Treasurer wants to know if he can keep your tax credits

Font Size:

The spectre of the controversial franking credits claw-back was raised again this week, only this time it was the Coalition Government which wanted to know if withholding it from retirees stacks up.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg on Wednesday announced a standing committee of the House of Representatives would investigate the implications of removing refundable franking credits.

It is a backflip from the position it had up until recently taken in opposing Opposition Leader Bill Shorten’s proposed retention of these tax refunds from shareholders in March this year.

To be chaired by Liberal MP Tim Wilson, the standing committee is taking submissions until 2 November.

“The ability for investors, including individuals and superannuation funds, to claim their full credits is an established feature of our tax system and is core to the financial security of retirees,” Mr Wilson said at the announcement.

“There has been legitimate community concern about proposals to remove cash refunds for their full allocation of credits for individuals and superannuation funds, and that it amounts to a tax on the savings of retirees.

“The committee is examining what impacts the removal of refundable franking credits would have, particularly on retirees who have made long-term retirement saving decisions based on their ability to claim refunds on their franking credits and whether it will compromise their financial security,” he said.

Shareholders who receive fully franked dividends are entitled to offset the tax paid by the company on their behalf against tax liabilities they have. The amount that can be claimed is called the franking credit.

In the case of retirees, most who have an income below a certain threshold will have a personal marginal tax rate of zero. People in that category are not expected to pay any tax and thus are entitled to a refund of tax paid on their dividend by a company on their behalf.

At YourLifeChoices we know that withholding the credits – also known as dividend imputation and imputation credits – would slice into the earnings of many of our members.

In our recent major poll, the 2018 Retirement Matters Survey, more than a third of you told us that you own shares in addition to those held in superannuation funds.

More than 5000 members answered the question on shares. If we extrapolate the number who are independent shareholders across our entire membership of 250,000, it means up to 85,000 of you will have your income reduced if imputation credits are not paid.

The committee’s terms of reference include inquiring into the potential effects of :

  • analysis of who receives refundable franking credits, the opportunities it provides to offer alternative savings and investment vehicles to low and middle income earners, and the impact it has on lowering tax bills
  • consideration of how refundable franking credits support tax principles, particularly implications for tax neutrality, removal of double taxation and fairness
  • if refundable franking credits are removed; who it would impact and how, and the implications from expected behavioural change by investors, including for:
    – increased dependence on the pension
    – stress and complexity it will cause for Australians, including older Australians to adjust their investments
    – if there are carve-outs applied, what this might mean for additional complexity, uncertainty and fairness
    – reduced incentives to save and distortions to which asset classes are invested in and funds are used, and
    – the reliability of providing a sustainable revenue base over the longer term.

Will you continue to be able to afford your retirement if franking credits are withheld from you? Will you be forced to apply for the Age Pension if the Government decides not to refund this tax?

Join YourLifeChoices today
and get this free eBook!

Join
By joining YourLifeChoices you consent that you have read and agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy

RELATED LINKS

How do franking credits work?

The franking credits fiasco has become more complicated than necessary.

Find out if you are owed a tax refund

You may not realise you are owed a refund from company tax paid on your shares

Labor targets wealthy retirees with $59b tax plan

Shorten to announce plan to save $59b over 10 years.

Written by Olga Galacho

240 Comments

Total Comments: 240
  1. 0
    0

    I am confident that Tim will recommend that franking credits be retained and at the same time discredit Bill Shorten on this issue
    Bill will be made to look like the complete fool that he is . His plan will send the cost of OAP welfare through the stratosphere

    • 0
      0

      I agree. It will show that his rich mates will still get their full franking credits and it is low income earners that are being screwed instead.

    • 0
      0

      This is an election stunt from the government. I see that 7 News is already grooming Morrison as he did for Turnbull in the last election. WE NEED ANTI PROPAGANDA LAWS to stop this.

