19th Mar 2018

Change to Labor 'tax grab' will benefit 350,000 older Australians

Change to Labor 'tax grab' will benefit 350,000 older Australians
Leon Della Bosca

While the Labor Party was defeated in the South Australian State Election on the weekend, it was buoyed by a federal win in the Batman by-election in Victoria, prompting Bill Shorten’s resolve to restore “fairness” to the budget by pushing ahead with targeting cash refunds for wealthier Australians who own shares – with a twist.

After significant backlash over Shorten’s ‘tax grab’, recently revealed modelling suggests that a minor adjustment the initial plan may relieve retirees of the full burden of the reform. The policy is expected to raise over $5.6 billion each year.

The new modelling, prepared by Treasury officials for Industry Super Australia, could mean around 350,000 retirees won’t lose cash refunds from the Australian Tax Office that would otherwise be used to cover the franking credits on their dividend incomes.

The Opposition Leader hinted at plans to adjust the policy by placing a $1000 cap of cash refunds instead of cancelling them entirely.



Mr Shorten claims he is on the side of older Australians, saying: “When it comes to pensioners, pensioners are always going to do better under Labor.”

“We want to decrease the gap and out of pocket costs paid for by pensioners. We don’t support the Turnbull Government creating the world’s oldest pension age, the age of 70,” he said at Ged Kearney’s press conference yesterday.

“So, we’re far more fair dinkum on pensioners, and we will have more to say in the future about our good deal for pensioners.”

Treasurer Scott Morrison on Sunday called the Labor plan “sneaky” and “shifty” labelling the cap on refunds as bad policy.

“Bill Shorten is saying to the Australian people 'give me all of your money and trust me about what I'll do with it'. We don't agree with that. We don't think any government should say that to Australians. That's why we want to keep taxes as low as possible,” said Mr Morrison.

Analysis of Labor’s policy revealed that age pensioners account for about $238 million of the $5.6 billion annual revenue. A $500 cap would reduce that to $170 million, while a $1000 cap would take that number down to $130 million.

Self-funded retirees over 65 would account for $645 million a year. The $500 cap would reduce that to around $520 million and a $1000 cap to about $445 million.

The policy will primarily target about 200,000 self-managed super fund holders and investors with low taxable incomes but large share portfolios.

According to the analysis: “Fine-tuning the policy to ensure pensioners and retirees with smaller parcels of shares are not affected would be quite inexpensive because the burden of the policy falls elsewhere.”

“There’s a need for members to be reassured that the impacts on them are likely to be insignificant, if they exist at all,” said Industry Super Australia Chief David Whiteley.

What do you think of Labor’s proposal? Will you be affected by the ‘tax grab’?

Updated 10.40am

Related articles:
Labor declares war on wealthy retirees
Labor pledges trust crackdown
Labor to cap health premiums





COMMENTS

To make a comment, please register or login
Jim
19th Mar 2018
10:28am
Can you trust this man, NO, there is already talk of removing or reducing other concessions, it will be the usual excuses that all political parties make when they come from opposition to being the government, and that is, we didn't know how bad things were, so get used to more back tracking and more information on the supposed class war in Australia. The deals labor are making with the greens to allow more refugees in and to relax our border control will come at a cost, guess who is going to pay for it.
Oldie84
19th Mar 2018
10:39am
Couldn't agree more Jim.
Cowboy Jim
19th Mar 2018
10:50am
Jim - may your words reach God's ear!! You hit the nail on the head.And you should be in Parliament.
jackie
19th Mar 2018
11:00am
Jim...I can't see why anyone should be receiving tax payer money for their tax exempt investments.
TREBOR
19th Mar 2018
11:19am
Yes - can't wait for the "desperate and well hidden terrible Black Holes in the Budget creating an emergency and cuts will have to be made somewhere so we all share the burden of LNP mishandling of everything from equality to simple handling of the cash" - which is what you get every time an opposition gets in the hot seat.
80 plus
19th Mar 2018
11:30am
I thought the article was about tax changes not politics.
Jim
19th Mar 2018
11:30am
Jackie, not sure who you are listening to, dividends are not tax exempt, the tax is paid by the company the shares are invested in, I only have. Small ammount of shares, I think last year my wife and I recieved less than $200 between us, on my statement, there is two ammounts, one is the dividend that I recieve the other ammount is the franked dividend that I don't recieve that goes to the government, if the dividend isn't franked I then I get a larger unfranked dividend which I am liable to pay tax on, because the only income I have is my pension, my dividend and a small ammount of interest from my other investments, I don't earn enough to be liable for tax, this is the same for every tax payer, if you pay tax then at the end of the year when you fill out your tax form, if it turns out you are not liable for tax, you then get all of the tax back.
Hope that explains it clearly enough.
jackie
19th Mar 2018
12:48pm
Jim....Here is the link I got my information from. If you only receive $200.00 per annum. I am sure it will not affect you.

