02pm
Shorten is most probaly flying a flag. There may be a revised version sometime in the future. He knows that a lot of pensioners/part pensioners and small SMSF's receive only a few thousand in Imputation credit whilst the top ten percent of SMSF's receive about 90% of the credit.

Labor will most probaly set a sliding scale, like our current tax scales. The imputation credit will be paid for the first $xx then as you get more and more credit you receive less and less credit until you reach, say, 47%.

Then again the idiots in Canberra should review the entire income/tax system and make it simpler than it currently is (and implement it).

It is all too hard for them and they will lose the donations from their masters, because their masters receive considerable considerations from their lap dogs.
OnlyGenuineRainey
22nd Mar 2018
7:39am
What an utterly STUPID way to apply tax. Complicated, Potentially very unfair. Loopholes everywhere!

The refund of franking credits is CORRECT AND FAIR. It ensures tax is paid at the appropriate rate for each recipient of dividends. If the wealthy are escaping the tax net, then increase the top tax rate and reduce the claimable deductions. Changing tax on dividends to make the poorest pay more than their appropriate rate is NOT a solution, no matter how it's modified and played with.
Jim
13th Mar 2018
10:27am
Typical union approach to be divisive, convince the working class that all the problems of the working class are because the rich have too much and it should be re distributed and given to the the less well off in society. I am not sure I understand exactly what Shorten is trying to do, is he complaining that people who have shares that have the tax paid on them and then claim the tax back at tax time because their income is below the threshold so are therefor not liable for the tax paid? He is stating he is going to collect $5.9 billion each year for 10 years and he is collecting this tax from 8% of tax payers, sounds like a nice fairytale Bill, for those on this site that also have an interest in UK politics, Jeremy Corbyn has been using the same divisive tactics and trying to create a rift between the so called rich and poor.
Cowboy Jim
13th Mar 2018
11:25am
Yeah right: Bernie Saunders (US) Jeremy Corbyn (UK) and our own
Bill Shorten - the cream of the Socialist Crop!!
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
1:54pm
Double anti-jeopardy for those on the inside is not divisive? Well - I never....
Emps
13th Mar 2018
2:23pm
The majority shareholders in corporations are other corporations, not wealthy insider individuals.
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
7:43pm
.. and who owns those? The same Usual Suspects in many cases.
Concerned
13th Mar 2018
10:36am
If you are paying NO TAX get that No tax why are you receiving the imputation credit as cash. You have already and stil will receive the dividends. You will still be able to claim imputation credits to reduce tax. All you will not do is reclaim money you did not spend on imputation credits. You are lucky there are imputation credits. You are lucky to have enough shares to allow you to reduce tour taxation to zero. It will not affect those on low income, only those on high income. It is time to stop payments like these. It is also time to stop the tax avoidance with negative gearing, and trust funds. It is thought out and it is a great idea. The only people complaining are those who have wealth and accountants that abuse the tax loopholes set up by Howard and Costello to give money to the haves
Circum
13th Mar 2018
12:36pm
The imputation credit is like a receipt from the taxation dept that confirms your share company has paid part of YOUR dividend to the tax dept to hold (they like holding money) until the financial year is over.The money is then applied towards any tax you have to pay or be REFUNDED to you depending on your income.The money was always yours and not the tax depts.
The number of shares you own does not reduce your taxation to zero.Would like you to give me an example if you would be so kind.

If you think stopping people getting a refund is closing some loophole then you agree that its ok for a persons income to reduce by 14% (next door neighbour) whose income last year was approx. $7000 which included $1005 of franking credits.No he doesn't get any govt benefits.I gather you think he is wealthy too.
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
1:57pm
So what we're talking about here is the ATO not trusting companies to do the right thing, so they hold a portion of imputed dividends in case the whole shemozle drops out, so the board etc can't do a runner with it?

Show me the link... I'd like to follow this up properly and fairly.
Big Al
13th Mar 2018
2:25pm
Time for your afternoon nap, Concerned! This is all too much for you to take in. I hope you and Bill will live happily ever after - he will be ok - he has got his indexed tax free parliamentary pension to look forward to - and the rest of us can go to.....
OnlyGenuineRainey
14th Mar 2018
12:50pm
Concerned, what this proposal does is continues to give a substantial benefit to higher income earners, and deprive low income earners of thousands per year. They ARE paying tax by not being dependant on the taxpayer for pension handouts. They are losing up to $36,000 a year because they saved, and now you want them taxed AGAIN! Great idea! While all those who DON'T save get up to $36000 a year (or more with concessions and rent assistance) out of the taxpayer purse, let's tax the savers who save the country $36000 or more per year ANOTHER FEW THOUSAND ON TOP OF WHAT THEY ARE PAYING BY NOT GETTING A PENSION. But ONLY if they have a low income. Leave the rich alone. Just PRETEND you are attacking the wealthy.

Well, all I can say is when there isn't enough to pay pensions because all the savers were attacked and forced into hardship, I hope the idiots who supported these attacks enjoy their starvation diet.
Tib
13th Mar 2018
10:39am
Touch my super and you won't get my vote. In fact with the feminist crap you go on with you probably won't get it anyway. But who do I vote for ? The Libs are unacceptable so what's left?
George
13th Mar 2018
1:44pm
No one, Tib!
If you don't have a decent Independent to vote for, choose whoever is closest as a Retiree supporter as your first choice, and more importantly, ensure you Vote Last the current seat-warmer from Liberal, Labor or Greens in particular.
Tib
13th Mar 2018
1:47pm
George I can see why so many Americans don't vote. Some days I feel like throwing my vote in the bin.
Retired Knowall
14th Mar 2018
9:43am
The only way that I can see to cause a major disruption is to vote for Independents and remove the main parties. America voted in a Maverick and will have to put up with the fallout for 4 years, BUT, the message will be loud and clear....The people Choose the Govt.
....Spread the message....Don't vote for the major parties.
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
10:39am
Hmm 'wealthy Australians'- 'wealthy retirees'.....

Companies are one legal entity -the shareholder another. both gain income and thus both are subject to tax.

It's a bit like negative gearing and concessional capital gains - you either get one or the other, but you don't get both, should be the rule.

Now if a person owns shares and those shares earn income - that income should be subject to income tax. If the company has already paid it, that income tax should be neutral, and under no circumstances should a shareholder receive a tax refund for not paying tax.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Need for a Universal Aged Pension (Universal Guaranteed Retirement Income - AGRI - what's a word starting with O so it can be AGRO)) to cover those who are retired, and then income tax is levied against share dividends in toto (small town north of Tasmania - very wet climate). In most cases the amount recouped from share dividends, after taking into account tax free threshold, would be neglible - so I can't see why the whining.... the only ones caught out would be the fat cats who've already had their sweet ride, mostly through a tax concessioned income during working life in many ways.

As for those Australians NOT retired but wealthy - they should be fairly paying the taxes... and definitely not copping a refund on top of dividends because the current rules allow a company to pay tax on dividend money first. How many free rides do they want?

No wonder the cost of living is getting out of control for the many, while the few romp home with riches for doing nothing.

It's daylight robbery.
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
10:59am
Damn that's UGRI - not AGRI... ummm ...... Australian guaranteed Retirement Offset.... that does it - AGRO!!

Right now - all AGRO applicants take a number and sit down and wait..... that'll work....
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
11:44am
Better still call Colonel C'Link on the phone - that'll get you sorted out for AGRO much more quickly......

Just funning.... the Australian Guaranteed Retirement Offset is a solid policy and a core promise..... I'd hate to make all my constituents AGRO... but they will be anyway based on that core promise.... so I guess I'll just have to make you all AGRO so you won't be so aggro...

Torture a pun long enough and it will yield up no truth but only what you want to hear...
Concerned
13th Mar 2018
10:41am
Labor will not be taking the money from you. They will just not be paying you money after you have used facitilities - I take it you do go to the doctor and collect the refund, you do drive on roads, paid for by TAX but you pay no TAX NO TAX NO TAX. Can you not see this is a little tipped in the direction of those that already have wealth.
Jim
13th Mar 2018
12:13pm
So, what you are saying in effect is that if you pay no tax you have no right to complain because you use all the services and facilities that the tax payer has paid for, the likely hood is that people who have earned enough to have a few shares have worked hard all their lives paid tax at an extremely higher rate than is the case today, but you don't think they are entitled to recoup the tax that has been paid on the earnings from their shares, keeping in mind you can only recoup the tax if your total income is below the tax free threshold. So continue to tax the retirees even if their income is below the threshold, what a great idea and typical of the left wing who want to continually create a divided people otherwise there is no platform for them to be voted in by creating a false us and them scenario it's called the politics of envy.
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
7:48pm
Once more around the park, Jim - we are ALL taxpayers - every transaction involves taxation, so every time we buy a beer of back a horse (legit) the Guv gets its cut....The House Always Wins....

Many become bogged down over Income Tax, but that is only a small part of taxation, and the reality is that even those who currently pay no income tax usually have paid income tax all their lives - and those in retirement are now drawing on that part of Income and Other taxes that should rightly be going to their retirement.

Instead, it was hijacked into 'consolidated revenue', a monumental act of theft, and was thus turned into a politician's slush fund and plaything.

For those who are concerned over the 'cost' of social security - you should equally be looking at EVERY aspect of government expenditure to see where the REAL Black Hole costs are. NONE is sacred, and NONE has more importance than social security.
Tib
13th Mar 2018
10:45am
Shorten our super is not your piggy bank.
Cowboy Jim
13th Mar 2018
11:33am
Saw the thing coming - took all my super out when I was 64 years old
in one go. Had to give a reason why and stated in writing "fear of
Govt cash grab in the future". Was told by the Super people that was a very good reason. Spent the lot or almost the lot on things I liked doing like travelling the world and now Bill Shorten does not worry me one little bit and I sleep well at night. People 60+ should possibly look at such a scenario as well and young people will just not contribute one extra dime in super. Good one Bill!
fred
13th Mar 2018
11:34am
the labor socialists want to tax the self funded pensions only and not once but twice and forget they get their Government pensions tax free which all taxpayers pay into . Bill Shorten is a bloody liar and divisive and spends spends our money
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
1:58pm
It's all of them, fred- not just Shorten - they get you one way or another.
Essdubbya
13th Mar 2018
10:54am
Totally agree with OnlyGenuineRainey
Where is our alternative government?
Another example of Labor stupidity and a demonstration of their lack of understanding.
This proposed change will see fewer investments in the stockmarket, withdrawal of investments in the stockmarket and a greater expansion of the overblown property market. Refunds of franking credits are, at the moment, one of the primary reasons for investing in (safe) shares. Because of the changes to super capping it at $1.6M many investors will be paying tax on their investments outside super. Imagine the permutations and calculations the financial advisers will be happily plying us with.
fred
13th Mar 2018
11:09am
Retirees on Government pensions do not pay tax on their pension income ...... So why should self funded retirees pay tax on their superannuation income including dividends ? The self funded retirees will pay tax on their dividends if they do not get the rebate of franking credits as before . Simply it is refund of their share of the Company tax that was prepaid on their dividends before the company dividend was paid to shareholders .
. No equity here ,one group of Australians get the pension tax" free " the other Self funded Australians pay tax on their retirement earnings .
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
7:51pm
Department of First Class Pensioners and Department of Second Class Pensioners ..... used to be a Department of Third Class Pensioners as well, but I forced Howard to cough up utilities allowance for disabled people, who were doing it damned hard in many cases.
Rae
14th Mar 2018
9:42am
Exactly so fred. Different rules for everyone apparently.

One thing I do know is it won't affect those with all their investments in tax haven SIVs.

No billionaire with brains would be invested in Australian banks now anyway. Far too risky.
Baby Huey
13th Mar 2018
11:21am
The pigs want back into Farmer Jones house.
mike
13th Mar 2018
11:24am
To idiot Grateful, it is not hitting the wealthy but the middle income and retirees who worked and saved and invested in our country bu buying shares. I am a self funded retiree and share dividends are my income and why should I be taxed twice. I am NOT wealthy and the refund is very welcome. Shorten has proven he does not want to run the country but enjoy a very cushy lob in opposition where he doesnt have to do anything but make outrages decisions. He could be Prime Minister but every time he gets close he does something very stupid and loses again. he does not want to be prime Minister.
Big Al
13th Mar 2018
12:08pm
Suggest we all get together and ensure Short-on ideas never does become PM! The bloke is a wealth hazard! Now here is an idea, instead of trying to rip pensioners and retirees off, why doesn't he advocate reducing grants to states, such as Victoria, who are handing out pay deals to union mates, such as the fire fighters, like it is confetti? There must be a magic money tree somewhere in Victoria, that only the ALP knows about.
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
1:59pm
Good comment apart from the 'idiot' name-calling, mike. Tone it down and respect the right of others to a view.
Rae
14th Mar 2018
9:48am
I think you have it there mike. Neither the LNP nor the ALP really want to win the next election. Hard times coming perhaps due to the austerity measures.

Taking money out of the real economy. A few billions here and a few billions there. It soon adds up.

This will be billions less retirees spend. Just another hit on the same group.