      You say Olga “…. the Coalition Government which wanted to know if withholding it from retirees stacks up.” The facts as I understand them are that PENSIONERS receiving franking credits will not be affected under Labor’s proposed changes but self funded retirees will.
      I suggest any body affected write to ALL Labor MPs and suggest that franking credits have a threshhold after which they cut out. A figure around $20,000 would be a good place for them to end. That way most self funded retirees would not be caught in a net meant for HIGH NET WORTH INDIVIDUALS…..who are the main recipients of rich man’s welfare paid for by taxpayers. This is the cohort which needs to be caught in the tax net they always seem to be able to avoid.

    • 0
      0

      Hahaha – Mick and hisnlabor mates are running scared
      This study will show up Shorten for what he is – a know nothing nasty fellow who wants to destroy the middle class and the superannuation system

    • 0
      0

      Mick I suggest your read this article and then you will see that franking credits are fair and that the Labor’s policy is bad policy and is not doing what the really want to achieve.

      https://cuffelinks.com.au/basics-franking-credit-refunds-fair/

      Labor should be changing the tax rate retirees pay instead. I see that policy of allowing those over 60 tax free income from super is the real problem here and the non return of franking credits will not fix it at all. They should be taxed as normal with a rebate of 15% on super money that has already been taxed which is the same way those under 60 are taxed. Most retirees would pay no tax but those earning a lot in super will pay more tax.

    • 0
      0

      I habe to laugh. You put forward an article written by a man who is well connected in the business world as ‘proof’ and move on. Do you really take readers on this website for fools?

      The reality:

      1. double taxation happens EVERYWHERE and nobody gets refunds for it. If I hire a carpenter then the money I pay him has GST taken out. That is a tax. The carpenter then goes and spends that money on groceries. No tax refund!
      The whole argument is a sham and FRANKING CREDITS OCCUR NOWHERE IN THE FIRST WORLD OTHER THAN IN AUSTRALIA.
      Go tell your stories at party HQ. They are the normal nonsense people have to read from you two and nearly all franking credits are picked up at the top end of town who also recently got tax guts they have no of and no right to receive. This cohort also have tax minimisation schemes and deductions which would male Arnold Schwarzenegger puke plus offshore tax shelters.

      Go peddle your rich man’s propaganda to somebody who is dumb enough to be conned. You picked the wrong person.

    • 0
      0

      Mick there is no GST on my groceries.

    • 0
      0

      Mick, why should someone who earns too little to pay tax pay 30% on income from shares while those getting much higher incomes from other sources pay NOTHING?

      And why should a part pensioner couple with an income of $60K a year and $500K in the bank keep their franking credits while the SFR couple with an income of %30,000 a year lose theirs.

      The Labor Party is WRONG on this issue, and they need to address their error so that they don’t lose the election to the mongrels we DON’T want winning again.

    • 0
      0

      OGR this is actually a very clever more that will expose the Labor party lie for all it is worth. Once their lie is exposed they will lose credibility and people will wont believe a thing they say.

      One has to only look at what Labor is saying about the funding of schools at present to expose more of their lies.

    • 0
      0

      They shouldn’t, Rainey, if their tax is worked out correctly – and provided they do not have ‘hidden’ income – very hard to do these days unless it’s cash.

      Hound your member over that issue until he/she gets it right.

    • 0
      0

      Funding of schools OG, Morrison just gave back the funding to catholic and private schools but public has still been left with less.

    • 0
      0

      He gave it back to the private schools because people were taking their kids out of private schools due to large fee increases and placing them in public schools thus overloading the public school system. If he hadn’t public schools would have had more kids for the same funding. Labor has been telling porkies on this issue.

    • 0
      0

      This is probably why Shorty has an approval rating of around 34%.

  2. 0
    0

    There would be little point in saving enough to be self-funded in retirement if the government sliced into incomes by removing franking credits. Already many SFRs are much worse of in income terms than pensioners. If the government wants another 500,000+ on aged pensions, attack SFRs yet again! They seem to be regarded as fair target. It’s become almost a case of ”do you have savings? Hand the all over!”