https://theaimn.com/we-need-to-talk-about-jean/
Geo
19th Mar 2018
12:51pm
Jim, most company's don't pay any tax. the libs are not doing much about it, if they are, there draging it out through the tax dept. Money for the budget has to come from somewhere, lets see if Lab refines this policy, if not, then we will all start wining.
KSS
19th Mar 2018
1:27pm
Surely the confusion by Mr Shorten and others is that Company Tax is not income tax! Someone owning shares owns a small part of the company. The Company is liable for tax = the shareholders pay tax. The Franking credits are when the company has paid the company tax on your behalf so you as an individual shareholder don't have to.

Completing a tax form at the end of the year brings together all your different tax liabilities e.g. earned income e.g. salary; unearned income e.g. interest or dividends; tax already paid;any deduction allowed; etc. Any franked credits are deducted from any tax liability (because it has already been paid by the company on your behalf).

The final figure may mean you owe the tax office more tax because you underpaid, or the tax office owes you a refund because you have paid too much. In some cases the franked credits can reduce your overall tax liability if you have one; but for people who have no tax liability (because they have no earnings, interest, etc or because the amount earned is not enough to be taxed on) and are below the tax threshold even if the franked credits were unfranked, they get a credit for tax paid by the company whose shares they own and this credit is repaid in cash by the ATO.

Now, depending on the day of the week and which report you believe, Mr Shorten wants to either remove those refunds completely, or only pay back part of the tax paid by capping the amount you receive. Result: low income owners with a few shares (or in fact superannuation) will lose money.

Great work Mr Shorten! You would have done better to agree to remove the energy subsidy for a tax that no longer exists and that was only to be applied to new claimants not those already on a pension.
Jim
19th Mar 2018
1:47pm
To Jackie and geo, thanks for the link, I couldn't find anything in the article that supports your understanding, the article is about self funded retiree's, I can't see anything that states I wouldn't be affected by Shorten's claim, in fact it seems to be a rant against self funded retiree's by a left winger, if you can find the passage where it states people like myself wouldn't be affected.
To geo if the company that I have shares in doesn't pay tax then I wouldn't be able to claim tax that they have payed on my behalf, that's my understanding anyway, if you have a different understanding then I would be interested in where you got the information. As I said in my original post, if the dividends are not franked then I am not entitled to claim anything, but I do have to declare that income and pay tax on it if I am assessed to pay tax, ie if my total income is above the tax free threshold, that applies to every othe tax payer.
Knows-a-lot
19th Mar 2018
4:50pm
Shorten is more trustworthy than the nefarious Lieberal-Hillbilly COALition who have almost completely destroyed this once great nation.
fred
19th Mar 2018
6:06pm
KSS Good work and facts well put. Shorten does not want to know the truth or facts and is misleading the public for political divisionand gain Usually all income earned by super funds are tax exempt and accordingly tax free and then imputation credits are paid to the fund as a rebate or tax offset after funds tax / annual return is lodged by Oct each year After the refund is paid the members accounts is credited allowing more retirement withdrawals to be funded . and yes the ATO refund is only return of the tax paid by the company on behalf of the shareholders who own the company and received dividends after the tax is deducted It is not government money it is the shareholders money / dividends tax free because retiress incomes
from superannuation funds are tax exempt . Shorten will blow any extra tax money just like Rudd and Gillard did and no debt reduction ever
MICK
19th Mar 2018
7:34pm
The REAL question is can you trust the current government which has already come after retirees like a madman? NO NO NO.
Better the devil you trust than the likes of Morrison whose rhetoric is deceitful and dishonest almost all of the time.
Always nice to see the coalition machine hard at work when they see an opportunity to lie to the public AGAIN.
I have not voted Labor for decades but I might on the next occasion. The dictatorship currently in power has to be cut out like the cancer it is.
OnlyGenuineRainey
19th Mar 2018
8:55pm
Jackie, I will be affected by Shorten's policy. When I finally have to quit work, unless I sell my shares and buy foreign shares or property, I'll lose about $7000 a year from an income of $26,000 a year to support TWO people - one of whom has high medical and care costs due to a disability. Now of course I can erode my savings, drawing $16000 a year to achieve the income of a pensioner. In two years, I'll be a part pensioner. My question is this: Why would anyone go without holidays, restaurant dinners, new clothes, new car, nice furniture, electrical goods, etc. in order to effectively gift $16000 a year to the taxman, when they can have all those goodies and draw a pension instead? It makes no sense.