Savers after a few decades who they now consider to be "wealthy" as it's the last money left to grab.
old frt
13th Mar 2018
11:27am
Another example of 3 dollar Bill (a complete phoney )Shorten
All our industry & retail superfunds rely on imputation credits to grow our super
If he was genuine he would include politicians pensions in the taxable pie in all future tax changes
Cowboy Jim
13th Mar 2018
11:36am
Hey old frt - just recently visited the Cook Islands and they do have a real $3 bill issued by the bank and traded in shops and pubs. Went
to the ANZ Bank in Avarua and got myself some of those notes. We might have to call him $7 Bill Shorten,eh?
fred
13th Mar 2018
11:40am
so true old frt It is plainly an attack on SMSF members and also all super funds industry and retails funds . the idiot cant get that it also will effect every Australian who has superannuation taken out of their wages or top up with their after their tax savings. Labor politicians and also Liberals are that dumb they do not know the current tax and superannuation laws and are making changes based on their marxist ideologies
StorminNormin
13th Mar 2018
11:40am
Yes and while Shorten is about it, he should include the family home in the assets test for receipt of the taxpayer funded aged pension. There are many around the country who have made good capital gain on the family home over the years, there children have grown up and left the family home and only mum and dad living in quite valuable homes. What is wrong with them downsizing and using the funds from the house sale to supplement their retirement instead of expecting the taxpayer to supplement their lifestyle.
fred
13th Mar 2018
11:46am
why dont you live in Russia or North Korea and live in Government homes . you and the Government have no business in what people do with their family homes that are paid for with after tax savings . and since when is not ok to make a profit on sale of any asset , car or house . What is wrong is you complaining and wanting some handout . other tax payers are not supplementing lifestyles but yours
Triss
13th Mar 2018
12:19pm
Like I’ve said many times before, Stormin, folk like you rant over the minuscule gains on a pensioner’s house but are quite happy for your taxes to supplement ex politicians’ multi million dollar mansions, their free business class holidays, their huge indexed pensions, even though they have highly paid jobs as well, the list goes on.
I suppose it’s easier to bully elderly pensioners, takes courage to have a go at the government, they’ve got the money to slap you back.
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
2:04pm
Been done to death, Normin - the answer is NO. The family home is not a business asset that accrues tax deductions along the way and should not be treated as a business in retirement.

If a government wishes to include it as a Hidden Tax on retirees, by reducing their paid-for pension - that government must repay the upkeep, mortgage costs, running costs and so forth of that home, indexed from date of purchase.

Like back-paying us all for time taken off to tend to our own children - the windfall would be most welcome.....

I, for one, took a year off to tend my son, at a time when I was on the today value of $300k pa - six months would be fine, thanks...
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
2:06pm
The actual increase in value, taking into account all the costs etc, is around 3% pa for a home in a good area....well earned I'd say in return for propping up the banks magnificently for thirty years. You'd pay more than that annually in mortgae interest...

Your argument is scuppered.... looks like the Graf Spee off Montevideo..
Gra
13th Mar 2018
10:57pm
Sounds like StorminNormin has been on the dole all his life and doesn't own his own home so has nothing to lose if pensioners were required to sell the family home to support themself in retirement.
OnlyGenuineRainey
14th Mar 2018
6:57am
Actually, I agree in part with StorminNormin, only because currently a pensioner couple can own a $2million home and collect handouts while one who settles for a $400K home and has $900,000 in the bank - and therefore is much poorer - gets nothing. In fairness, the home should be counted if there is to be an assets test. What is UNFAIR is that there is one at all. Assets are NOT income. They are investments purchased with income that has ALREADY BEEN TAXED. Denying someone a pension because they have assets is multiple-taxing, AND it's detrimental because it provides an incentive for more people to manipulate or waste money and be an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer.

Tax income or deemed income and leave assets out of the picture completely except for calculating deemed income on assets where money is deliberately under-used. Currently, under-used money benefits the pensioner and costs the taxpayer. You can invest in cars, caravans, furniture, household items, etc. and value them very low, claiming they wouldn't yield much in a fire sale. You can invest in a house to live in. But don't you DARE invest in something that reduces reliance on the state and eases the burden on taxpayers. YOU WILL BE HARSHLY PUNISHED, no matter how low your income!
StorminNormin
13th Mar 2018
11:57am
Sounds like you enjoy ripping off the Australian taxpayer Fred!
Triss
13th Mar 2018
12:30pm
Rubbish, Stormin, the government is always changing rules to the detriment of age pensioners and it has a trickle down effect which allows people needing their five minutes of attention to parrot on about pensioner’s houses. If there was a straight universal pension like Trebor says pensioners would be out of the spotlight and their pension accepted like ex teachers, firemen, nurses etc.
Adrianus
13th Mar 2018
11:58am
Shorten tells us he is targeting Self Managed Superannuation Funds but in effect he is targeting all retirees especially the poor who will pay a the higher company rate of tax on dividends. Labor's policy also includes tax cuts but only for small business which means some retirees will be paying a higher rate of tax than a business pays. The rule was introduced to stop double dipping and now Shorten wants to double dip, but not for charities and non profit organisations.
Fabian ideology shouldn't be used to shape economic policy.
Rae
14th Mar 2018
10:10am
We all pay more tax than a business pays. Always have. Most businesses and business owners pay very little tax at all.

Last money left is always desirable. Just sell down Australian shares and reallocate. The way the banks are looking that might just save people from very big losses of capital.
edly
13th Mar 2018
12:00pm
This was an unsustainable rort introduced by Howard and Costello for their wealthy mates. If you do not qualify for the pension then you are not poor as some are suggesting.
Adrianus
13th Mar 2018
12:11pm
Ted, look at the facts. If you have had money in a Super Fund then you are a beneficiary of imputation.
Take an industry Super Fund with $1b invested in blue chips which pay 30% tax. The Industry Super Fund pays only 15% therefor at the moment the other 15% is returned to the Industry Super Fund by the ATO. Shorten is in affect raising the tax on every Super Fund by stealth. Does Batman mean that much?
Then again my best guess is that if elected he will do a backflip.
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Mar 2018
1:04pm
Correct, Ted. If you don't qualify for the pension, you are not POOR - because you worked your guts out, paid tax, went without luxuries to save, and planned for your old age. And now arseholes who didn't do any of those things want you stripped of everything you worked for so bludgers, cheats and spendthrifts can get handouts. And you think that's good for the country? When everyone gives up working and saving because it's futile, and we are all poor in old age, the idiots will wonder why the nation isn't doing well and can't afford fatter pensions for the handful who really need them,
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
2:07pm
I thought Hawke kicked this one off during his government of wrecking a silly nation...
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
2:08pm
Pension on income earned per fortnight tapers to zero at around $2000..something near that.... not poor if you can get that.
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Mar 2018
4:14pm
Trebor, you can earn a substantial income in retirement, combining super and retiree tax concessions, and not have a tax bill. Many with less than $25,000 a year in income (for a couple) will suffer a loss of thousands per year as a result of this policy. Think it through more carefully. You are not seeing the picture as it is.

Consider a retired couple with $820K in assets - 1/3rd of which are invested in shares. They may be achieving a 5% return (if they are lucky) and have no concessions. $5000 a year of the 5% is likely to be in franking credits refunded at year end. So their income will fall from $41250 per year (which is very little more than a pensioner when concessions are counted) to $36250 per annum. Sure, fools will argue that they can draw down on their savings, and if they are in early retirement phase, they will erode their savings very quickly and become increasingly more and more dependant on the government.

Someone with $41250 in income is NOT wealthy. A couple with $825K is NOT wealthy if it has to last them another 30 years. How much will that sum be worth in 30 years if inflation continues as it has for the past 3 decades? People saved this money to pay health expenses and for aged care, not to hand to the taxpayer so that the wealthy can continue getting fat tax refunds and those who didn't save can get fat handouts.

If the economy is to recover health, we need more people working and saving, and less asking for pensions. That can ONLY be achieved by ensuring battlers are rewarded for working and saving. The rich will always be rich. Nothing can hurt them. This policy isn't attacking the wealthy. It's attacking those who saw a need for more than the aged pension in old age and worked their guts out and went without to ensure they had it.

This year, my partner and I will cop well over $30,000 in health care costs. In two years time, it's estimated I'll need $9K to save my sight. I worked and saved to have that money, but if I wasn't still working, I'd lose the lot as punishment for accruing it. And I'd be a burden on the state. That makes NO SENSE.

We can only have more for the needy if we let people benefit from their endeavours and provide incentives to strive. This policy is going to cripple thousands who saved to be just a little better off in old age than pensioners. And that will drive many more to do as BigBear did - or to buy bigger houses - resulting in more economic problems.
Mad as hell
13th Mar 2018
5:16pm
OGR, I agree with your logic.
LNP and Greens are on the nose after the changes to the Pensioner Assets Test. Now Labour has a stench emanating from the party room. Who is going to look after pensioners?
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
7:53pm
Yes, Rainey - I was doing that for a while - paid no tax and always got a refund.
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
7:56pm
All these thoughts need to be aired NOW before the Guv, whoever that is at the time, starts doing these things.

I've said before - there are no unintended consequences - everything is game played long before it hits the news as a policy or an idea,so those who have done this game playing in advance (out of our pocket in one way or another) know full well what the ramifications of any such move will be.

Remember that they operate on the idea that you always have to break a few eggs to make an omelette - as long as those eggs are NEVER theirs or those of their cronies.
Rae
14th Mar 2018
10:16am
You can be quite wealthy and organise affairs to qualify for the pension. Couples do it a lot just before one hits the age they have to draw down super.

Not all government pensioners are poor.

Yes TREBOR self funded retirees with their own funds scare the fascist a lot as they can't be controlled easily.
Big Al
13th Mar 2018
12:09pm
So if Bill gets elected and, due to reduced yield, retirees sell their bank shares, then people contributing to super funds will see a substantially reduced super balance as the Bank shares tumble in value.. my understanding is that many of the super funds have substantial portfolios of bank shares and any other shares that provide franking credits .. . me thinks Bill has just dealt himself a loosing hand
Mad as hell
13th Mar 2018
6:49pm
Yep he just gave himself an uppercut.
VeryCaringBigBear
13th Mar 2018
7:28pm
It simply won't make any sense for people over retirement age to keep their super as they will be better off just pulling it out and paying tax on the earnings and the franking credits will be more than enough to pay their tax bill. Why have super if there are nil benefits but costs and lots of paperwork?
Rae
14th Mar 2018
10:23am
Yes VCB you are exactly right if people are relying on franking credits then the cost of a super fund doesn't make any sense compared to direct holdings.

I think both the ALP and the LNP are bent on destroying the super saving system and probably don't even realise it.

As for Bill at this point in history and with current policies and demographics I wouldn't want to be in power either if I was him.

I've been moving out of Australian shares into International for the past ten years and am so glad I have. Once the Australian market falls it will be decades coming back as far as I can see.

Franking credits aside the risk from banks now is just too high.
Kathleen
13th Mar 2018
12:14pm
Pensioners don’t do tax returns. Pensioners don’t have money for anything more than food and necessities. Mealy mouthed Scott Morrison is talking rubbish as usual.
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Mar 2018
4:01pm
And Shorten is an idiotic moron who can't think. The consequences of this stupidity would be horrendous. For one, it will guarantee many more pensioners taking much more from the taxpayer purse! And that might well result in lower pensions for all those on pensions now. Think before you support this. It's not what Shorten is pretending it is.
OnlyGenuineRainey
14th Mar 2018
7:14am
Actually, Kathleen, as much as I hate to endorse anything Morrison says, he's 1000% correct this time. Shorten is attacking retirees - not the wealthy retirees, but ALL RETIREES, including struggling pensioners.

The policy will take thousands annually from low-income part pensioners and those who are just over asset thresholds. They've already been hit hard by asset test changes and forced to draw on down assets. Now their incomes will be slashed and they will have to draw down more. Soon, they will qualify for much higher pensions.

The policy will drive many more people to manipulate or cheat (invest in the mattress bank, for example, or give their wealth to their grandkids!) because having assets doesn't pay. More people will put their hands out for pensions.

With more people needing higher pensions, the total pension bill will increase and there will be more cries to reduce the overall cost of the pension, and thus more attempts to slash concessions, supplements etc. and even cut the pension rate perhaps. Certainly there will be far more opposition to any increase in pensions. So the poorest pensioners will ultimately be the biggest losers!

Wake up Australia. This is an attack on retirement - nothing to do with ''wealth''. In fact, the wealthy will again be unscathed because they pay a little tax, so will retain their credits. Only the low-income battlers who saved a little to make their old age more comfortable will pay tax, but ALL who need any form of pension in retirement will ultimately suffer.
Rae
14th Mar 2018
10:27am
Better start rethinking those necessities Kathleen because this may very well cause unsustainable rises in the cost of pensions.

Certainly try for a bit of cash because one of the first changes will be a welfare card for all.
Radish
19th Mar 2018
11:28am
If a welfare card was given to all retired persons regardless of wealth there would be fewer on the pension. There would be no need to "organise" your money before retirement to gain just a small pension and access to the card as is happening all the time.
TMac
13th Mar 2018
12:27pm
Here's some numbers to digest...

Shorten's plan to cancel the refund of excess franking credits targets almost every Australian retiree with funds in super in pension phase. A retiree with $300,000 in super, a relatively modest sum, who is invested in a "balanced" strategy would lose approximately $2,500 per year in tax credits.

It's just another tax grab by Labor and using class warfare yet again as the lever.
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
2:11pm
Not under the AGRO I've proposed.....the Australian Guaranteed Retirement Offset (or Option if you prefer).... where you would be paid $22,800 in pension (think that was the figure) and then you get your tax-free threshold, and after that pay tax at 19c in the dollar up to $37000, a miniscule amount for what you'd gain from the AGRO.
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
2:12pm
More money into the economy - pensioners able to survive - far lower long term social security from a fully organised super scheme that is part of the deal....

A win-win-win....
VeryCaringBigBear
13th Mar 2018
6:07pm
Those retirees with $300,000 would be better off not having their money in super as it is unlikely they would pay anywhere near $2,500 in tax unless they had substantial other income.
Not a Bludger
13th Mar 2018
12:32pm
My coin pays this bloke for cr-p like this - apparently applauded by all you lefties who are hanging around grizzling for someone to stick free money in your hand.