    Once upon a time the government recognised the value of allowing people to benefit from doing what’s good for the nation. Now, it seems, all the rewards are reserved for the bludgers, leaners, manipulators and cheats, and the honest and diligent can go to hell.

    • 0
      0

      It’s only labor who seek keen on anniahlating SFR’s
      The more they destroy wealth the greater will be their support base

    • 0
      0

      Rubbish Olbaid. i’ts BOTH parties. The LNP has already demolished the lifestyle of 300,000 retirees, and now they are apparently considering dealing the final blow to those same hard-working folk. BOTH parties hate the fact that some of us who worked hard and lived modestly actually ended up comfortable. They want to grind all but the ”born rich elite’ back into poverty.

    • 0
      0

      Agree with OGR 100%

    • 0
      0

      So, Rainey – it’s all right for someone to receive several million in franked credits and pay zero tax while the company writes it off and pays zero tax?

      The tax system applied correctly will not disadvantage anyone with a small holding… at a return of up to $18,200 you would pay no tax, and on an income of $38,200 you would pay minimum tax.

      Even at $18,200 and a return of 5% you’d need a share holding of twenty times that return = $363,000 in shares – to not pay any tax on that income, and only after that would you pay the minimum rate.

      It is the same as income tax withheld – it is tax paid to the ATO on your behalf – not money held as a free gift at ta time. By the same rule, every PAYG tapayer should receive all of withheld tax back each year.

      Since he/she does not – what is so saintly about shareholders? Shorten already said there would be leeway for retirees… but those who are receiving millions have zero need for leeway and have already had the sweet ride to even have that level of shareholding and tax concessions along the way.

    • 0
      0

      Trebor if you understood the tax system you would know that it is not possible to receive several million in franking credits either as an individual or in ones super fund and receive a refund cheque for those franking credits.

      If you were to receive several million in franking credits as an individual you must have earnt many millions more in income. You pay the top rate of tax of 45c on this which is considerably more than the 30c you can offset in franking credits. So you will pay at least 15c plus Medicare levies on your millions. So he keeps his several million in franking credits.

      If it was in a super fund then they are only tax free on the first $1.6 million in the pension phase. If that super fund received several million in franking credits they would have to have earnt many millions more in income than those franking credits and will so keep all those franking credits. Note it is possible to have only $2 million in a super fund and be able to use all ones franking credits to pay their tax. It is those with less than $1.6 million that will lose big time.

      If you earn $18,600 you pay no tax. But if you earn $18,600 under Labor you will pay 30% of it in tax. Therefore your income will drop to approx. $13,000. How is this fair when if you earnt that money anywhere else you pay not tax? It is certainly not a free gift when it is the difference between a person just making ends meet and not having a chance to do so.

      So no matter where you earn your money you should pay the same amount of tax. So why should one pay 30% tax on the same income just because they earnt it in dividends?

    • 0
      0

      And you know I stand four square for all retirees being treated fairly and not being allowed to fall below Pension rate – as could happen to some with a small income. SFRs already pay extra in healthcare and such costs – hardly fair when my view is that a fully vetted income up to pension rate should be a right, along with all extras that go with it.

      There is a lot of injustice around and inequity around.

      Now let me get back elsewhere to shorten on the drive for women’s super etc.

    • 0
      0

      Jesus – OG – that 30% is included as part of total income – it is tax withheld – and tax is payable on the total – NOBODY ever said the full 30% should not be returned – some of it may – or may not – depending on the taxable income of the shareholder.

      If you had the privilege of paying 45c per dollar in income – you’ve already got enough – why should you get more and more when you retire?

      The entire system is fatally flawed. I once did some figures for a pr1ck relative on his PS income – and worked out that he could receive the same in hand at the lowest rate if he took a reduction in salary of (at that time from memory) around $60k a year – he went into shock…

      The thing about those with the big incomes is – it’s not the money – it’s the ‘status’ of being a big earner – and just like living in a ‘high class suburb’ as mentioned yesterday about rental assistance – your choice, you pay your way without question.