Second question: Why should I have to pay $7000 in tax on an income of $26000 a year, just because that income comes from share investment? Can you answer that? Would YOU be happy to be taxed at the rate of 27% in retirement, PLUS deprived of all pension benefits and concessions, while others are getting handouts and retirement income is supposed to be tax free?

I don't plan to let Shorten's BS plan hurt me. I'll divest my assets before I quit work and I'll go on the pension. I don't need to, but I will because I'm heartily sick of these constant attacks on everyone who planned and saved for retirement. When there are tens of thousands more on pensions, there will be less to go around and far more pressure on the government to reduce pensions, and then people like you will be screaming. But you'll have only yourselves to blame. You won't support FAIRNESS to people who tried to lighten the burden on taxpayers so there would be more for needy pensioners, so you will have to learn that hard way that greed and envy doesn't pay.
OnlyGenuineRainey
19th Mar 2018
9:03pm
Way too little, way too late, Short-on.
Oars
19th Mar 2018
10:04pm
KSS I wrote all that down last weekj- only in a few lines . Why make your coirrespondence so long-winded. OIr are you a solicitor or accountant who is used to "padding" the advice to justiufy a larger fee. My advice was crisp, 100% factual, and FREE.
MICK
20th Mar 2018
2:16am
Rainey: Shorten will realise that he has not got it right and hopefully fix his policy. The current batch of dictators on the other hand have made it clear they intend to take form the poor and give to the rich. Nothing other than electoral annihilation will change that as these cretins take the mandate BS.
You might want to consider that Labor does not come after the bottom end of town and give Shorten a bit of slack.

Like you we are self funded and I find it distressing that the current batch are after everything we have saved over a lifetime to avoid the old age pension. Be aware if your strategy is adopted then an inheritance tax will arrive faster than expected. Something to dwell on.
Cheers
Rae
20th Mar 2018
8:09am
OGR Doing that is the only sensible decision now.

After the constant changes and attacks on self funded retirees one thing is very obvious,

The Government has no money, no new revenue as they have sold everything and the only money left is the savings of those who worked for 40 or 50 years.

They are coming after it bit by bit by bit.

There is absolutely no point going without to save to pay for a pension the same as the OAP when you can get it by not saving.

It makes absolutely no sense.

Problem is these politicians are paid so much they are the new 1% and have absolutely no idea how ordinary people live and survive on very little.

This will encourage many who have strived to be self funding to give that idea away completely and hold the maximum for the OAP only. Any extra saving is pointless.
OnlyGenuineRainey
20th Mar 2018
8:17am
Mick, I don't think ANY politician has the brains to get it right. They are far too self-focused and greedy, and wearing blinkers. They work on stupid assumptions and they don't give a damn for the welfare of the people.

Shorten is now proposing a $1000 handout to compensate. So people who have a handful of shares will profit and people who live off share income will lose close to 30% of their income. Strong motive to sell off and blow the lot or hide it under the mattress!

I agree with you about the LNP, but Labor is no better. Labor's flawed socialist approach will stuff the country totally.

Inheritance tax? Very likely. All the more reason to give it all away to my kids NOW and claim a pension for the rest of my life. My kids can pay for anything the pension doesn't stretch to. I condemned BigBear for doing that, but BOTH parties are driving that mentality. It might blow up the pension system, but clearly pensioners aren't smart enough to figure that out and support fairness to SFRs. If they had the brains they were born with, pensioners would be screaming blue murder and demanding both that Shorten leave franking credits alone and that the LNP reverse the cruel change to the taper rate, so SFRs have and incentive to remain SFRS and not further burden an apparently overloaded pension system.
OnlyGenuineRainey
20th Mar 2018
11:53am
And yet, Rae, we still have self-centred pensioners supporting any measure to strip savers of all they have and force more onto the pension. Don't these green-eyed fools see that more people on the pension will hurt THEM? More on the pension means less to go around and more pressure on the government to make cuts. Those of us who saved and resorted - out of sheer desperation - to the mattress bank or gifting to kids will have cash or help to fall back on, but those who shouted ''hurrah'' to proposals to bash the SFRs will suffer.
George
20th Mar 2018
7:43pm
Yes, Jim, a key issue is - can you trust this man? Labor and Liberal have BOTH stuffed ordinary people, especially Pensioners & other Retirees over decades, and I can't believe anyone can seriously vote for either or them, or the Greens.