But what do you expect from an ex union thug boss who dudded his own members and who escaped the Crime Commission only due to his expensive lawyer.
Eddy
13th Mar 2018
12:50pm
The tax system is totally out of alignment. For instance if any individual taxpayer had sufficient allowable deductions to have a taxable income below $18000 they are exempt from paying tax and you would receive the total PAYE income tax you had paid as a refund. If your allowable deductions gave you a taxable income of less than $18000, say for instance your taxable income was reduced to $10000, would you receive an additional refund for the estimated tax you would have paid on the $8000 of deductions if you had had no allowable deductions. The short answer is NO. The situation re imputation credits seems similar to me. If an individual does not have to pay tax why should they get a cash refund for tax another entity has to pay. Just does not seem right.
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Mar 2018
1:01pm
But neither should a retiree who saved be denied a pension when their income is less than one who didn't. Retirees can earn over $70,000 (for a couple) and still get a pension, yet if you saved and have an income of $25,000 (for a couple), you have to drain away all your saving so manipulators, bludgers, cheats and irresponsible people can have higher incomes than those who worked and saved diligently.

Yes, the system is out of alignment, but as usual one isolated change, with no consideration of the overall picture, only makes it much much worse.
Circum
13th Mar 2018
1:02pm
The issue has nothing to do with tax deductions.It is simply the tax dept passing onto you part of the dividend that YOU earnt but the tax department was looking after it out of the kindness of their hearts.
The tax dept keeping the money in future is theft.
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
2:17pm
Not quite, Rainey - manipulators and cheats can get $70k a year etc... the others can't... and it's not just as simple as those categories.... some people work like dogs for years to have a better life to have the cards turn against them in many ways and they can end up with next to nothing.

that's one of the things wrong with this country at this time - good solid work will not guarantee you a fair reward or even fair dealing. You are more likely to be robbed and abused if you are a solid worker than you are if you are a bludger.

As for 'irresponsible' - many make mistakes in good faith, such as choice of wife/husband or choice of a boss who turns out to be an idiot and ruins the company and blames everyone but himself and his managers - and that can literally cost you the world.

Don't over-generalise - it smacks of a smug snobbery, and I know you are better than that.
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Mar 2018
3:58pm
Trebor, I'm no snob, and I'm well aware that misfortune can strike anyone at any time. But honestly, I can't find a pensioner who wasn't a hundred times better off throughout their working life than I was, yet I have assets and they don't. I can tell you why. One neighbour gave $2 million to her kids before turning 60. One bought a $2.5 million house to qualify for the pension. One went around the world 5 times to use up her $500K inheritance and all her savings. One gambled every cent she earned. One drank every cent she earned. All are getting big handouts from the taxpayer, while people who worked and acquired modest savings are being totally screwed. When we all do as these folk - and BigBear - did, where will the funds come from to pay pensions? There ain't any savings in taking from battlers who will then need far more government support to survive their old age.
VeryCaringBigBear
16th Mar 2018
10:22am
OGR they are well within the rules so they ate not only honest but ethical in doing what they all did. Anyone that Didn't benefit by using the rules to play the game is either stupid or just couldn't be bothered and just let things happen. I have no regrets at all and tell others to do the same.
OnlyGenuineRainey
16th Mar 2018
2:17pm
Within the flawed rules, yes. NOT honest, ethical or moral, and seriously damaging to the country and society. But clearly you are too selfish to care.
Old Man
13th Mar 2018
1:04pm
Picking low hanging fruit once more. I'm not a gambler but I'm willing to bet that all of the people who contribute to this forum are set in their ways and haven't changed their vote in many years. Both parties know this and any change that affects retired people will not change their voting habits.
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
2:18pm
I have - I now will not vote for the major parties and I shop around....
Triss
13th Mar 2018
2:32pm
I don't know who votes for the major parties these days, but it ain't me.
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
8:02pm
Has to be rigged...... can't possibly be any other way... it's all a charade, and the voting papers go straight into the shredder while the two majors toss a coin to see who's going to bat first. Toss in a few loud Independents and Bob's yer uncle - but don't use that term near QANTAS if you are an employee... someone might be insulted and feel excluded - if they are some oddball 63 gender variety...

On that subject of ordinary everyday words being canned to cover the remote possibility that some strange person might find them offensive, I said elsewhere that if those persons did not wish to travel the highways of life and language - they are always welcome to find their own way in the jungle.

Time for the QANTAS Joyce to pack his bags like his namesake.
Rae
14th Mar 2018
10:35am
We were talking last night about Whitlam.

I'm starting to think that vote for Frazer was probably rigged.

We'd have no problems now with the wealth from mining, gas and uranium flowing into our treasury.

As it is treasury is empty.
Di
13th Mar 2018
1:12pm
Once again Pollies targeting Pensioners. How about getting rid of Politicians perks? Many retirees who are certainly not millionaires rely on Dividends and Imputation Credits as part of their income. After working hard and trying to save enough for a decent retirement, once again our living is being eroded. I really do not think any of our Politicians have a clue about the real world and the stresses they are creating.
Triss
13th Mar 2018
6:25pm
I agree with you, Di.
Rae
14th Mar 2018
10:39am
They just gave themselves another pay rise. Not reported by our media of course.
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Mar 2018
1:12pm
So the lucky guy who can still work in retirement, or has massive assets returning huge income, gets his franking credits, and the disabled fellow who invested his miserable little compo payout in a few shares gets hammered - again! Let's all attack the battlers who worked to save a little, and then wonder why THEY don't support the bludgers, cheats, manipulators, spendthrifts, and handful of genuinely needy when they scream for pension increases.
Gra
13th Mar 2018
1:21pm
I am an age pensioner, receiving a part pension from the government and a few dollars from a superannuation fund. I do NOT have a self-managed super’ fund. But I do own almost a thousand ANZ bank shares. I bought 300 in 1996 and by not taking dividends in cash they have grown to almost 1,000.

Seems like this makes me wealthy according to Bill Shorten and I am to be punished for my attempt to be financially prudent some 22 years ago. And this is fair?
Circum
13th Mar 2018
2:05pm
There are many people in your position Gra.I don't think Bill Shorten will admit that you are in the 10% that he is targeting.If you are in the target group,then that shows you how low Bill can go (Scotts already there).If you are not in the target group,then sadly you are collateral damage.A sacrificial lamb to appease the revenuers.Welcome to the club
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Mar 2018
5:00pm
Don't you get it, Gra? You are ''wealthy'' - not dependant solely on a pension. Can't have people like you allowed to be better off than bludgers and spendthrifts who blew all their money and are now totally reliant on a pension. Must take it all off you. Rich folk are untouchable. Poor people can be fed crumbs. People who worked and saved are fair targets. How much money have you got? Send the tax man all of it - NOW!
Rae
14th Mar 2018
10:46am
Yes you and hundreds of thousands like you will have less money to spend downtown now. Dumb move. A cap would have caught the top end without the angst. Totally not thought out well but then no policy seems to be well thought out these days.
VeryCaringBigBear
16th Mar 2018
10:25am
I just gift my CBA shares I bought in the float to my grandkids.
KSS
13th Mar 2018
1:58pm
Seems to me that there is already misunderstanding going on here about who will 'lose' money and who won't.

At the risk of being shouted down, my understanding from the reports is that if you have investments or income that would result in you paying tax then the franking credits would lower that tax bill. Under Mr Shorten's plan that will stay.

On the other hand, if you have investments that return an income but not enough for you to have a tax bill, that will also remain the same and you will still have no tax bill to pay. However, currently if you have no tax bill to offset, you would receive the value of the franking credit in a cash refund. This, and this only, is what will disappear under Mr Shorten's plan. So you don't pay a tax bill because you never had a tax bill to pay, but you lose that little 'windfall' from the tax office.

So Mr Shorten doesn't want to remove - oh let's say the energy supplement that was introduced to offset a tax that has already been appealed, yet now wants to take away the cash refund that occurs as a result of not having a tax bill to pay but being awarded franking credits!
Circum
13th Mar 2018
2:12pm
So what Mr Shorten wants is that all dividend money that is held by the tax dept in trust will in future be confiscated by the tax office to keep.Simples
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
2:20pm
Ah - a voice of reason and knowledge.. thanks, KSS.

All information gratefully accepted.
Jim
13th Mar 2018
2:55pm
I am not sure if it's you or me that doesn't understand, but here is my understanding, I have shares, the company that I have shares in pays tax on my portion of the earnings, they pay that tax on my behalf, so in effect I have paid that tax, at tax time if the earnings from my shares takes my income above the threshold then I am not entitled to a refund of that tax, but if the income from the shares does not take my income over the threshold then I am entitled to claim the tax back that was paid on my behalf, don't forget if the company didn't pay the tax on my income from my shares it's likely my dividends may be slightly higher, and if the earnings were enough I would then be liable for the tax on those earnings, why should income from shares be any different to any other income ie if you worked for part of the year and paid tax on some of that income, at the end of the year when you do your tax and your income is below the threshold you are entitled to a refund of all the tax you have paid, so what is the difference between the above scenario's?
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Mar 2018
3:40pm
So if you are rich enough to pay tax, you get the benefit of the credits, and if you are living on handouts you are fine, but if you are struggling to get by on hard-won savings, SCREW YOU! They'll take another few thousand a year of your desperately needed income!

I foresee many more investing in bigger houses or divorcing to get around the cruel system that punishes people harshly for trying to be at least partly self-sufficient. Future retirees will see no value in having assets and will gift or spend it all and put their hands out.
Oars
14th Mar 2018
7:21am
The current tax refund is not a "windfall" as you ignorantly state. The tax has already been paid by the shareholder's comany. Then if you submit your full income, and that happensto include your dividend, the of course you are allowed a tax refund IF your total income is below the thresh-hold of $18K. It seems to me that you are not clear in your comments about a "windfall". That is your tax refund as we all are entitled to if our income is so low- seeing the pension has been gutted by social welfare drifters over the past decade or so. Please read between the lines. Billy has cleverly made his comments to appease his blinded followers. The rest of us are "lifetime wary" of such shallow policies by labor.
Thoughtful
13th Mar 2018
2:03pm
Please - when are some of you becoming advisors for the government - any government! Another point - if everybody eligible for the age pension were paid the same rate ( partnered or otherwise ), more seniors in relationships would start living together thus freeing up some of the housing situation. So many good ideas here! And if everybody was taxed normally with any income over the tax free threshold, there is still some incentive to provide for your retirement.
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
3:00pm
By God, Pickering - I do believe he/she's got it! The rain in Spain doesn't always run down the drains after all!
Thoughtful
15th Mar 2018
1:16am
TREBOR - please do not undo all of your good ideas! You sound a little sarcastic with your reply - but she does indeed get it. How can we get anybody to listen?
Adrianus
13th Mar 2018
2:16pm
I'm sick of Labor Greens policies. Always an extra tax which they call reform. HA!!
TREBOR you are forgetting who keeps increasing taxes on retirement savings. Its always the Labor Party, the so called friend of the battler. Hypocrites. Why don't they produce some genuine ideas on the real problems we are facing instead of creating more??
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
3:02pm
Not really when you look at the hidden tax involved in the assets test - a tax on everything you've bought out of your after-tax earnings in life.

Double whammy - that's what the discussion is about shares - bought out of after-tax earnings - so why does this not include your boat, your Windbag, your caravan, your 4WD and so forth?

Same thing....
Tib
13th Mar 2018
5:30pm
At eternitys gate , my middle name is Adrianus. :) well done I relate to the painting.
Kathleen
13th Mar 2018
2:31pm
So much rubbish being spruked on here. It does not affect pensioners. If you do not put in a tax return you are not affected. If you live on the pension then that is what you have.
If you get paid in fully franked shares the tax is already paid and you can get a tax credit. Now you may lose that.
But if you have non franked shares you are tax free up to a certain income.
If your income is more than the pension you are better off than a single pensioner in particular.
If you can manage on whatever money you have then you are luckier than all the millions of people around the world who are displaced and starving.
Just be happy to live in Australia where we can openly whinge and not be put in jail for doing so.
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Mar 2018
3:34pm
Kathleen, I suspect if you had sacrificed lifestyle for 40 years to save so that you could cover expected expenses in retirement, you would be VERY angry to find that not one cent of that saving benefits you - and you'd be better off to blow the lot and put your hand out for a pension.

It's time people in this country woke up to the facts instead of running off at the mouth with comments based on assumptions or motivated by lies told by politicians.

Yes, we have a better life than some, but it won't last if we keep bashing people for working and saving and creating a nation in which it's better to be a full pensioner in retirement than save and be partly self-sufficient.
Tib
13th Mar 2018
5:42pm
Rainey we agree again. :)
Oars
14th Mar 2018
9:07am
OGR you are almost right. The enormous problem facing all Australians is that we had a small population 40 yeras ago, and we/they paid tax based on a comparitively small income/wage. (A good wage in 1970 was $10,000/year) Compared with these days when a good wage/income is around $100,000/year. Then in 40 years the wages have increased by only 10 fold, but the influx of 'outsiders" who paid little in tax over the 40 years has diminished thewelfare bag of money.
So we are now in an increasing cost blow out in welfare with a small base of taxincome to pay this welfare bill.
Another idea is to pay everybody a pension (qualify-40 years tax returns and resident in Australia)
Big earners ( retired) income of $100K + pension $30K= $130K/yr tax= $40K ( approx)
Battler with pension of $30K tax= !,000 (approx).
So the "wealthy" pensioner pays $39K more than the battler.
The rest is simple arithmetic.
OnlyGenuineRainey
14th Mar 2018
12:55pm
Except, Oars, we are all being lied to big time. The actual cost of aged pensions in Australia is HALF what it is in other developed counties and HIGHLY AFFORDABLE. In fact, we can afford to double it (and it would still be less than many developed nations pay AND a lesser percentage of GDP than it costs other nations)

I agree the solution is a universal pension, but I can't see it happening, sadly. I don't think we have ANY politicians with brains. Or else they all just WANT to wreck the country.
Rocket
13th Mar 2018
2:42pm
Bill Shorten wants to raise $59 BILLION over 10 years. Australia is about to over take Qatar as the world's largest gas producer. In 2018 Australia will receive $6oo MILLION from companies exporting our gas resources. Qatar will receive $26.6 BILLION from their gas exports. Over 10 years that's $260 BILLION - Bill collect the taxes owed on our resources before pillaging the citizens you're supposed to represent. Or pay the the price at the Ballot Box!
Mad as hell
14th Mar 2018
10:11am
Agree. Canberra of all persuasions is letting Australia down. I wonder which boards ex politicians will be on after the next election.
Rae
14th Mar 2018
10:53am
Yes I agree. Also mining as well. We should have plenty of revenue flowing into treasury.
Puglet
13th Mar 2018
2:52pm
Gosh, the proposed tax really touched a nerve and there is s lot of confected outrage. According to the ABC about 1% of retirees with shares will be asked to pay the tax. It seems to me that many of the posters decrying the unfairness of it all are the first to complain about health services, NDIS, PBS medications, retirement homes, minuscule pensions, infrastructure etc. ‘Someone’ has to pay for all this. The bigly companies have just been given a huge tax break, most billion dollar profit companies don’t pay any tax at all; working people are really struggling. And yes, i have shares AND pay tax but before asking the country to pay for the things we take for granted I’ll see what it entails.
Jim
13th Mar 2018
3:06pm
Do you really believe that only 1% will be affected, $5.9 billion in extra tax collected each year from 1% of taxpayers I doubt very much that is accurate but we are talking about a politicians maths here, always a credible source.
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Mar 2018
3:45pm
It WILL NOT be 1%, and it will NOT be the wealthy. It will be struggling self-funded retirees or part-pensioners with low incomes, who bought a few shares to try to make their retirement a little more comfortable than it would be on just a bare pension. The wealthy, the cheats, and the manipulators will be laughing.
Oars
14th Mar 2018
10:56pm
Jim has a god point/\. Since when has the ABC media group ( undisclosedadvocates of labor) ever given accurate figures that might upset their mates. The reliable figures can be achieved by searching the Australian Census. But I suppose that would be too difficult for those with "heads-in-the-sand". Goodnight.
Travellersjoy
13th Mar 2018
2:53pm
What a garbage headline!
war on retirees indeed. Next the dogs will be after pensioners.