    • 0
      0

      So how it is fair under Labor that that person who receives several millions in franking credits is able to write the whole lot off against his income but someone earning $18,000 income from shares loses $5000 leaving him $13,000?

    • 0
      0

      Pretty spot on OGR.

      The issue I have advocated is for Labor to have a threshhold for franking credits after which they cut out. $20,000 would be a fair figure. Of course the government trolls will be screaming disadvantage from the rafters because rich people believe they should pay no taxes. Cutting franking credits at the above will end the game.

      All readers so affected should write to every Labor MP and ask for the above amendment if they want their vote. I will be.

    • 0
      0

      OG. From what I know Labor has already said that Superanuant’s would be protected.

      It is the top rorters they are after.

    • 0
      0

      Wstation they are only protected if they are on welfare. Self funded retirees are not on welfare and are right in the firing line and will lose the most by this unfair policy.

      It is estimated some 500,000 will divest their wealth and go on the old age pension. The cost of these people on the pension more than likely will cost more than any financial benefit gained by not refunding franking credits. So there will be no money for hospitals, schools etc. Can we afford this to happen?

    • 0
      0

      “So how it is fair under Labor that that person who receives several millions in franking credits is able to write the whole lot off against his income but someone earning $18,000 income from shares loses $5000 leaving him $13,000? “

      That’s what I just said, OG…. we’re on the same page here. I’m in full support of those with a small income from shares – but not in favour of those who are copping millions etc and writing it off and then getting the 30% back as a gift.

      Those SFRs on an income lower than Pension and perks should be receiving a top-up from Centrelink and the same perks as OAPs. Pretty simple, eh? Shorten’s position is that those on low incomes will receive full benefit…. I’m still waiting on his nuts and bolts – and post election back-flips.

    • 0
      0

      Wstaton – does that include ‘superannuants’ on millions p.a? Seems to me that is the problem…. dividend imputation and tax avoidance schemes are resulting in massive imbalances…

      Time to put a stop to all…. easy enough.

    • 0
      0

      Trebor Shorten has said those on welfare will keep receiving their franking credit refunds however those on low income not on welfare will not. These people will lose 30% of their already low income.

    • 0
      0

      Wstaton – WRONG WRONG WRONG. Shorten said PENSIONERS would be protected, no matter how high their income, but anyone NOT on a pension at the date of the announcement would NEVER get franking credits, no matter how low their income or how poor they may eventually become.

      Trebor, the LNP already substantially addressed the issue of people with millions getting tax free incomes and franking credits. They capped tax free pension accounts in super at $1.6 mil. Labor, on the other hand, is promising to CONTINUE letting even the highest income earners benefit from franking credits to reduce their tax bill, while the battlers get screwed.

    • 0
      0

      OGR it would not surprise me that the cost of welfare will skyrocket with 500,000 more on the old age pension and any gains from this unfair policy will be minimal compared to the cost of those extra pensions.

      Also the smart money in SMSFs will just invest elsewhere’

      There has also been a lot more capital raisings by companies of late than normal so are they getting in now to raise capital while they can as it will be a lot harder under Labor with this unfair policy.

    • 0
      0

      It should be all those under a certain level of income, OG, OGR – not just those on Social Security. always watch what any politician says – they choose their words very carefully so as to leave loopholes.

      When it comes to a couple, I’m in favour of each treated separately so that they can actually earn a little more – the bills don’t stop coming once you get older, retired and less able etc…

  3. 0
    0

    Olga, will YLC be making a formal submission – hopefully defending the rights of SFRs?

    • 0
      0

      Stipulate ‘smaller SFRs’ Rainey – the fat cats have no need of any help – they’ve already had it.

    • 0
      0

      Trebor, fat cats won’t be getting any refund of franking credits because their average rate of tax will be >30%. They will absorb all of their franking credits to offset their other tax payable. That is exactly why it is discriminatory to deny franking credit refunds to lower income earners.