The real issue is - how come rich people (and companies) are able to avoid paying reasonable tax - for individuals to claim refunds based on paying less than the 30% company tax. Far better solution would have been to have a MINIMUM TAX (which caught out even Trump in USA) of say 20% for Companies and 30% for Individuals (as it includes 7.5% tax for Pensions), without allowing Deductions. And then, pay all Universal Pension based only on Age (65 as in NZ) and Residence years (say 15). No Assets, Income, Partner, or any other moronic tests.
NO NEED for such USELESS THOUGHT BUBBLES from a dopish party.
srs21
19th Mar 2018
11:00am
What I’d like to know is this..... a certain person we know has $3.2 mil in imputation credits. He actually stopped paying tax over 6 years ago. Why should he still be getting a tax refund or handout? Even now when the government is chasing 165 cases of Centrelink “fraud”
TREBOR
19th Mar 2018
11:29am
It does seem a serious anomaly - someone explained it as the ATO takes tax from the company direct and holds it in 'trust' - and therefore when the company tax obligation is worked out, that money goes to the shareholders.

Sounds like the whole deal needs a full look at.
TREBOR
19th Mar 2018
11:30am
165 cases? Is that all they could come up with after that massive furore and witch hunt throughout the land?
Jim
19th Mar 2018
11:36am
If this person has $3.2 million in imputation credits does that mean they have over $10 million in investments, or am I mistaken, I thought imputation credits are worked out at a tax rate of 30% ?
TREBOR
19th Mar 2018
11:42am
It does seem odd, Jim, that someone with that amount would be copping a free gift as well...

Like a lot of ideas this kind of thing needs careful figuring to arrive at cut-off points etc.

Now then - buggar - just in need of some dental care - cracked this morning...
Raphael
19th Mar 2018
12:10pm
$10million a year in dividend income which means that person must have around $150milliion in shares
Big Al
19th Mar 2018
1:28pm
I think a lot of you are seriously missing the point. If you (or I), had $10million in the bank, in say a term deposit, then we would get a return of around $300,000 (in interest, annually). That is small bananas, in investment terms. You would pay tax on that $300,000 (unless you were significantly negatively geared elsewhere in your investment strategy). So if this investor cited above has $3.2 million in imputation credits, I agree with Raphael above - he/she must have in excess of $100 million worth of shares. It can only be the politics of envy to suggest that he/she should not derive a significant benefit from such a substantial portfolio.
Gra
19th Mar 2018
1:53pm
Surely you can't be serious. If someone is earning in excess of $3.2 they must be paying tax. How can they not? The ATO would be well aware of this income and they aren't going to miss out on their share.
Raphael
19th Mar 2018
4:26pm
They are Gra
They have already paid the $3.2 Million to the taxman.

Its just that if they received it into their super,

If it had been out of super, they would have had to pay the marginal tax rate which is another (45-30) = 15% on the $10 M

Shorten wants to take the full 30% - stupid bastard
Oars
19th Mar 2018
10:06pm
SRS21 Feel free to confer with JKSS. This page is FREE. The franked credits are money the company has paid the ATO, so if he has a refdubnd it is because these credits of tax already paid, are in excess of his overall tax liability. Compre.?
MICK
20th Mar 2018
2:50am
Not sure I believe your info srs21.
If correct there is a way somebody could be earning $3.2 million and not paying a razoo in tax to my understanding.
If somebody has no other investments other than shares which have dividend imputations attached to them (many do not!) then this would be quite correct. The issue Shorten SHOULD be addressing is to have limit on tax free income like this.....maybe $50,000???? That wat the top end of town which knows how to plunder any system would be thwarted from avoiding the tax system average citizens have no choice but to comply with.
I'm sure Shorten has had this pointed out to him and that he will modify his policy. If he doesn't then look for the bullet holes he has in both feet where he shot himself.
OnlyGenuineRainey
21st Mar 2018
4:36pm
Mick, srs21's claims just don't stack up. If this person has $3.2 imputation credits, then he WOULD pay tax. His income would be assessed and tax applied to that portion that is above the tax threshold, then any tax already paid by deductions from dividends would be correctly credited against his assessed tax debt, but it would NOT cancel it out.