Any retiree who can get such a refund has an accountant perfectly capable of rearranging the retirees affairs to maintain their lifestyle.

Who, exactly, is supposed to be funding our nation if corporations won't, the very rich won't, and anyone with a good accountant doesn't.
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
3:02pm
They already are in some cases....
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Mar 2018
3:29pm
Travellersjoy, you live in la la land. This will affect people with very low incomes and relatively little in assets. But it won't affect the greedy green-eyed bludgers who put their hands out every fortnight because they didn't work and save. It won't hurt the rich, as you rightly point out they have accountants who can rearrange their affairs to maintain their lifestyle. It will crucify people who recently lost countless thousands in pension income and are now struggling to earn anywhere near what pensioners receive fortnightly. Honestly, this country is doomed if ignorant people continue to focus on envy instead of fact.
Oars
14th Mar 2018
10:59pm
Travellersjoy. Have you ever done a simple tax return without an accountant. It has no room to"hide figures" as you suggest- unless you want to spend a few years in a cell for your mischief ! Most accountants are dedicated to facts and the law. Probably you should direct your venom towards the lawyers who allow these tricks that you are illuding to.
codger
13th Mar 2018
2:58pm
I absolutely agree, because it only affects those people who dont pay tax at all.
of course the likes of corman and morrison would be up set as it affects the rich.
i heard the speeches by both these persons, and it proves the point they were long and boring and they protest too much!and contrary too popular assumption it does not affect LOW income pensioners...
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Mar 2018
3:26pm
Not low income 'pensioners', Codger, but people with much LOWER incomes than pensioner, who pay more for everything. Along with the ridiculous assets test changes, it will prove a powerful incentive for more people to cheat, manipulate, spend their money, gift it, or over-invest in houses. When there are many more wanting pensions because unfair policies were supported by green-eyed monsters, there will be less for everyone.
Oars
14th Mar 2018
11:07pm
Codger- an obviously devoted labor follower- you are 100% wrong. This labor fancy- idea is merely a bleat to capture the typical dope that follows Billy and his cronies. Billy uses typical catch phrases like ' "the rich are getting a tax "windfall". I have already made the case that the poor ( in this case me and other battlers) will get shafted. if this millionaire becomes a PM. But you don't care, because you blindly ( and deaf too) follow the bleats of Billy without dispute. I wonder how much sand one could eat if one continually buried oneself in sand for ever? I suppose it tastes better than crow !!!
Young
13th Mar 2018
3:26pm
We are not rich. We get a part pension and organised our investments when franking dividends were started by buying Telstra and bank shares to boost our income.we will now lose $100 a week which will be difficult for us.A shocking decision for those with low amounts of money.
Hope this decision is grandfathered.
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Mar 2018
3:43pm
Countless thousands, like you, will have very low incomes cut, despite them being a million miles from anything remotely like ''wealthy''.
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Mar 2018
4:56pm
Not to worry Young. You and I can sell all our shares, pool our money, and buy an investment house. Add to the housing crisis - but not to worry. That won't hurt us. And it won't hurt the wealthy. Most who will be hurt by it will be children of the pensioners who are screaming ''they've got money - take it off them!"
Rae
14th Mar 2018
11:03am
I wouldn't do that Rainey. An investment house will add to the assets and with rental returns under 2% and capital values falling you'll lose money.

I'd be slowly selling out and putting the money away somewhere safe or slipping it to the grandkids to start saving just a bit each fortnight or so.

At a certain point you can apply for the OAP.

The kids are going to suffer anyway as there will be more billions lost from local businesses through this.

Economics and history are very poorly taught in Australia.
Raphael
13th Mar 2018
3:30pm
Typical labor B/S
Tib
13th Mar 2018
5:48pm
The way labor is going they may lose the next election and I might vote against them.
Raphael
13th Mar 2018
7:06pm
And we of the right will welcome you back to the fold, my brother.
All your sins will be forgiven
Tib
13th Mar 2018
9:30pm
Ha ha :)
Rae
14th Mar 2018
11:06am
Yes they keep making foolish class based decisions that aren't rational.

Started going down badly from Keating's on.

I don't think this ALP want to win the next election.
Young
13th Mar 2018
3:30pm
Am sure this will lead to more people getting rid of their money and shares which will lead to them claiming higher pensions so the government will be worse off re paying out pension money.
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Mar 2018
3:43pm
Yes. This will COST the government much more than the nominal saving they are claiming.
Big Al
13th Mar 2018
5:16pm
Spot on Young! Consider two workers, A & B, both in the same industry for the same number of years, earning similar wages. Worker A drinks, smokes and gambles every week. B on the other hand, puts $100 per week aside and puts it into shares. When they retire, with a similar superannuation outcome, the taxpayer pays a higher pension to A, because B now has assets. Shorten's idea is to now further penalize B and make him even poorer, because he had the temerity to put something aside for his twilight years.. How clever of Bill! Don't you love the politics of envy!!!!
Young
13th Mar 2018
3:38pm
Only Genuine Rainey makes sense.
This is going to dramatically reduce the income of low income pensioners who worked all their lives and bought a miserly number of shares as a bonus for their retirement.
Young
13th Mar 2018
3:38pm
Only Genuine Rainey makes sense.
This is going to dramatically reduce the income of low income pensioners who worked all their lives and bought a miserly number of shares as a bonus for their retirement.
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Mar 2018
3:41pm
Finally, someone who sees this proposal for what it is and isn't preoccupied with bashing everyone they think might have a dollar or two more than they have!
Oars
14th Mar 2018
11:10pm
Young What about me ??? I make sense. I made sense all my days, and now I see that making sense falls on deaf ears. Time I start rowing my boat to different shores, where they listen, and act in the interest of the majority and sensible.
Giles
13th Mar 2018
4:05pm
“Every dollar that slips through these loopholes ..." It is NOT a loophole. Stop trying to make me feel like a cheat just because I sacrificed salary and other goodies for years.
Theo1943
13th Mar 2018
4:06pm
Why do companies not pay unfranked dividends and let the recipients sort out the tax?
Raphael
13th Mar 2018
4:48pm
Yes I agree
make the company tax rate ZERO % and let the shareholders pay the tax
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
8:10pm
Not what Theo said - he said just not tax that portion that is dividend and let the recipient sort it out.

A better start on $59Bn is to start looking more into the current tax concessions that companies enjoy, and set about proper revenue capture instead of playing ideological politics and sucking up to companies in the desperate hope that one century trickle-down will kick in.
Raphael
13th Mar 2018
10:02pm
And how do you do that Trebor?
Imputation achieves the same result only much more elegantly


And youre "revenue" capture model is idiotic
Rae
14th Mar 2018
11:14am
0.005% transaction tax and no other taxes needed.

The UN worked out this is viable.
Oars
14th Mar 2018
11:20pm
Theo 1943 The answer to your question is that Companies are compelled to pay the tax ( franked dividends have tax removed at the company low rate). The reason is that if they did not, then some shareholders may not live in this country and these may dodge paying any tax here. So what would you have? A. The Company pay investor's tax ( franked divs) to ATO, or B: not pay it and allow such off-shore investors dodge paying ATO tax here. The answer is obvious- but I am sure you follow my reasoning- and go to step 2. Small divs have small tax deducted at 23%. So that is an OVERPAYMENT of tax for small time investors ) example if you invested $300K and your div is $10 K per year then tax on that is approx $300. Not exactly mush but it all adds up- probably a night out once a year- big woop. Why bother saving as some have already stated here- and so it goes on and on, till we all fall asleep and the Polies waste more of our tax on vote-collecting projects.
TOR888
13th Mar 2018
6:30pm
What a simple fair decent plan...tax the 1% who can afford this out,of date out of touch scam for the wealthy ..simples. ..
VeryCaringBigBear
13th Mar 2018
7:50pm
It will be business as usual for the wealthy as the tax credit just reduce their tax. Those with low income where the tax credits can't be used to offset their tax will be the big losers.
Oars
14th Mar 2018
11:22pm
TOR888 Where did you getr that figure of 1% ? Another ABC media smoke screen ?
OnlyGenuineRainey
16th Mar 2018
2:14pm
TOR88, where did you get the weird and hopelessly WRONG idea that this affects the ''wealthy''? I can point you to at least 50 in my neighbourhood who wouldn't know what ''wealth'' looks like, have incomes less than $50K a year and modest savings, and will lose 10% or more of their income if this proceeds. Please stop believing lying politicians and pay attention to facts.

It will also devastate the economy, with millions pulling out of investing in Australian companies because there is no longer an adequate return.
Raphael
13th Mar 2018
7:20pm
The idiot Shorten is taxing the middle class again.
What a fool
This wont hurt the rich at all - the man is an absolute moron
TREBOR
13th Mar 2018
8:11pm
You see why most revolutionary movements begin with the middle classes..
Oars
14th Mar 2018
11:26pm
Most revolutionary movements begin with too many ripe peaches. Remember that book "The grapes of Wrath" ( Steinbeck) set in California in the early 1920's. Dissentry of the fruit pickers was followed by dissidents' movements.
VeryCaringBigBear
13th Mar 2018
7:42pm
It will be the catalyst for retirees to withdraw their super and invest it all in the Cayman Islands.
Gra
13th Mar 2018
8:18pm
Shorten must like being in opposition. Either that or he has misjudged the power of the grey vote.
Oars
14th Mar 2018
9:12am
As long as the "grey vote" is awake to his clever tricks- hope so!
Retired Knowall
14th Mar 2018
4:42pm
Shorten will say anything and do anything if he thinks it will get him into the lodge. Look at his backflips on the Adani Coal Mine. In Queensland he is for it, in Victoria he is against it. Two faced Union Puppet.
Robi
14th Mar 2018
12:50am
It doesn’t worry me. My hubby and I will lose about $100 or less per year through this proposal by Labor. It was the Lib/Nats who lowered our income by $15,000 per year when they lowered the asset test and threw our retirement planning into turmoil. That is what I will be remembering when I vote.
OnlyGenuineRainey
14th Mar 2018
6:43am
Lucky you, Robi. So you will happily see the tens of thousands who lost $15000 a year or more when the assets test was changed and who own shares lose yet another $4K or $5K, just because it doesn't hurt you? Or will you be unselfish enough to send a strong message to BOTH parties that their attacks on retirees are unacceptable?
Oars
14th Mar 2018
9:17am
OGR - again you hit the nail on the head. This Robi is typical of the "pull up the gang-plank I'm aboard" follower of labor. They probably think that Billy looks after them when they are "aboard'" his sinking ship- and then they look around for another excuse to bail out. Like the millionaire Gillard's spending spree- on school halls that were never built. My name is Oars and that's what you will need to row away from this sinking ship.
Rae
14th Mar 2018
11:19am
They had best start building schools s now as the birthrate is now 4X what it used to be and is rising.

The air of desperation from Canberra is of their own making.

Unfortunately retired savers have the last money left they can easily get at. They can't touch the wealth of the top 1% and never have been able to.
Adrianus
14th Mar 2018
5:30pm
Rae, where on earth are you talking about?? The birth rate in Australia is a lot lower than it was 50 years ago. Around 1.8 now. It was about 3.5.
Rae
15th Mar 2018
8:37am
You are correct per capita Adrianus. I'm talking hard numbers here.

20 years ago we had an annual birthrate around 70 000.

Last year we had 311 000 births. That is over 4 times..

We are headed for big Australia now non stop and had best get ready for it in my opinion.
OnlyGenuineRainey
14th Mar 2018
7:04am
Pensioners who have nothing but the pension would be well advised to oppose this nonsense aggressively, and tell Labor to withdraw from this stupid policy or lose support. Two reasons:

1. Fairness. It effectively says: ''If you earn a high income, you can have your dividends tax free. If you earn a low income, you will be effectively ''taxed'' on them even though you don't earn enough to pay tax. (Whether not someone else paid tax on them first shouldn't be relevant. Retirees lose pension benefits through having assets, so they have effectively been taxed already - at a very high rate actually. And now they will be taxed again!)