    • 0
      0

      Correct – so why then is there any argument about this Oz?

      For the simple reason that far too much of franked credits is not paying tax and the recipients are not paying tax… that’s precisely where Shortenski started off on this – and the rumour mill and emotional clouds have swamped the whole discussion.

      Too many are paying zero tax on huge incomes – and getting their imputation back complete as well.

      Again – the small holders are not affected and will not be either – as long as I have any say in it.

    • 0
      0

      Now let me go and chew on Shorten over ‘women’s super’ and the next phase in the stupidity of paying women more for the same work…

    • 0
      0

      Trebor, the fat cats either have already lost their big franking credits by being forced to reduce tax free pension balances to below $1.6 million, or have such high incomes that they will continue to get the credits as a tax reduction.

      The ONLY people losing by this stupid proposal are SMALLER SFRs.

    • 0
      0

      I agree – unless done carefully it will (as usual) impact on the lower income recipients.

    • 0
      0

      Trebor, Labor’s proposal ONLY impacts on those on low incomes. The high income earners keep their credits!

  4. 0
    0

    We are SFR’s (without aged pension,) and without the franking credits our income will be lower than those on the pension when you take into account the other benefits the aged pension brings in.

    I fail to understand how any political party can even think about attacking SFR’s income in any way as we worked hard to get to where we are, went without for years and are saving the govt hundreds of thousands over our retired lifetimes by not claiming a pension.

    Where is the incentive to work hard and save for the future when the system you worked under suddenly changes the goalposts!!!! My wife and I have lost faith in the Australian political system over the last 10/15 years as too many politicans are now “in it for themselves” rather than for the good of the country.

    • 0
      0

      Couldn’t agree more. Just once before I go I would love to see politicians live on a pensions income for a month.

    • 0
      0

      Yes Captain. I find it appalling that a defined benefit pension that is 48% non concessional is deemed only 10% non concessional by Centrelink now. The whole idea of paying after tax savings into superannuation thus saving the revenue base was wiped out by this change and those pensioners could not do a thing about it.

      At least in this case shares can be sold down and invested in other products with better returns over time than dividend payers minus the extra cheque money.

      The Government will end up paying anyway as those on lower incomes will be able to claim part pensions and receive valuable concession cards.

      Pity all those buying units in funds with the promise of those concessions were robbed as they can’t do a thing about it unlike shareholders.

    • 0
      0

      You are in the category that Shortenski has already said will get leeway, Captain – besides this is all distraction from the stupid and ongoing idea of paying women for not working along with super for not working – i.e. at a higher rate for the same work.

    • 0
      0

      Well written Captain. You are not alone mate and many of us are wondering why we have been written off given that we save governments billions of dollars in pensions they do not pay us.
      The reality is governments in this country have mismanaged our money for decades and now they come after workers repeatedly with the coalition handing out money to those who have no need. If re-elected company tax cuts for the rich will add to personal cuts they recently received. Be careful who you vote for as it could get much much worse. Rich folk never want less!

    • 0
      0

      WRONG AGAIN TREBOR. Shorten DID NOT say there would be leeway for low income SFRs – ONLY for pensioners, many of whom are far better off than their SFR counterparts.

    • 0
      0

      Sorry – my error, Rainey – I recall saying before that smaller SFRs needed to be included… my mistake.

  5. 0
    0

    It’s drawing a long bow to suggest that the committee investigating the implications of removing tax imputations is wanting to make it a coalition policy. It seems to be a way of sticking it up Labor by making clear who will be affected and by how much. As I see it, it is a pure political act to discredit the other side, not a way to formulate policy.

  6. 0
    0

    Why are they forcing retirees to get all their money out and putting under their bed to become eligible for the pension.

    • 0
      0

      I think they want you to spend it and keep the economy going until at least after the election.

      Best way to do that is to make saving extremely unproductive and they are doing a great job of it.