Given that he can only have $1.6 million in a superannuation pension account, there's simply no way he can get $3.2 million in imputation credits and remain tax free unless he has extensive other rorts that have nothing to do with imputation or franking credits.

With $1.6 million fully invested in shares that pay franked dividends (and few would have this as super investments are required to be ''balanced''), someone MIGHT achieve an income of $240,000 in dividends (if all shares return quite well). They might get a tax refund of $72,000, giving them a total income of $312,000. I agree, that sort of income should definitely be taxed. But changing imputation credits to decimate the income of ordinary Australians is NOT the way to address this problem. And neither is it reasonable to tell huge furphies to justify bad policy, and both srs21's claims and Shorten's ARE false. It simply isn't possible under current legislation.

Bottom line - NOBODY gets $3.2 million or even Shorten's claimed $2.5 million in imputation credits AND pays no tax unless they are Gina Rinehart or someone in a similar financial position. It's total BS. The amount of shares they would need would be astronomical - a portfolio worth in the hundreds of millions - and they would sure want some fancy accountants and elaborate rorts to escape tax at that level. But the bottom line is that these are the people who ARE escaping tax, and it's THESE PEOPLE - NOT average retirees struggling to scratch out a living wage - who Shorten should be attacking.
Old Geezer
26th Mar 2018
1:03pm
Unless that person was incorporated he would have been already refunded the $3.2 million. That's how it works.
les.61
19th Mar 2018
11:11am
Shareholders are owners of a company and as such the dividends we receive are a profit on our investment. We have paid 30% tax on the dividends and we should be entitled to a rebate if our taxable income is under the $18,200. Effectively what they are doing is penalising people who have a small income but have managed to get a nest egg of shares. If the money was invested in the bank and they took Withholding Tax from the interest we are entitled to that money so why not from shares?
KSS
19th Mar 2018
1:30pm
Because only 'rich' people have shares les.61
TREBOR
19th Mar 2018
5:37pm
That may not be totally true, as you allude, KSS - and I'm sure many small holders have shares - the point is that for those people the amount is trivial compared to what the larger fish are getting away with.

I can see the point Shorten has when companies that pay no tax, meaning they have no profit (hello) can afford to frank dividends.

That quite simply smells to high heaven and shows clearly that such companies ARE earning profit untaxed. And Morrisson wants to cut company tax - what a joke.

Shorten simply seems unable to 'sell' the idea on its merits.
MICK
20th Mar 2018
2:54am
The answer to your question les.61 is that the dividend imputation system was/is a contrived system to avoid double taxation for the wealthy. That it has done very well for decades.
A better way to look at dividends where the company has paid the tax due is to have a sliding scale of income and/or the amount of dividends received and set a rate of tax at each new step, just like the tax system does on oncomes. Of course the wealthy will fight that tooth and nail. They won't give up their nice little rort easily or voluntarily.
OnlyGenuineRainey
21st Mar 2018
8:47pm
Mick, the dividend imputation system is NOT contrived for the wealthy. It was devised CORRECTLY to fix a wrong in the tax system that was seeing MANY shareholders (most especially the poorer who weren't liable to pay tax) being OVERTAXED. Just like with PAYE tax, the tax was deducted and sent to the ATO before the payment was made to the individual, so if the individual's tax rate was less than 30%, they had been overtaxed. The imputation system was designed to remedy that by refunding any excess tax paid, but if the tax rate for the recipient was more than 30%, they were credited with the 30% paid and billed for the balance.
This is how it SHOULD be. PAYE earners would scream blue murder if the ATO didn't refund overpayments to those who earn the least. Shorten's proposal denies low income earners fair dealing. It does very little to change the status of higher income earners because most will have other earnings to offset their credits against. It will hurt those who no other means of support most.
stevek
19th Mar 2018
11:22am
I lost my part pension with the change in the asset test with the Libs and now Labor want the few I hundred dollars I get with this scheme just where will this end people who planed and saved for retirement are just getting shafted from all sides
TREBOR
19th Mar 2018
5:38pm
In that case you might qualify for a part pension - who knows? If you don't it seems you're already doing quite well, thank you.
OnlyGenuineRainey
19th Mar 2018
9:10pm
Trebor, that's an assumption that has no basis. Yes, if stevek doesn't qualify for a part pension, he probably has assets. Whether those assets are actually saleable or not may be questionable, but regardless, if X and Y both earn an average of $50,000 a year over a period of time, and X gambles, drinks, holidays, etc. while Y goes without lifestyle to put $10,000 a year in the bank, why should X then get a $1 million (approx.) handout from the taxpayer in retirement while Y is forced to live on the savings accrued by going without? That's grossly unfair deprivation, and it's economically destructive because it deters people from saving for retirement.