2. Aged pensioners won't ever get a better deal while their numbers are swelling and the total cost of pensions is rising. The ONLY way they can ever hope for a decent pension increase is for fewer people to need pensions. If you slash the incomes of retirees who are partly or barely self-sufficient, you have heaps more people on pensions. If you bash people for investing for their old age, you have less people investing and more putting their hand out. More people on pensions means more pressure to reduce the overall cost of pensions - so less hope of any increase, ever.

Honestly, if you are a ''poor pensioner'' supporting Shorten, you are hammering nails into your own coffin - letting envy (or inability to apply logic!) drive you to cut off your nose to spite your face.
Raphael
14th Mar 2018
2:03pm
OGR - 100% correct in this one
Shorten is a deceitful turd

Unfortunately too many are financially illiterate to see that his proposal will impact the 90% not the 10%
Oars
14th Mar 2018
7:13am
Well here is another blinder for the unwary. When a company pays tax on the dividend, then that means that the company has a an advantage. If that tax taken out of the Div is not passed as a credit to the shareholder, then the share holder will have to pay tax on their earnings. There are thousands of small shareholders, that keep these companies afloat- who rely on their divs to survive. But if their gross income is below the taxable threshold, ($18 K) then they currently apply their tax credit and submit their tax return. Because they earn less than the thresh-hold of $18K ( I think it is ) then they have their OVERPAID tax refunded. Company. They should not have been taxed at all on their small divi. but the company is not privy to each shareholder's personal income, so they remove the tax at company level- less than the minimum personal tax. The slur about "wealthy shareholders" is just another beat-up by labor to glorify their stupid policy, but shows they have no concern for us little shareholders who rely on our refund, since we are not allowed to get a pension for another stupid reason. By the way I note that this article bends over to this left wing policy and conveniently fails to mention the number of small investors, that will be effected by this latest fool-hardy idea by labor.
old frt
14th Mar 2018
8:36am
Phoney Bill Shorten was quoted that some SMSF funds receive $2,500,000.00 franking credit refunds ,meaning they have over $100 million in super. How many Australians have that?10 or 20 maybe . Get real you phoney Shorten. you also want to cap the tax free income from our super at $75,000.00 with a balance limit of $1,200,000.00 (you thought we forgot that ,you thieving little weasel) so when you take 20-30% of our income in one stupid decision ,where does it end. Stick with the present super cap of $1.6 M and limit franking credit refunds to that ,anything over that no refund .
Rae
14th Mar 2018
11:22am
Well that's a sensible idea.
Retired Knowall
14th Mar 2018
9:28am
I can see the merit in the proposal, however the article is misleading. This is going to effect every working person that has a Super account. The Very Rich will not be effected greatly as they will move their capital elsewhere. The Govt. of the day has to fund their budget from somewhere, this would be more palatable if it was seen to be part of a mix of measures that included removal of loopholes currently being used by foreign companies, tightening up on trust rules and taxing Religious institutions.
Adrianus
14th Mar 2018
10:24am
Just talking to a friend who reckons she will be better off under Shorten's double dipping tax grab. Apparently she gets around $15K pa from the ATO by way of tax refunds from imputation credits. She currently gets no pension but without the imputation credits refund she says she will qualify for around $18k pa pension. So she will be better off by about $3,000 pa.
Cowboy Jim
14th Mar 2018
11:12am
If your friend is single she will get $23'000 and not $18'000. Her gain will be $8000 but she will lose her independence. Never really got
it into my head that being a self funded retiree is better than a pensioner. Maybe to brag: "I did it my way". Just been to the chemist and paid $25 instead of $136 because of the pension card. Your friend will be happy with her pension.
Rae
14th Mar 2018
11:26am
Yes the card is well worth the effort if you have medical costs.
OnlyGenuineRainey
14th Mar 2018
12:43pm
Right, so you friend will be better off, and what happens to Shorten's claimed ''tax savings''? They go in extra pensions to people who could have been self-funded. And with less and less incentive to save, more and more will opt for to place greater burdens on the taxpayer. This is really DUMB policy - in the EXTREME.
Adrianus
14th Mar 2018
5:07pm
Yeah, I don't know that's her calculation and I have no reason to doubt her.
Yes Rainey it's not only dumb policy but many Labor supporters will eventually realise that they are being lied to about it being a tax only on the wealthy. 40% of Australians own shares either directly or indirectly. Many, more own a small business which may be owed franking credits.
This Labor party is trying to out do the Greens with their stupid policies.
ex PS
14th Mar 2018
11:53am
I have often stated that I vote to keep undeserving politicians out rather than vote people in. This latest thought bubble from the Labor Party has seriously reduced my options. Let's hope that the details will make some sense.
Otherwise I may be voting for Hee Haw at the next election.
OnlyGenuineRainey
14th Mar 2018
12:41pm
How about we start paying peanuts. I reckon monkeys would do a much better job!
Circum
15th Mar 2018
4:04pm
I reckon Hee Haw should be leading the polls.Sadly many voters turn into zombies at election time and vote how they always have.The politicians know this and use it to their advantage
Jacks
14th Mar 2018
12:09pm
Everyone seems to be forgetting that the LNP is intending to complete 490,000 compliance interventions by "augmenting the self-service digital solution" (expanding robodebt to share dividends).

Bit rich for the LNP to be crowing for pensioners...and claiming Labor are going after pensioners.
OnlyGenuineRainey
14th Mar 2018
12:40pm
BOTH parties are determined to ensure the aged are either rich or living in poverty through retirement.
ex PS
15th Mar 2018
12:29pm
They seem to be working together on this occasion in order to fleece retirees. One introduces an unattainable Deeming Percentage in order to force people to invest in shares, the other then proceeds to take income away from those who were forced into the share market.
They both share the blame so that there is little impact on voting profiles, but they both gain by having more of money at their disposal, never before has there been more evidence that the difference between the two so called major parties is either negligent or non existent.
Might as well just toss a coin when the next election is due.
Circum
15th Mar 2018
4:15pm
Very astute observation exPS.It certainly seems that way.They will complain about each others proposed changes but refuse to change them back when they get in.Its just a game for people who claim they act in the national interest.
MacI
14th Mar 2018
12:12pm
I'm all for taxing the very wealthy but when part pensioners and full pensioners are caught up in the net then it's bad policy. I've done the sums as follows:

A couple retiring at age 66 with $500K in Super and drawing an income of $50K made up of a Part AP (and eventually full AP as they draw down one their Super) and Super pension will be almost $2000 worse off per year in real terms to the age of 85. This is based on a return of 5% before this proposed change and 4.5% return after the change as some financial commentators have estimated for a typical Super fund with investments in Australian shares.

A couple with $380500 (the threshold for a Full AP) retiring at age 66 would be $1500 a year worse off at age 85.

$1500 to $2000 a year worse off for the really wealthy is a drop in the ocean but to pensioners this makes a significant difference and and yet a another squeeze on the elderly.

As for Labor characterising this change as fixing a loop hole this is simply a deception. Firstly they voted for the change when it was introduced. Secondly as a retiree with little income other than from my Super my marginal tax rate is 0% but with this change I'm effectively being taxed at up to 30% on the dividends earned.

Don't be fooled by the rhetoric and spin from Labor - do the sums. Labor need to find another way of taxing the wealthy rather than leaving pensioners as collateral damage.
Farside
15th Mar 2018
12:59pm
you are not being taxed 30% on dividends received; rather you will not receive a refund for the unutilised franking credit intended to prevent double taxation. If it eventuates then this will wind back the amendment introduced well after the dividend imputation scheme began. Interesting point that further reduction in company tax rate and other changes to reduce taxable profits will reduce the amount of franking credits available.
OnlyGenuineRainey
18th Mar 2018
3:10pm
WRONG FARSIDE. Macl is right. he IS being taxed 30% om dividends received. The company deducted from his dividend to pay their tax, in EXACTLY the same way they would have deducted from wages to pay tax. The only difference is that they don't specifically declare to the ATO what they deducted from whom. But the income IS TAXED at 30%. And when someone earns below the taxable income threshold, they are entitled to have any tax paid refunded. So if the tax paid by the company on Macl's share of the company profit is NOT refunded to Macl, he has been UNFAIRLY OVERTAXED.
Circum
18th Mar 2018
8:17pm
Correct me if I am wrong Farside,but if the company tax rate fell from 30% to 20%,wouldnt this mean that the shareholders direct dividend was 80% of the actual dividend rather than 70% .Meaning that Blinkers Bill could only steal 20% of the dividend instead of 30%.A franked dividend is simply an amount that a shareholder of a company has earnt as a result of investing in the company as a part owner.It reflects part of what he earned but by law the ATO holds a portion of those of earnings as a potential tax liability,

If at tax time the shareholders total earnings are under the threshold.the tax office is obliged to pass on the money to the rightful owner.Which technically they call a tax refund.It is not a loophole.Maybe there are loopholes that exist but I am not aware of them
Farside
19th Mar 2018
11:20am
@Circum, the company would be paying less tax and so generating less franking credits meaning the dividend imputation refunds would be lower and marginal tax paid higher. True, the retained earnings would be higher due to less company tax paid but this is unlikely to be passed onto shareholders. Most dividend policies I have come across simply look at maintaining or increasing slightly the previous dividend rather than a fixed percentage of retained profits.
Farside
19th Mar 2018
11:23am
@OGR, ye be drinking the red cordial again. The company is not deducting from dividends to pay tax, it pays tax based upon its taxable income and it becomes an expense like any other cost of doing business.
OnlyGenuineRainey
19th Mar 2018
5:55pm
Oh, so the tax paid doesn't in any way impact dividends, Farside. The money comes out of fresh air, does it? What an idiotic claim. Of course the company reduces dividends to pay tax. Less net after tax profit means lower dividends. Lower dividends means due to paying tax means shareholders paid tax on their dividends. There is no other way of looking at it. And having paid tax on their dividends, low income earners SHOULD GET IT BACK.
Farside
23rd Mar 2018
12:56am
@OGR, um no, I don't where you went to accounting school but here dividends are paid from retained earnings and as a result paid in years when company makes a loss. The surplus after paying tax expense for the year is transferred to the retained earnings and is rarely if ever paid out in full. The low income earners are easily compensated for the small amount of franking credits refunded to them in cash, and that is the way the commentary is heading.
OnlyGenuineRainey
14th Mar 2018
2:38pm
Labor now says it is aware of the hurt this will cause to poor retirees, but ''this is the cost of reforming the tax system''. In other words, the aged can go to hell, as long as companies and the young get their big tax cuts!

Meanwhile, John Hewson supports that change. Having read a statement that most of those hurt will have incomes BELOW $89,000 a year, Hewson says ''well, if retirees have incomes of $89,000 a year, they must have enormous assets so they can afford the loss''.

Apparently too STUPID to understand that BELOW $89,000 a year does NOT MEAN $89,000 a year. It MIGHT mean as little as $15,000 a year, from a very low asset base.

Heaven help us with these morons influencing policy!
Adrianus
14th Mar 2018
5:19pm
Hewson seems to go along with what ever Labor say these days.
Circum
15th Mar 2018
4:23pm
Is John Hewson that cartoonist guy?
floss
14th Mar 2018
3:20pm
We have lost 40% of our income due to Hockey and now another10% if Shorten gains power so much for doing the right thing and trying not to be a burden on the public purse.I have no idea how we can survive on half our income.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Mar 2018
8:36am
Floss, I urge you to write to your local member and key shadow ministers (Bowen, Jenny Macklin, Penny Wong, Shorten, Shayne Neumann, and Senator Doug Cameron) and explain your situation and concerns.

Also note that this so-called ''reform'' is UNFAIR and ILLOGICAL, because it denies a refund of overpaid tax to anyone who isn't liable to pay tax. No other income is taxed this way. If you don't earn enough to pay tax, any tax deducted from your income before it passes to you in refunded - AS IT SHOULD BE.

Stress that this is NOT an attack on the wealthy, as high income earners will not be affected. It's an ATTACK on those too old or sick to continue earning by other means, and too responsible and frugal to have just relied on the taxpayer for support, and therefore now totally reliant on this kind of income.

Most notably, it's a cruel and grossly unfair PUNISHMENT for doing what's GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY and a massive incentive to give up striving and simply take from the taxpayer in old age. It will be hugely destructive in the medium to long term, because it encourages battlers to rely on the pension in retirement instead of trying to be at least partly self-sufficient.
floss
14th Mar 2018
3:29pm
Guess what Mr Shorten after sixty five years of voting Labor you have just lost my vote but so will the Libs miss out, both parties are so out of touch with the real world.
Circum
15th Mar 2018
4:28pm
Agree Floss but sadly the fruitloop greens are next in line so we have a problem
wombat
14th Mar 2018
6:22pm
When I crunch the numbers Mr Shorten is being harsher to the lower valued superfund holders.
Scenario: 2 Self Managed Super Members. Both have, for ease of calculation 100% investment in fully franked shares with a net return of 7%.
Member 1 has a super balance of $500,000 with a 7% return of $35,000. This is made up of cash dividend of $24,500 and franking credits of $10,500. In full pension mode Mr Shorten will reduce this members income to $24,500 ( the return with out the franking credits is now 4.9%.
Member 2 has a super balance of $3,200,000 with a 7% return of $224,000. This is made up of cash dividend of $156,800 & franking credit of $67,200. However under the new rules half of this income is taxable because of the $1.6 million cap. Tax of $16800 will be payable, but the franking credits under Mr Shorten's rules can be used to offset the tax payable. Therefore this member will loose franking credits of $50,400. This members income after tax is now $173600. or a return of 5.425%.
Therefore, the higher the super balance the higher the return after tax. Mr Shorten is favouring the wealthy under this announcement. I think he needs to go back and crunch the numbers if he wants to target the wealthy.
Dave
14th Mar 2018
6:38pm
The current franking system is correct and fair. You end up paying your tax at your own rate.

If you own shares you own a small portion of a company. At the end of the year ,if after costs there is a profit it is divided between all the owners i.e. share holders.

If your total income including your portion of the company (this includes franking credit) is below the tax threshold then you pay no tax and receive a refund for the tax already deducted.