  7. 0
    0

    Just another attack on retirees by this stupid Liberal Government it has been ongoing since they came to power.Shortens view on franking credits was just as bad.Lest we forget Joe Hockey.

    • 0
      0

      It is not an attack on retirees by the Liberal government but will show that Labor is looking alter their rich mates and fleecing retirees.

    • 0
      0

      LNP/Labor – no difference OG – they are all out there to take something from the majority of lower incomes – which adds up to taking a large chunk out of the bigger incomes such as themselves, their families, their cronies etc with all of their arranged deals while in ‘government’, who would then be upset.

  8. 0
    0

    Howard should never have extended franking credit policy to include refunds for non-taxpayers. That was never the intention of franking and it is another concession that has made our taxation system unsustainable.

    • 0
      0

      Please tell us what you think the intention of franking was meant to be?

      Don’t you think it possible that the Howard Government identified the iniquity in the initial policy, and made it possible for all shareholders to get the full benefit of the credit for tax already paid on their dividends by the companies they invested it. The Howard Government corrected what was effectively double taxation.

      I’m sure that YLC readers would be interested to know why you think it’s fair for wealthy people to get the full benefit of franking credits to offset their tax bills, but why it’s not fair for people on lower incomes to also get the credit for tax already paid on their dividends?

    • 0
      0

      So Oz – there was inequity in a company paying, for example, 30% equal to one million to the ATO to be withheld as against future tax burden, and then handing that million of EARNED INCOME back without a murmer and with no tax on it or any other income?

      It is withheld tax, same as PAYG earners have withdrawn before they get their money every week… and is itself part of taxable income and even with no other taxation levied, should be taxed at the going rate for $1m.

      Let’s try it in simple terms:-

      Joe Thinne the worker is paid annually $100,000 and has (for example and simplicity of calculation) 30% in tax withheld = $30,000 PAYE tax paid into the ATO in advance.

      Bill Fatte is paid annually $1,000,000 from his share portfolio, with 30% in tax withheld = $300,000 tax paid into the ATO in advance.

      Joe does his tax return on his gross income which includes the PAYG component, and is entitled to a return out of his $30,000 or (say) $200 in deductions – he gets a tax cheque for $200.

      Bill does his tax return with his sole income being his return on shares, and his gross income including the dividend imputation is $1000,000 – he writes off 50% = $500,000 in costs and thus pays tax on a total of $500,000 – is it then right that Bill is returned that $300,000 in full without paying any tax on it? He still owes tax on $500k – how would he get back the whole $300,000 without paying anything out of it?

      Not that hard really…

    • 0
      0

      If Howard had not extend the franking system to allow refunds of franking credits then our sharemarket would not be near as big or robust as it is today. Only the wealthy would own shares and the liquidity of our market would be very low. Raising capital would be also difficult.

    • 0
      0

      Trebor I’d love to know how one can write off $500,000 in costs on an income of $1000,000 from shares? That is utter nonsense.

    • 0
      0

      Trebor, you say in your example that Bill Fatte’s income is solely from return on shares. In that case, he would not be allowed to write off 50% in costs because he wouldn’t have an allowable deduction. Your example is therefore factually invalid. Your comment “Not that hard really” is insulting, because you have now demonstrated that you don’t understand Dividend Imputation. I will explain how it really works.
      Bill Fatte’s taxable income would be the full $1Million in dividends, although he would only have actually received $700,000 after the company tax was paid. Tax in 2018 on $1Million is $423,097 ($54,097 + 45c in every dollar over $180,000 income) + $20,000 Medicare = $443,097. He then gets a credit of $300,000 for the tax already paid by the companies he had shares in (assuming all are fully taxed in Australia). This brings his actual tax bill down to $143,097. This is tax over and above the company tax rate.
      Without Imputataion/Franking Credits, Bill Fatte would otherwise pay $443,097 in tax on a disposable income of $700,000. That is an effective tax rate of 63.3%.
      May I politely suggest that you get your facts straight before making comments.