Your previous posts suggest you have a much fairer and more respectful view, so please don't change your position now to that of the green-eyed monsters who think anyone who has a little should be deprived of it.
Oars
19th Mar 2018
10:11pm
OGV how right you are. It seems that a bum who squanders the money they receive, is looked after and are called " under privilged". While a WORKER ( defined as a person who has had work for 40 years or more- not a layabout looking grim as labor paints them) is told to **** off. This seems like an absolute insult- yetr we allow it to happen. Why ?????
MICK
20th Mar 2018
2:58am
Been there done that guys. Not often I agree with you Oars but you are on the money here. Unfortunately those who have squandered their retirements will not agree with you and no amount of facts will convince many that they are doing ok all things considered and should leave those who are not a burden on the rest of us alone. We live in a strange world.
TREBOR
20th Mar 2018
10:57am
As Rainey says above - and Big Al - 'squandering' one's money by giving it away to family in return for payment of services in retirement etc is becoming a more attractive proposition under these rules.

Again OGR - you know I've long argued against an assets tested pension and against the anomaly that a SFR can fall below pensions income level and not receive top-up by adhering to Centrelink rules AND often paying some tax and not receiving benefits such as PBS.

There are many anomalies in the current system - and we are exploring them one at a time here.

I hope YLC takes not and passes these on.
TREBOR
19th Mar 2018
11:26am
Canberra Three Step - one step forward and two steps back...
Oars
19th Mar 2018
10:12pm
Trebor. Why don't you STEP UP and show 'em the way. You have a lot of views- so let's see if they work for the majority.
TREBOR
20th Mar 2018
11:00am
I'm considering it - again, but I've said before that I'm more suited to be an advisor than a public mouth-piece. Even though I'm a trained actor I am essentially a very shy person who hates confrontation, and the media and oppositions can be very confrontational, on purpose, so as to unsettle people and make them look weak and confused.

You see that with the gutter press all the time, which is why the old adage that only a fool would trust the media holds as true today as it did when it was first raised.
80 plus
19th Mar 2018
11:31am
I thought the article was about tax changes no the usual rabid right scare mongering
Oars
19th Mar 2018
10:13pm
80 plus. It's a bit of change from the sheepy left whitewashing- ey?
MICK
20th Mar 2018
3:01am
Personally I'll rip into whatever side of politics are low life scum.
Sabre rattling? If required yes. Let's tell the story so that the mentally challenged amongst us who believe the propaganda awake from their slumber and cut the cancer out of our governments. Not holding my breath though! Some people are sheep to the slaughter.
Charlie
19th Mar 2018
11:34am
Don't think this affects me, but after all the weird stuff coming from labor and the greens,
I have gone deaf to anything they say.
MICK
20th Mar 2018
3:02am
Then vote for your own execution at the hands of the current dictatorship. You will deserve what happens and one might think the last 6 years have shown some people who not to vote for. Apparently not enough pain yet Charlie so suffer some more maybe.
ollie
19th Mar 2018
11:35am
This is a handout and it should be stopped and I am one of the 350,000 that receives a handout it is a burden on the taxpayer. We are one of the wealthiest nations in the world yet we have people living in poverty it needs to stop.
jackie
19th Mar 2018
12:51pm
ollie...I agree this is a handout to the well off brought on by Mr John Howard. Yes it is a disgrace and needs to end.
Big Al
19th Mar 2018
1:38pm
I cant believe either of you is saying this! So, is the aged pension a handout that should be stopped? Is Newstart a handout that should be stopped? How may people are on a Newstart benefit who have never paid tax? If you have worked hard all your life and paid your taxes, surely you are entitled to the aged pension (or part thereof), and any benefits that go with having a small share portfolio - that is the position I am in. If Short-on ideas goes ahead with his envy driven tax grab, what I will do is liquidate my small share portfolio, use the proceeds for some slap up holidays, and as I have now reduced my asset base, I will be eligible for even more of the aged pension. Now that seems to me to be a ridiculous outcome - but then look at the economic nous of Bill's colleagues in Victoria, who spent $1.1 billion to not build a road!
TREBOR
19th Mar 2018
5:40pm
Social security is bought and paid for Big Al - such things as dividend imputation, negative gearing with concessional capital gains, childcare subsidies, paid maternity leave, and so forth are NOT bought and paid for - those are the areas where the 'future debt' is being built for the 'following generations' - not bought and paid for social security.