This is similar to withholding tax on a bank deposit.

If you are a high income earner @ 46% you will have to pay another 15% tax on the dividend thus paying a total of 46% ie your tax rate.

There are millions of small investors that took up Commonwealth Bank Shares , Woolworths shares and Telstra shares when they were floated.

Hence this policy will hurt many more small investors than the big side of town. Shorton will again be attacking his support base.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Mar 2018
8:20am
Precisely right, Dave. Your summary of the current system is correct. It would be patently WRONG to tax someone who is NOT liable to pay tax due to their low income just because their income from other sources has ceased.
moama jock
14th Mar 2018
7:09pm
Yet another graduate from the Swan -Andrews University of Failed Socialist Idealists Is it not surprising that the majority of these geniuses have never had a real job or toiled in a competitive business but dwelt in the LA La Land of unions or party hacks.The good news is after 10 years aged pension free I will now get a part pension. The bad news is countless forms to complete to update my assets etc. Never mind more public servants/union members to perpetuate the ranks who receive worry free obscene superannuation contributions most from the public purse.
Congratulations Bill and your equally unimpressive Treasurer.
Ps Bill do you know he covets your job.
Farside
14th Mar 2018
7:28pm
I wonder how many readers on this site would actually be affected by Labor's proposed revision to the dividend imputation system. Of course it is only natural losers will squeal loudly however in good conscience it is hard to argue for continuance of a mechanism to prevent double taxation that results in a refund to those who do not pay income tax. I suspect a modest increase in the pension would more than compensate many of those affected
.
OnlyGenuineRainey
14th Mar 2018
8:08pm
Farside, millions will be affected, and 90% of them have LOW INCOMES. The rich WON'T be affected, because high income earners retain their credits. For pity's sake WAKE UP and see this for what it is. Labor is LYING. Those who will hurt DO PAY TAX. They pay tax on everything they buy. They pay HUGE AND UNFAIR tax by being deprived of a pension. They paid tax on their earnings and they are taxed again EVERY SINGLE FORNIGHT (by deprivation of pension and concessions) for having saved those earnings. Many are on incomes way less than the pension. So they'll drain their savings to compensate for high taxes - forfeiting all the benefit of all their hard word and sacrifice to save - and have nothing, then they'll join the pensioners in yelling for more, but with more pensioners there will be less to go around and EVERYONE WILL SUFFER.

Many will switch to housing investment - pushing up house prices further - or overseas investment, hurting the Aussie economy. Many will switch to high risk investment to try to get a decent income and if it goes bad they'll put their hand out for a pension. Many, seeing they are being cheated of fair reward for working and saving responsibly will cheat and manipulate to achieve the income they DESERVE and SHOULD HAVE but are being denied. And meanwhile, the rich will keep on partying, because NOTHING hurts them. The rich pollies make sure of it!
OnlyGenuineRainey
14th Mar 2018
8:10pm
Oh and - modest pension increase? What use is that to people who can't get a pension, despite having an income of half what pensioners receive? When there's ZERO benefit in saving and investing, watch the nation collapse completely, and the green-eyed fools who supported taking from anyone they THINK might have a dollar more than they do will hurt the most.
OnlyGenuineRainey
14th Mar 2018
8:19pm
Modest pension increase - how much do you think to compensate a part-pensioner couple earning $15,000 a year in dividends for a loss of $5000 - while their neighbour, who invested in property instead suffers no loss so gets a windfall gain?
Farside
14th Mar 2018
9:15pm
@OGR "... millions will be affected" ... specifically how many millions is that? Methinks not too many else this change would not be on the table. Those who have enjoyed cashing out the franking credits should be grateful for the opportunity they had and make whatever decisions they need going forward. Every time the tax environment is changed there will be losers who will gripe about the change without regard for the bigger picture.

As for those living on less than a pension then it is simple enough, use capital to improve the living standards. There are many having to live off savings without benefits available to the SFR brigade
.
Oars
14th Mar 2018
11:32pm
Farsie. You still don't get it. There is no handout for receiving a refunbd on overpayment of tax. The "millionaires" have no chance of a refund as their income is over the threshold-unlike us smal-time investors ( About 23,000 of us actually.
I agree that the pension should be increased, at the expense of those whocurrentl get it but have not been paying tax in Oz for 40 years like me. Please read my othyer input to understand the facts of this bleat by Billy Shortass.
Farside
15th Mar 2018
12:10am
@Oars ... my view on this comes from one wanting reform of the tax system. I said originally most small investors could be compensated by a modest increase in the pension and some will be worse off. At the end of the day those that feel strongly enough to continue cashing in excess credits will vote to return the conservatives who first introduced this largesse almost 16 years ago. Truth be told Rudd should have reversed back in 2007 when it was still relatively young and amounting to a fraction of the value today.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Mar 2018
8:18am
Oh, here we go again, Farside. Doesn't matter if you cripple a few hundred thousand financially, cheat and deprive hard workers, and do something IMMORAL and UNFAIR in the extreme, as long as it appears to only hurt a minority.

The people this will hurt have already been slugged with massive pension cuts. They have incomes that are LESS than the pension. They have been deprived of ANY reward for years of hard work and going without, while manipulators, cheats, bludgers and irresponsible spendthrifts get handouts at their expense. They are already being taxed EVERY SINGLE FORTNIGHT AT AN EXHORBITANTLY HIGH RATE on money they paid tax on when they earned it, just because they didn't spend it before turning 65, and now you think it constitutes ''tax reform'' to tax them yet again?

Pension rises would NOT compensate because they would bear no relationship to the loss. Everyone gets a different amount of franking credits, and the biggest losers probably don't get a pension at all - but may have an income LESS than the pension.

It's NOT tax reform at all. It's based on lies. The tax IS paid by the company. The recipient isn't liable to pay tax, so it should be refunded - not just to higher income earners. To EVERYEONE who isn't liable to pay it. In fact, it would be fairer to ONLY pay it back to LOW income earners, and that MIGHT actually benefit the economy. The proposal you support is back to front!
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Mar 2018
8:38am
Farside, I know idiot politicians are calling this ''reform'', but how on earth does it constitute ''reform'' to start taxing people who earn too little to pay tax and demolishing their income so they need pensions, while NOT taxing people who earn high incomes?

That is NOT reform. The correct approach is to refund to those whose incomes justify a refund, whether or not they pay tax, and whether or not the refund exceeds the tax they pay, but tax high income earners more to compensate for the fact that the company tax paid was at a lower rate than their marginal rate.
Farside
15th Mar 2018
9:54am
@OGR, the notion of paying a refund on unused franking credits is nonsensical. The purpose of the franking credit is to avoid double taxation of the money on which the company has already paid tax since the dividend income will be included in the investors taxable income. If the investor does not pay tax then there is no double taxation and the franking credit is unnecessary. Non-tax paying investors are not being taxed more; just like corporate investors they will not receive a credit for unutilised franking credits. Seems like a good principle to me.
OnlyGenuineRainey
16th Mar 2018
2:24pm
Farside, there's no double taxation on wages that are wrongly taxed if the worker gets a refund at year end because his earnings were too little to merit paying tax, but we refund because IT'S NOT FAIR TO TAX INCOME THAT IS BELOW THE TAX THRESHHOLD. Why should dividend income be treated differently? Retirees rely on these credits to survive retirement and reduce the drain on the taxpayer via pensions. It makes no sense to suddenly treat this income differently from all other based on a completely FLAWED assumption that anyone holding shares is ''wealthy''. The tax policy should be as always and as applies everywhere. If income is taxed before being paid to someone who earns too little to pay tax, the tax should be refunded.
OnlyGenuineRainey
16th Mar 2018
2:24pm
Farside, there's no double taxation on wages that are wrongly taxed if the worker gets a refund at year end because his earnings were too little to merit paying tax, but we refund because IT'S NOT FAIR TO TAX INCOME THAT IS BELOW THE TAX THRESHHOLD. Why should dividend income be treated differently? Retirees rely on these credits to survive retirement and reduce the drain on the taxpayer via pensions. It makes no sense to suddenly treat this income differently from all other based on a completely FLAWED assumption that anyone holding shares is ''wealthy''. The tax policy should be as always and as applies everywhere. If income is taxed before being paid to someone who earns too little to pay tax, the tax should be refunded.
Circum
18th Mar 2018
8:50pm
Dear Farside.Your apparent lack of clear thinking on this issue is amazing.Your comments seem more politically based than based on reason or logic...1/You imply that franking credits provide a refund to those who don't pay any income tax.Taxable income is based on how much you earn in total from all sources including franking credits.Franking credits do not reduce your income,they increase your income.If your income is low that's got nothing to do with franking credits...2/You suggest a modest increase in the pension may more than compensate many of those affected.Why would you compensate anybody for fixing an alleged faulty system?Not logical.
Sad thing is what you propose is how some politicians think.Fact is it is not only pensioners who are affected.So any one off payment to pensioners may relieve the guilt of some bloodsuckers,but does nothing to improve the system or restore fairness back to the system .
Farside
19th Mar 2018
11:33am
@Circum, you appear to have missed the memo that all the kerfuffle is about removing the ability to cash in the franking credits if one does not have sufficient taxable income and corresponding income tax liability. Of course it is not just pensioners affected but we survived without this distortion prior to its introduction less than 20 years ago, and the rest of the world is still functioning without it. It is an aberration and good riddance to it.
OnlyGenuineRainey
19th Mar 2018
5:49pm
Farside, a lot was different 20 years ago. For a start, the pension assets test was very different, and so were interest rates. This proposed change imposes UNFAIR TAX on people with incomes below the tax threshold. The current system is correct. Shorten's proposal is a distortion that will drive the total cost of age pensions UP, reduce private health membership (as those hit with a huge loss of income look for cost savings), reduce spending - and therefore GST and indirect tax revenue, business profit, jobs and income tax - and drive more foreign and property investment, putting more pressure on the housing market and depriving Australian firms of capital. DUMB DUMB DUMB. And it WILL NOT save $57 billion, because they are not counting the massive losses that will result.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Mar 2018
8:11am
On reading further, I don't get the argument here, sorry.

So X holds shares and gets franked dividends. He doesn't earn enough to pay tax. He takes some casual work for a few weeks and his employer mistakenly deducts from his pay a hefty amount of tax and remits. End of year, he fills in a tax return declaring he paid it and he is not liable to pay due to earning too little. It's refunded.

He's entitled to income from dividends. Company has deducted tax and paid it before sending him his cheque. He fills in tax return at end of year and it's refunded because it's an overpayment.

Now Shorten seems to be saying he should NOT get that refund unless it's more than the tax he actually paid. Why? He's been overcharged tax in exactly the same way as the guy who had a higher income. The only difference is he is in more need of the refund.

Labor is not attacking ''wealthy'' retirees at all. It's attacking LOW INCOME EARNERS.
Ok
15th Mar 2018
9:14am
The new Labor pension tax will affect us personally. We have a small SMSF and we depend on dividends pensions, interest rates and dividends to pay for our daily living. Interest rates are currently at an all-time low and even at today's low inflation rates, our money would evaporate within a few years. Taking (taxing) dividends would erase all of our SMSF within 10 years, making us fully dependable on the age pension. I understand that "franking credits" are taxes paid by the company on our behalf. As we are in pension mode, our pension fund is supposed to be tax-free. We have paid already the taxes indirectly on our dividends and therefore should be able to get the taxes back. It is a NEW tax, a PENSION TAX, nothing more and nothing less.
Kathleen
15th Mar 2018
11:17am
Ha ha Labor beat the Libs to this so they are sour. It sounds a bit like double dipping to me.
If 8 b dollars are released for hospitals, schools, the neediest, etc. then it sounds like a good thing to me which is going to happen no matter who is in power. Now, the Libs cannot take credit which is funny. Single pensioners who are renting need extra help for a start. Then the single home owner with no other means of support and with zero cash funds is the next group who could do with a bit more help. Next group would be pensioners who have zero funds to fall back on. If Labor throws some money at hospitals and health in general it will help everyone especially low income people. If schools are properly funded it will be another good thing. Support for young job seekers to be trained and find work will be a good thing as well. There are many ways things could be improved and that will never happen with a government who reward the wealthy and fail to start at the bottom for a flow up and not a trickle down. Genuine poor people can be helped in another way rather than a method that was never meant to grow to 8 billion.
See The Drum from a few nights ago where The Age Peter guy explained it very well and would stop all the misunderstanding.
OnlyGenuineRainey
17th Mar 2018
8:46pm
What a good idea, Kathleen. Let's steal the livelihood of the responsible who saved and invested for their old age and push them into poverty so we can hand out more to every Tom, Dick and Harry who cries ''poor me''. Communist mentality there. And it failed in China and Russia. Don't see how it will succeed any better here.