    • 0
      0

      Dave R – what makes our tax system “unsustainable” is the inability to collect tax from the well off who consider they do not need to pay tax. So the burden falls on working Australians and the system starts to crack at the seams.
      My ball park figure for a fair tax system is to firstly make offshore tax shelters illegal. Shrieks from the rich. Of course these are fraudulent in nature because the concept of exporting profits is perverse and is fraudulent behaviour between the rich and governments.
      Second thing is to reduced deductions and remove the many dodgy one used for rich folk to reduce taxable income to zip.
      Third thing is to crack down on accounting schemes which further reduce taxable income.
      Last thing is to restore tax scales so that we again have a progressive tax system where the do the unthinkable: PAY THEIR DUES.

      All of this talk about franking credits is a sideshow. The above is where the real action is.

    • 0
      0

      Christ, OG – do you understand ‘example’? Stop being so picky over nothing – you do the figures with a few guesses and ‘examples’….

      I agree totally with you Oz – I was just offering an example…. you are all adults who can do figures for yourselves…

    • 0
      0

      BTW – thank you for your figures – I can’t do everything for everybody.. so thanks.

    • 0
      0

      No – the 30% included in his taxable income makes his income still $1,000,000 – it is tax withheld – not tax taken, and is included in his gross income before calculation.

      Therefore he would be paying $443,097 on $1,000,000, which is correct for that level of income. He must be bleeding to death on a mere $10,000 a week after tax….

    • 0
      0

      If you look at it another way – if he pays the $143,097 in tax on $700,000 and receives NOTHING in return from the ATO for his franked dividends – he is square, since it then equals the tax on his total income.

      If on the other hand the ATO hands him back the $300,000, he is paying an effective tax rate of 14.3097% on $1,000,000 income…. absurd.

    • 0
      0

      Are we saying that the full $300,000 is deducted from the total tax bill. This to me seems monstrous as I do not see how company tax paid correlates with income tax as they are completely separate taxes.

      One is on company profits one is on income.

      As for franking credits even the USA do not have this and very few other countries have.

      One question should also be asked. If the profits are made from an overseas company and companies profits are taxed in that country do those overseas countries give franking credits to overseas shareholders. If so why would we be giving money back to Australians who main source of income is from overseas sources.

    • 0
      0

      Yes the whole $300,000 is deducted from the tax payable. This will not change under Labor’s policy as this person pays a lot more tax than he gets in franking credits.

      Ignore Trebor’s as if anyone tried to write off $500,000 they would get a please explain letter in the post and would have a hard time substantiating that sort of deduction.

    • 0
      0

      What other countries do is irrelevant. Other countries have totally different tax policies across the board, and totally different pension policies, Wstaton. Stick to what is RELEVANT.

      The high income earner will STILL keep his franking credits under Labor and save a whopping amount of tax. The LOW INCOME SFR will lose up to 30% of their income and many will be forced onto pensions and the cost to the taxpayer will SKYROCKET. Currently, an SFR couple just above the threshold saves the country some $40,000 a year, less maybe $8000 in franking credits – net $32000 a year into the taxpayer coffers.

      Take away franking credits and force the SFR to spend a bit and put their hand out for a pension. $8000 saved (temporarily) but the NET cost to taxpayer goes up to $48000 a year, because they not only get a pension and benefits, but now they get their franking credits as well!

      HOW TO STUFF AN ECONOMY WITH SHORT TERM IRRATIONAL THINKING (supported by the green-eyed monsters and idiots!)

    • 0
      0

      ‘example’, OG example – you no read-a da English?

      Keep attacking me over nothing, OG – for once we all seem to be on the same page, but you and some others persist with the same old clouding the waters disputing over trivia…

      Could that be deliberate to confuse the discussion?

  9. 0
    0

    So, once again it’s time to hit pensioners. Always easy targets with little or no will to fight. It’s just another way to kill off the elderly through stress and hardship. Oh what joy to have us move on to the hereafter to join our loved ones, if such a place exists. And they call this the lucky country?