I think many, including those in Parliament, need to start getting their minds right before the Downfall.
TREBOR
19th Mar 2018
5:42pm
The Labor government in Victoria was signed into that unworkable contract by the previous government - easy money to cop $1.1Bn to not build a road, and to me a blatant handover of public cash to a few old mates (again) on the LIBERAL side of the coin.

Fair's fair - I hold no brief for Labrador, either, but let's stick to the facts.
Cowboy Jim
19th Mar 2018
7:48pm
Easily fixed, ollie - I do not claim the refund and never have since I retired. Would be about $500. If you feel you do not deserve it don't claim it, simple!
OnlyGenuineRainey
19th Mar 2018
9:30pm
Oh, right Trebor. Social Security is an ENTITLEMENT, bought and paid for. So why shouldn't those who DON'T GET THAT ENTITLEMENT and have less to live on than those who do, get franking credits instead?
MICK
20th Mar 2018
3:08am
ollie: I agree but let's start by demanding our PM, other wealthy Australians and multinationals bring their money to Australia from their contrived and sanctioned offshore tax shelters AND PAY AUSTRALIAN TAX. If we do that I'm all with you.

Rainey: I see you are bitter but consider that many retirees earn around the pension from their investments and do not have the hand out for a taxpayer funded pension. Your post above needs to be more reserved and you may want to go after those who truly abuse the dividend imputation system, not those who make the equivalent of the pension or marginally more out of it. There is a difference.
TREBOR
20th Mar 2018
11:03am
That's what we're looking at OGR - franking credits is a tax refund from the ATO - not a determination of pension rights.

You know by now my position on a universal pension etc.
TREBOR
20th Mar 2018
11:04am
Minimum (Trump) tax or cash movement tax, Mick?
George
20th Mar 2018
7:51pm
A few idiotic comments .... followed by useful comments - YES, Trebor, Universal Pension without Asset or Income Tests, AND a MINIMUM TAX on both Individuals and Companies without allowing deductions. No need for Labor's dopish thoughtless bubbles.

Can't see either Labor or Liberals getting enlightened soon - so Vote for anyone else who may support Retirees / above policies, and put the current seat-warming leeches last in preferences.
OnlyGenuineRainey
26th Mar 2018
5:32pm
Ollie, if someone is SAVING the government $40,000 a year by not drawing a pension, and then having 30% of their income taken before it's given to them, leaving them an income LESS than the pension, how the HELL is refunding that OVERPAID 30% - THAT INCOME EARNERS DO NOT PAY - a ''handout''. Only an idiot would believe that rot.

Under Shorten's idiotic lying proposal, people earning less than the pension will be effectlvely paying 150% of their income in tax in many cases. But if they buy a bigger house or give money to their kids, they get an extra $40,000 a year (for a couple). Sounds good to me. Let's make it impossible to survive as an SFR and crash the pension system. Then listen to the pensioners whinge!
mareela
19th Mar 2018
11:49am
Jim the concessions pensioners enjoy are given by State Governments, NOT Federal Government. I consider myself well informed and your assertion that Labor and Greens are making deals re immigration are completely untrue. Your right wing propaganda is shining through. The Greens are having enough trouble to remain relevant, without making any deals with LNP or Labor. Settle down Jim and go with the flow. LNP has done far more damage to pensions and pensioners than Labor could ever contemplate.
TREBOR
19th Mar 2018
12:03pm
The Sallow Peril thing about 'open borders' always was a nonsense - there are not and never have been open borders here and all immigrants and refugees, no matter how they arrive, have been vetted before being allowed in. The only difference is onshore or offshore vetting, and then the dire move by the LNP of refusing entry ever to any who seek to arrive here by boat. They can arrive here by plane and request asylum at Mascot, or on a ship, or they can walk up to an Embassy door and request asylum, but they can't arrive by boat.
Jim
19th Mar 2018
2:02pm
I don't need to settle down, Penny Wong has stated that she and the greens would increase refugee intakes when they win the next election. So far as the concession are concerned you are correct, the state government recieve funding from the federal government which goes towards paying the concessions, Shorten has already stated that he would be looking at the funding arrangement. I really don't care if you think I am a right winger, the truth is I am not and never have been, I was a member of the Union for more than 50 years and have always voted according to the candidates that stand in my area, but I had many dealings with Shorten when he was the head of our union, the man's a grub that did nothing for the membership that didn't benifit himself, if he is removed from the Labor party I would reassess who I would support in the upcoming election.
Mad as hell
19th Mar 2018
4:41pm
In 2002, a contract was signed to supply 3 million tonnes of LPG a year from the North West Shelf Venture to China. The contract was worth $25 billion: between $700 million and $1 billion a year for 25 years. The price was guaranteed not to increase until 2031, and, as international LPG prices were increasing, by 2015 China was paying one-third as were Australian consumers.
Another great deal from the LNP.
TREBOR
19th Mar 2018
5:46pm
Brilliant business style stewardship of The Good Ship Australia.