And BTW. get your facts straight. Franking credits ARE NOT AND NEVER WERE A REWARD FOR THE WEALTHY. They are, in many cases, an ESSENTIAL component of a very modest or low retirement income for people who tried valiantly - despite NEVER being well-off - to save for their old age. And they are, in many cases, paid to people WHO DON'T EARN ANYWHERE NEAR A TAXABLE INCOME. But you want them deprived and ground into poverty. Good on you! How much will be left to steal and redistribute when morons are done bashing everyone who works and saves. The economy can only collapse if we continue down this stupid communist route.
VeryCaringBigBear
15th Mar 2018
12:16pm
Looks like he has list the vote of many people on this alone. Looks to me like he us planning to lose the next election and keep the liberals in power.
Farside
15th Mar 2018
12:45pm
really? You are misreading the tea leaves if you truly think Labor wants to keep the LNP in power. Of course it may well turn out to be the galvanising issue that sways some retirees to vote LNP but for the most part Labor is betting it will affect mostly rusted on LNP voters leaving its chances undiminished in the marginal seats.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Mar 2018
1:05pm
Labor are idiots if they think that. A lot of Labor voters will be hurt and will revolt.
ex PS
15th Mar 2018
12:34pm
The headline is incorrect, you do have to be wealthy to have stock investments, many have invested modest amounts into low risk shares just to make the Deeming Rates. The use of the term "Wealthy Retirees' is misleading.
Circum
18th Mar 2018
9:12pm
Many people invested in bank hybrid shares because of the deeming rates.Bank hybrids are like term deposits with franking credits attached but are not bank guaranteed.Most financial anylysts I have read do not recommend them because of the risk but investors wanting better than bank interest are attracted to them.
Does anyone know how the franked dividend of these will be affected.?
Reagan
15th Mar 2018
12:46pm
Bill's a nice guy, if elected he's pledged to give $250 million to Catholic schools. A very nice gesture I think
Sophie
15th Mar 2018
3:23pm
That's good news for Catholic schools Reagan..however..it will lose him votes...
Kathleen
15th Mar 2018
3:34pm
A drop in the bucket. $250 m across many schools does not achieve much. How many Catholic schools are there?
Our cleaner sends her children to a catholic school and she is not wealthy but rather chooses to do that instead of using her money for other things.
Some people who send their children to catholic schools drive old cars and do not have expensive holidays or luxury goods. They make sacrifices so they can choose their children’s schools.
Schools vary in wealth depending on their area and many catholic schools are very poor and some state schools in wealthy areas are not in the same position as ones situated in very poor areas.
OnlyGenuineRainey
17th Mar 2018
5:12pm
And some people drove old cars and went without holidays and luxuries to save for retirement, Kathleen, but you want THEM stripped of their savings. Stop being a hypocrite. If your cleaner is entitled to make a spending choice with money she saved, why aren't retirees entitled to the same freedom?
OnlyGenuineRainey
17th Mar 2018
5:12pm
And some people drove old cars and went without holidays and luxuries to save for retirement, Kathleen, but you want THEM stripped of their savings. Stop being a hypocrite. If your cleaner is entitled to make a spending choice with money she saved, why aren't retirees entitled to the same freedom?
floss
15th Mar 2018
1:19pm
OnlyGenuineRainey I have read most of your comments and they are right on the money ,a letter to the fool that announced this piece of rubbish will be on its way.If the labor party get into power and carry out this farce I for one will have to cash in our super and will be forced onto a pension a place I would not like to be.Forty years of saving gone due to a moron that has not done a full days work in his life.
old frt
15th Mar 2018
1:32pm
Kathleen -the green eyed monster
All those with SMSF's have taken responsibility for their own welfare in retirement .If you have budgeted for the franking credits to be part of your income the only alternative for extra income is to put your hand out for some gov't welfare.
Kathleen
15th Mar 2018
3:24pm
Are you referring to the pension? I think I might be the opposite of the green eyed monster. Put your money where your mouth is!
Maybe people on here should be stating their annual income?
Hands up all those with an income above $50,000?
Hands up all those with an income of above $40,000?
Hands up all those with more than $100,000 in cash?
Hands up all those with less than $20,000 in cash?
Hands up if you are worth more than a million all up?
Maybe we should care more about getting all the young people into work before we whinge about shares and dividends and how much we are getting or not getting!!!
OnlyGenuineRainey
17th Mar 2018
5:09pm
Maybe we should stop bashing people for working and saving and create a society in which people WANT to strive because it benefits them, instead of one where you get $1million+ reward for being a bludger, spendthrift, gambler, cheat or manipulator.

What business is it of yours who has what. If they worked and saved, they are ENTITLED to have the comfort of that extra. I am heartily sick of this ''poor me'' mentality that assumes if someone has more it's okay to strip them of it to hand out, with no careful consideration of why those putting their hands out are supposedly hard up. Big Bear at least admits to his greed and selfishness. Few will ever admit to being wasteful or irresponsible, let alone to manipulating to unfairly deprive others.

As for getting young people into work, my granddaugther lost her job last week and had FOUR offers inside a week. But I would hesitate to take a low paid job in a nation that looks after bludgers and cheats so well and strips savers of everything they worked for when they retire, while handing out to those who didn't.

We have a stupidly flawed system. If I put $100,000 through the pokies, I get more from the taxpayer purse, but if I give it to my disabled grandson (honestly, after I turn 60), I get less. If I spend it on a cruise, I get more, but if I buy a nice mobile home, I get less. And now Shorten wants to ensure that if I put it through the pokies, or spend it on grog and restaurant dinners, I get more, but if I invest it responsibly in Australian shares, I am deprived of enough income to live on. Where is there any common sense in this BS.

Kathleen, who has what has nothing to do with the issue. It's NOT RELEVANT. What is relevant is that if people work, save and invest they are entitled to FAIR reward, and effectively taxing them if their income is well below the tax threshold is NOT FAIR - whether the tax is direct or via refusing them a refund of tax that was paid from their income that they were not liable to pay.
old frt
15th Mar 2018
1:42pm
Does anyone have an email address for Bill Shorten so that we can all let him know how we feel about his ignorance about life in the real world, how most retirees depend on that bit extra from franking credits and we don't all have $100 Million in super to get $2.5 Million in franking credit refunds.
OnlyGenuineRainey
17th Mar 2018
4:58pm
Yes. Sent him one already. Email is bill.shorten.mp@aph.gov.au. Copy your mail to Chris.Bowen.MP@aph.gov.au, jmacklin.mp@aph.gov.au, Catherine.King.MP@aph.gov.au, julie.collins.mp@aph.gov.au, and senator.cameron@aph.gov.au.

And don't forget to tell him NOBODY gets $100 million a year from super in retirement because nobody is allowed to have more than $1.6 million in a retirement account in super now.
Circum
18th Mar 2018
9:38pm
I would appreciate if Blinkers Bill explained his example of someone/something getting $2.5 million in franking credits.At the moment its just talk to get an emotional response.Please fill us in Bill on what we don't understand.
Cosmo
15th Mar 2018
5:24pm
I agree with Rainey. I have just completed my annual round of modest donations to Australian charities from any unspent income. On each donation form I included the following"
PLEASE NOTE
"As self-funded retirees entirely dependent on our life savings and investments from our own hard work and thrift (no pension, healthcard or handouts), this regular annual donation will unfortunately be curtailed if the next Labor government’s proposed attack on retirees share investments is implemented."
If the Labor message to those currently working and future generations of workers is "we'll punish you if you work hard, save, are successful, invest in local businesses that employ people but we will reward you if you piss your income up against the wall, gamble or are work shy" then the country will go further down the tube under Labor.
We should fully support all those who have genuine bad luck but the vast majority of us had choices about what we did with our working lives and after having paid a load of tax to support those who don't plan their lives, I don't see why I should be further punished in my retirement.
Numerous self funded and part pensioners who I know also help support their adult children and their kids from their retirement income. If as a result of this Labor 'policy of envy' more people claim the full pension, more young people lacking their parents past help seek more support from Centrelink and charities and, donations to charities fall and less money is invested in Australian companies so more jobs go overseas; Labor might find that the it is the instigator of yet more unintended consequences. "Be careful what you wish for." And by the way for those who think "all right for the lucky fat cats," Interrupted by five years in the Army, I started my working life as a farm worker usually starting work at 5.00am and sometimes finishing at 10pm and stayed in that and then manufacturing all my working life so I think I know what hard work is.
OnlyGenuineRainey
16th Mar 2018
2:31pm
Spot on, Cosmo. Driving people to spend their savings and rewarding those who didn't save will stuff the country. But of course the greedy ''give-me'' brigade don't care about that. If only the poorer among us could see that they are driving nails into their own coffins. When workers and savers throw up their hands, there will be nothing for anyone.
Spitfire
15th Mar 2018
5:33pm
It is time for GREY POWER to unite and rise up in this country to eliminate Shorten and his cronies at the ballot box when the next election comes along.
A united front by GREY POWER has the a capacity to show politicians where they stand and put them in their place in our society.
This smiling assassin is scheming to rob each and every pensioner of their last dollar if he ever gets to be elected to becoming our Prime Minister.
OnlyGenuineRainey
17th Mar 2018
8:39pm
Yes but we have to also eliminate the LNP, who wiped out the retirements of over 300,000 people as punishment for being responsible and saving for retirement.
MacI
15th Mar 2018
7:39pm
For those who doubt that Labor's dividend imputation policy will impact low income retirees and pensioners I refer you to 6 case studies published in the Australian today. Here is a summary of 3 of the cases (see the Australian for details).

1) Single Full Age Pensioner with $15K in a term deposit and $40K in shares will be $600 a year worse off.
2) A couple on the Full AP with $45K in cash and $105K in shares will be $2700 a year worse off.
3) A single self-funded retiree with $580K in Super will be $5357 a year worse off.

These are hardly the mega-wealthy and I would have thought reasonable real life cases.

Labor are now attempting as an after thought to appease pensioners by promising to compensate them through an increase in the Age Pension. This wasn't mentioned when the policy was announced - it was all about fiscal responsibility and funding hospitals and education. Funny how things change when the heat comes on. Don't expect the detail until after they are voted in.

With over 2 million Australians on full and part age pensions I can't see labor compensating for these losses. It would be impractical (impossible!) to base compensation according to the degree that a pensioner is affected so any compensation would need to be across the board at $200 million for every $100 increase to the annual pension.
Circum
18th Mar 2018
9:53pm
Agree Macl.The whole things a big con job.A few shekels will be thrown at those who are most likely to respond positively closer to election time.
Any alleged compensation will be peanuts and one off.The bottom line is Blinkers Bill needs the money to assist his future career prospects.Nothing to do with whats in the national interest
Ok
15th Mar 2018
8:36pm
It is NOT a war against the wealthy but the elderly. Shorten hates the elderly.
Crazy Horse
15th Mar 2018
10:57pm
John Howard introduced many unsustainable handouts because he either didn't understand or didn't care that the money coming in from the mining was a short term windfall not a permanent source of revenue. They simply can't go on indefinitely because the money simply isn't there.
Ok
16th Mar 2018
10:05am
There is enough money available right now. The problem is wasteful management.
OnlyGenuineRainey
17th Mar 2018
4:54pm
Of course the money is there. But it won't be for long with these idiotic schemes forcing more and more into hardship and onto pensions.
VeryCaringBigBear
16th Mar 2018
10:28am
Since the deeming rate is based on a basket of investments that pensioners might have if you take away the cranking credits then the deeming rate will fall. So take away on one had and give back on the other. Makes no sense to me at all.
ex PS
16th Mar 2018
4:38pm
I would be willing to bet that the Deeming Rate will not fall if Franking credits are removed, if they did It would make more sense to me and make me more disposed to accept the ALP plan.
OnlyGenuineRainey
17th Mar 2018
7:41pm
The deeming rate has no impact on anyone who is asset tested, nor on thousands of low-income earners who may have acquired a few blue-chip shares at some point. Even if the deeming rate were lowered, it shouldn't make the policy change any more acceptable as that would be a discriminatory move to unfairly advantage one group over other groups that suffered equally and had an equal need and entitlement to relief.
BElle
16th Mar 2018
5:35pm
LABOUR is just following the current trend to swipe at anyone who is on a pension regardless of political bias.
OnlyGenuineRainey
17th Mar 2018
4:53pm
Not just pensioners. All retirees. The self-funded who are now much over thresholds will be hardest hit, forced to eat up their savings until they are pensioners. How does that make any sense at all?
Goldleaf
18th Mar 2018
11:30am
The whole idea that there is double taxation is wrong. Corporations are entities separate to shareholders and shareholders are part owners who do not have the liability of actual owners of a business, they cannot be sued for the mistakes of a corporation. There is no justification for these people to get refunds from the government, the stock market has always had risks, these retirees could lose all their money if there is a major collapse, so the complaining about planning holds very little credence. Also governments can change rules about taxes and payouts any time they want to. I myself have been affected by changes to workers comp (yes you pay taxes on that too), paying for my solar panels two days before O'Farrell got rid of the bonus pay back scheme and I missed out and the changes to deeming rates for those on defined government pensions which means in the future we probably will not be able to get a part pension. All of that I just had to put up with as no wealthy people were involved in the situations I was in. And here we have people who get on average $1200 per year from this whinging because they think it is their right to get these benefits. Few of them realise that any government could change the tax free status of the super over 60 instead and that would hurt a hell of a lot more people. This is not an issue of poor poor pensioner, because they also get the actual dividends anyway and if their incomes go down, then their part pensions will go up. No, the issue here is just greed and a failure to accept that paying taxes means you get more services and a better society.
OnlyGenuineRainey
18th Mar 2018
3:00pm
Goldleaf, you are seriously seriously misled and confused. First, I don't know where you get the $1200 per year figure. I know retirees who are getting $7000 a year in franking credits, and they have total incomes of less than $40,000 a year - in some cases well under the pension - and ZERO CONCESSIONS. Take their $7000 a year away and they will erode their savings and be on a pension within months. Yes, they get dividends anyway - not nearly enough to justify the investment, so many will be driven to withdraw and invest overseas or in property, both of which are BAD for the economy.

As for taxation - they ALL paid tax on the income they used to buy the shares. They pay tax if their total income is above the threshold, including tax on the dividend income. They pay ''tax'' of a different form by not getting pensions those who don't invest collect. And they pay tax on the dividend payment before it's paid to them, via company tax. They ARE ENTITLED to their franking refund because they ONLY get it if they have already PAID TAX ON THAT INCOME THAT THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO PAY BECAUSE THEY EARN TOO LITTLE TO PAY TAX

Get off your soapbox long enough to learn the FACTS. You are completely WRONG in your logic. Income earned by folk whose total income is below the tax threshold SHOULD BE TAX FREE, regardless of whether it comes from earnings, dividends, property, or other investment. Discrimination against shareholders is WRONG.

The company paid the tax. The shareholder whose income is below the tax threshold IS ENTITLED TO GET IT BACK.