    • 0
      0

      he Lucky Country is a 1964 book by Donald Horne. The title has become a nickname for Australia and is generally used favourably, although the origin of the phrase was negative in the context of the book. He was being facetious.

  10. 0
    0

    It will be the last straw for self funded retirees what next from this corrupt mob of idiots .Super is no longer of any use to ordinary working people and this will finish it off.

    • 0
      0

      I agree. But why go after the rich, such as politicians, when they can go after the vulnerable

    • 0
      0

      You are right floss. Super is only just worth having with franking credits refunded. If they are not refunded then it will be costing retirees more to have their money in super than if it was invested in their own names. Super will be finished.

    • 0
      0

      floss – if self funded retirees throw in the towel and spend their funds they ‘ll then be on the pension. Then the family hone will end up in the mix to force people to sell it and live on the proceeds. we’ve already seen the first shot over the bow with this one with Hockey putting that one out for comment. Just like John Howard’s ‘Work Choices’ the family home is not over and will return.
      The only solution is to vote this bunch of rich man’s puppets out and form a new government.

    • 0
      0

      Yes – the smaller SFRs need to be protected – and the big fish pay their way. You are right, Mick – always look for the next step in any political game of chess – and the LNP and Labor are headed in the same direction of taking as much as possible from the lower end.

      If you read it – I argued night before last that neither the LNP nor Labor as it currently exists want a strong and independent Union movement of any other movement of ordinary folk….. for the same reasons…. they want total control over the nation so they can pursue their respective ideologies without hindrance.

      Please – don’t be silly – I totally ignore the Greens, who are sell-outs of the first water.

    • 0
      0

      I have been told valuers are already out valuing the homes of pensioners but yet to find out why.

    • 0
      0

      Not hard, OG – any address on a real estate link can find you a current value of a home…

      I think we both know why the value of pensioners/retirees homes would be looked at…. dig your trenches deep, people….

    • 0
      0

      Yes floss. Saving for your own retirement is very stupid now unless you can save the $1.6 million.

      You’d be better off spending and enjoying life like most do, buying a home and getting the aged pension and concessions.

      Saving the absolute maximum for a full pension and no more is pretty clever now.

      You’d need a hell of a lot of shares to make $34 000 plus concessions in dividends anyway.

Load More Comments

FACEBOOK COMMENTS



SPONSORED LINKS

continue reading

Health

Mozzies biting? Here's how to choose a repellent - and how to use it

Mozzies biting? Here's how to choose a repellent (and how to use it for the best protection) Shutterstock Cameron Webb,...

Entertainment

Sir Bob Geldof on grief, fame and getting through it all

I've hardly started questioning Sir Bob Geldof before he is off on a long, sweary rant about everything he thinks...

Australia

Abandon Australia Day and choose the history we want to celebrate?

Australia Day is the anniversary of the arrival of the First Fleet in Australia. On 26 January 1788, 11 convict...

Community

Speaking up for the disappearing art of listening

Columnist Peter Leith is 91 and describes himself as "half-deaf and half-blind". But he sees and hears a lot and...

Beauty

Hyperpigmentation: How to tackle those tricky dark patches on your ski

There are plenty of great things about summer - sunshine, picnics and fruity cocktails immediately spring to mind - but...

Australia

Enthralling, dystopian, sublime: NGV Triennial has a huge 'wow' factor

Refik Anadol: Quantum memories 2020 (render) custom software, quantum computing, generative algorithm with artificial intelligence (AI), real time digital animation...

Australia

Where to eat, drink and play on Kangaroo Island

Australia's third largest island is an oasis of pristine wilderness, premium produce and hidden secrets ripe for discovery. Easily accessible...

COVID-19

Will you need a vaccination to visit Australian venues?

State premiers have suggested that once vaccinations begin in Australia, those without vaccinations may be banned from visiting some venues...

LOADING MORE ARTICLE...