Let those who earn over the threshold pay for services and a better society. You don't make it better by crushing people who work hard, save well, invest carefully, but have low incomes in retirement.
Circum
18th Mar 2018
10:05pm
Thanks Rainey,you saved me some typing.I don't need to blank out all the swear words now.Like they say..commonsense is not very common
MacI
18th Mar 2018
5:23pm
Sorry to disillusion those contributing to this forum that think grey power will rise up to defeat this policy - I hate to say it but if Labor wins the next election they will implement this policy despite its unfairness towards some retirees. Why? Because they are hungry for cash to pay for their spending spree and they have calculated that in the scheme of things this issue will just get lost in the noise of an election campaign. Most people on the Age Pension either don't care because they are unaffected (estimated to be only 214,000 out of over 2 million Age Pensioners) or don't understand what the fuss is about. Non-retirees have their own agendas - education, child care, hospitals etc etc. Labor have likely calculated that the majority of self-funded retirees who will be affected will vote for the LNP in any case.
Circum
18th Mar 2018
10:34pm
Just realised that Bill Shortens initials are B.S..how appropriate.
OnlyGenuineRainey
20th Mar 2018
12:30pm
I'm not great at maths so maybe somebody who is will help me out here, and verify my calculations.

I used the example of a SFR couple with $850,000 in assets, of which $100,000 is in liquid cash (for living costs) and non-returning assets (furniture, car, personal effects, etc.) I assumed they are paying $4000 a year in investment/advice expenses and getting the stated average return of 5% p.a. That gives them an income of 5% of $750,000 = $37500 less $4000 costs = $33,500.

Now, this couple forfeits the pension entirely, so they are effectively paying at least $36000 (more when concessions are counted) to the tax man. By my calculations, they are therefore effectively currently paying about 107.5% tax on their income.

If Shorten's proposal goes ahead, they will lose 30% of their gross income, assuming it's all in shares that pay franked dividends, so their income will fall by $11250 to $22250, so they will be effectively paying $162% tax on their retirement income.

Now, Trebor says that's fair if they got tax concessions on their contributions to super when working. Most probably did not, since super and the accompanying tax benefits are a relatively recent innovation, but besides, only high income earners got tax concessions on super. The 15% tax rate was very close to the marginal rate paid by low income earners and more than many paid. And yes, many low income earners DID save $850,000. It IS possible. I can also point to some who got compensation payouts for injury who are now living off that compo instead of using if for the designated purpose of medical expenses and disability aids.

Regardless, though, I suspect if you told folk who are getting even a 30% tax concession on their super contributions today that it would cost them 162% of their income in retirement, they would tell you to please withdraw the 30% concession. The numbers don't stack up!!!
Kathleen
21st Mar 2018
11:28am
Thank goodness there is one decent wealthier retiree as evidenced on QandA on Monday night. The guy said he was worried for his children and grandchildren and agrees with Labor’s policy to stop paying the extra amount on shares. He agreed that it was never intended to grow this much and was put in place at a time when there was a big surplus and the mining industry was booming. Exaggerations abound on here. No one is going to fall below the pension amount. Maybe some of the money will be used to assist single pensioners renting as Labor has always been better for the poor than LNP. Youth unemployment is really high and many young people can not afford to buy a house. Hospitals and schools need to be supported better. Some commenting here resort to personal attacks which is most unpleasant. There is becoming a division between the generations as some oldies are being seen as selfish. I never saw this before but it is being illustrated by a small percentage of retirees unfortunately. 8 billion to reduce the deficit and help those that are really unfortunate especially the youth who need to set up their lives so they can become old and selfish too.
OnlyGenuineRainey
22nd Mar 2018
7:08am
Kathleen, I admire his and your integrity, but you are both sadly misled. If you read the information on the Superplus website carefully, and think things through, you will realize that Shorten's policy will do hideous harm to our children and grandchildren - NOT benefit them. Shorten is selling a load of crock. His policy will force countless thousands more onto pensions or larger pensions in retirement, reduce spending - and thus reduce growth and tax revenue - and dramatically reduce the capacity of younger Australians to save for retirement.

I agree the billions into the budget sound good, but you have to analyse the cost. The claim that this will hit the wealthy is a load of crock. The wealthy can always circumvent hurt by rearranging their affairs.

Fortunately for Shorten, few Australians understand the system well enough to see where he is really getting those billions. It's out of the retirement funds of nearly all Australians. Every Australian worker will have less in retirement if this passes into law. You have to understand the superannuation tax system to appreciate this. Here's how it works. Money goes into employee superannuation accounts. That money is invested and yields a return. The return adds to the total gross income of the Fund. The total income is assessed and a 15% tax applied. Then the 30% franking credits earned on ALL shares held by ALL fund members is applied to reduce that total tax bill. Then the net tax is distributed among all members of the fund by applying what is referred to as a ''member weighted balance percentage'', which is calculated by comparing each member's balance to the total amount in the Fund.

What happens if Shorten's policy is passed into law is that the 30% credits can only be claimed if the total tax, at 15%, is higher than the credits. That would require heavy investment by members in property, foreign shares, and other investments that don't pay franked dividends. Since nearly ALL Australians own shares in companies paying franked dividends (whether they know it or not), the tax paid by nearly all super funds will INCREASE under Shortne's grab, resulting in less retirement money for all Australian workers. As always, the poorest will suffer most.

For self-funded retirees, the policy is a disaster. Many will find that they are handing the tax man up to 50% more than their annual income. That's not affordable, so the only option available is to divest quickly and put their hands out for a pension. Yes, it sounds unethical and greedy, but seriously, Kathleen, if you had gone without lifestyle to save for old age, would you be content to gift the tax man more every year than your annual income?

Please don't be conned by the liars sprouting untruths. Shorten's policy sounds good when you fail to understand the implications, but it is NOT going to benefit future Australians. It's been calculated by experts that within 2 years the cost will exceed the claimed gain.

The ONLY way to benefit our youth is to build MORE AFFLUENCE. Taking constantly won't do it. We need money circulating in the economy generating jobs and growth and thus more tax revenue, and that means letting those who worked and saved benefit from their endeavours and encouraging more saving. When there are more people prospering, there is more money to support those who are not.
KEVINJ
21st Mar 2018
11:39am
CondenseD:- “CROOKS, j Howard & p Costello SUBSidy entirely DISTOTS ORIG design of Divi dend imputa SYS,” SHORTEN, Will Say.- “In fact, it makes AUST th Only OECD country with fully Refunda Divid Imputa CRED SYS. Every $ Our opponents spend on preserving exemp -tions 4 " Top End " of town is, $$ S to CUT, Fr SCHLS & HOSPS, extracted frm MIDDL AUST in Tax Increases O R, -FORCg TAX--Payers to PAY, MORE Interest, O N, our nation’s DEBT.” -- Labor policy, according to - Fairfax Media, is- Aimed at raising $5.6 bill in 2,020 &, Simil EV YR, -equiva TO, abt, $ 4,800 on AVE, ea YR, 4 EV Tax-Payer, AffecteD. SEE HOW MANY RESPOND ?????
OnlyGenuineRainey
22nd Mar 2018
7:22am
It's clearly to Shorten's benefit that most Australian workers are invested in industry or retail super funds that DO NOT show franking credits on member statements. Therefore, many will swallow the lies that this policy change hits wealthy retirees and fail to realize what it does to the average worker's retirement.

If you understand the way super funds are taxed, you will see that MOST AUSTRALIAN WORKERS will lose valuable retirement savings under this plan. Where do you think these billions come from? There are not enough well off who can't manipulate around tax changes to generate these billions, and much of the saving will be offset by higher dependence of retirees on pensions as their capacity to self-fund is destroyed.

Money goes into workers' super fund accounts regularly. That's law. That money is invested and earns income. The income is taxed at 15%. The way most retail and industry funds operate, the tax is calculated across the whole fund - not individually by member. Then the franking credits are applied to reduce that tax - again, across the whole fund. Member X might have his entire balance in blue chip shares and earn high franking credits. Member Y might be in property and earn none. But the total is averaged (however unfair that might seem to some!). The result is that the franking credits substantially reduce the total tax payable by the fund.

Now, the total tax is allocated between members according to their ''member weighted average'' - that is - the percentage of the total fund balance that their account balance represents.

If Shorten has his way, funds that have tax liability greater than their total franking credits - i.e. those with heavy investments in things other than shares paying franked dividends - will not suffer, but all members in funds that receive franking credits exceeding their tax liability (and that's probably most funds) will see reductions in their retirement savings. In particular, funds that have large numbers of less affluent members will suffer most. Once again, the poorest get hit hardest while the myth perpetrates that it's the richest being attacked.

Expert economists have calculated that the reduced retirement savings of all Australians, resulting in increased reliance on welfare, combined with reduced spending reducing growth, jobs and tax revenue, will mean that the claimed savings dissipate completely within 2 years and the budget deficit will blow out within 4-5 years as a result of this policy change.

PLEASE don't let envy cloud your judgment. Don't swallow the lies. This policy is NOT a hit at wealthy Australians. Nor is it a ''correction'' of any flaw in tax law. The Howard/Costello change that allowed Australians to claim franking credits as a tax refund was the correction of a flawed law. It correctly allowed us all to pay tax at our proper marginal rate. Shorten's policy taxes those who hold shares and have LOW incomes at an unfairly HIGHER rate than others with the same or higher income but earned from other sources. That's patently UNFAIR and it will result in people divesting shares, doing major damage to our economy and destroying the lifestyles of younger Australians.
OnlyGenuineRainey
22nd Mar 2018
10:56am
It has now been reported, based on expert analysis, that members of 3200 super funds will suffer significant loss through Shorten's proposal. Anyone on a tax rate of less than 28.5% who holds shares either directly or indirectly (and that's most workers) will suffer loss.

Wait for it folks! If your tax rate is OVER 28.5% YOU WILL NOT LOSE.

So much for the BS about it hurting the wealthy.
P$cript
22nd Mar 2018
5:32pm
Get over it! If you have benefited from this, you're lucky, as many haven't.
This is a policy that under normal circumstances is stupid, as it was one of many the Howard Government introduced just to use the money from the mining boom. Instead of saving it for the rainy day which was always going to occur, as booms never go on forever.
As the Shorten changes wouldn't come in for at least a year after Labor won government, you would have time to find some other loophole to rip off someone.
Rip off is the word as you taking taxes that would benefit all in the form of infrastructure, education, higher pensions and increased minimum wages.
Instead of squirrelling the money away, saying its mine, you would benefitin many othe ways!
OnlyGenuineRainey
23rd Mar 2018
7:59am
P$script, you are seriously seriously confused by clever liars.

If I work and my boss deducts too much tax from my pay, I get it back. Income from franked shares is ALWAYS taxed at 30%. If the shareholder's tax rate is below 30%, he is OVERTAXED and the rort is NOT GIVING IT BACK.

As for having time to rearrange affairs - yes. We can all take our money out of Australian shares and put it into property (pushing housing prices up), foreign shares (building other country's economies and stuffing our own), precious metals (growing mining company profits)... gee, lots of options for BUGGERING OUR OWN ECONOMY.

The people this will hurt worked hard and paid taxes so that the government had funds to pay pensions and Newstart and for health care for the poor etc. They are now donating up to a million dollars over the course of their retirement to the government by not claiming a pension. Now you want them ripped off to the tune of 30% of their income - no matter how minimal it may be, and even if, as in many cases, it's LESS than the pension.

Sorry, it's NOT them who are ripping off. They are PAYING FOR THE RIP-OFFS. They are funding pensions to spendthrifts and bludgers and cheats. They are paying for government waste and excess pay to politicians.

Yeah, go ahead - out of jealousy, support a liar who is stealing the livelihood of those who are reducing the national debt by self-funding and investing. And when they are all poor, enjoy poverty. Because that's what will result from this STUPID attack on the people who are keeping this nation strong.

P$script - just how much would YOU like to see taken in tax from people who saved to reduce the strain on the pension system? If I retired, under Shorten's system I my partner and I would by paying 150% of our very small income, eroding our savings until we are pensioners. But because I'm NOT retired, I could transfer the shares held in my superfund - on which the income will be OVERTAXED UNFAIRLY - to my private account and pay no tax on the dividend. That means that while I earn a comfortable income, I'd pay NO TAX. But when my income falls to HALF the aged pension, I'll pay 30% tax until my savings are all gone.

You think that's a good scheme? You have rocks in your head if you do.

And BTW., I have NEVER been lucky. I worked for minimal wages, supporting a disabled husband and a special needs child who cost me over $100K out of pocket in medical and therapy bills - in the early 70s, when that would buy 4 houses. I suffered years of sickness, and I am still working at 67 and paying tax. But if this IDIOT BS gets elected, I'll quit, buy a lavish house, go cruising, gift to my kids, and claim a full pension with benefits. Because it simply won't be viable to keep slaving to be self-sufficient. Nobody will be happy being so overtaxed that their savings are worthless, so there will be a lot more pensioners. Good luck with that!
OnlyGenuineRainey
23rd Mar 2018
8:05am
Got to hand it to BS. He sure is a smooth liar and he's succeeded in conning a lot of people. But I guess this ''attack wealthy retirees'' lie is a popular one with the green-eyed brigade who can't think past ME ME ME ME ME GIVE ME MORE TAKE IT FROM HIM.

Sadly, the people supporting this policy are hammering nails into their own coffin. It isn't going to hurt the rich. They will always manipulate around obstacles. It's going to hurt EVERY Australian worker who has super and is on a tax rate less than 30%, and EVERY struggling retiree who is currently donating to the nation's wealth by not claiming a pension, but will be rapidly made poorer by being OVERTAXED UNFAIRLY, until they have to claim a pension.

The goal, I suspect, is to make us all poor and dependant, because then we will be too afraid to revolt in any way and the dictators will be able to rule unrestrained.

If the goal isn't anything that sinister, the BS is totally inept and should never be allowed to govern, because his claims about this policy are total BS! And anyone who believes his crap - or the BS that it will only hurt the well off - has rocks in their head. Like every attack on working and lower middle-class Australians, it will hurt the nation, and only the rich will escape the pain.


Tags: retirees, tax, super

Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

  • Receive our daily enewsletter
  • Enter competitions
  • Comment on articles