Sell-outs the lot of them, and should be hung as traitors or shot at dawn.

Read "How to Kill A Nation" by Linda Weiss, Elizabeth Thurbon and John Mathews, about Howard's 2002 FTA withthe US - countless parallels will arise from page one.

We here in Oz are paying 'global economy price' for gas procured here while Asians are literally getting it dirt cheap.

No wonder these turkeys had to go into politics - they couldn't run a corner store (as an FBI guy said once about the Mafia)
MICK
20th Mar 2018
3:12am
Very good post mareela.

Jim: I understand your anger but you do need to look at what the Abbott and Turnbull governments have inflicted on pensioners and consider that if they get in again they will likely come after family homes with a Death Duty. Always better the devil you know than the one you has a track record of destituting average citizens ad retirees.
OnlyGenuineRainey
29th Mar 2018
8:19pm
Sorry Mick. I have no time for the disgusting LNP, but they have never proposed anything as harmful as this disgusting crap Labor is peddling, supported by blatant lies about it targeting the wealthy. It will hit pensioners hardest when the longer term consequences are felt, but given the selfishness I'm seeing here, I might struggle to sympathize.
Cosmo
19th Mar 2018
11:52am
I will believe this is fair when I see politicians' pensions and benefits also reduced in the interest of "budget repair." So what happens where a pensioner is entitled to a mix of tax rebates including a small amount of dividend imputation, is this still all capped at $1000? Who can trust this slimy guy who slides all over the place for a vote.
The big issue of all of this however, has not be mentioned by anyone; that is imputation credits are available only from shares in Australian companies employing in Australia. The result of this crazy policy will be to discourage Australians from investing in Australian companies. So share prices go down due to lower demand making it easier for foreign companies to take over yet more Aussie companies and more difficult for companies to raise capital for investment and to employ more people. Yes Bill I am sure its part of your policy too, to get more Chinese investing in Australia!
TREBOR
19th Mar 2018
12:06pm
Been reading up on the 2002 FTA of Howard's Way, with the US.. one direct result was US companies taking over Australian ones and then slipping offshore with the taxes etc... scary when you see the history of such things and then Looney Tony leaps up and says 'Australia is open for business!'
Oars
19th Mar 2018
10:14pm
TREBOR Beggars can't be choosers-ey ??
MICK
20th Mar 2018
3:16am
TREBOR: the whole blind eye BS from this current government is sickening. Companies making profits IN AUSTRALIA should have no option to 'export' their profits to cheaper tax havens. That is fraudulent but the current government with a PM who has his money in an offshore tax haven will not change the arrangements. Would you expect him to? So the only way to rid ourselves of the fraud is to get rid of the problem at the next election. Then you have to hope that the incoming leader has the spine not to renege.
TREBOR
20th Mar 2018
11:06am
There are no beggars amongst the Australian population who employ politicians and public servants in the stewardship role for this nation.
TREBOR
20th Mar 2018
11:16am
The only reason we are becoming beggars and serfs is because of piss poor stewardship of this nation by a government of two parties pandering to special interest groups and refusing to have the balls to stand up and start saying NO to blatant rip-offs and even social stupidities.
Mad as hell
19th Mar 2018
12:03pm
Lying bunch of hypocrites all of them.
The changes to the Pensioner Assets Test affected 330,000 pensioners far worse than the ill thoughtout imputation changes.
We might be better off under a Labour government than the LNP but Bill Shorten is not the pensioners champion.
Unfortunately all governments see pensioners as an easy target to balance their budgets.
The biggest cost to the Federal Budget is lost revenue through mismanaged Resources Taxes.
George
20th Mar 2018
7:57pm
Make that over 420,000 pensioners, including 91,000 who lost it altogether. Add to that the thousands of new retirees every year who will also miss out!

Yes, Budget seriously hampered by massive Resources Taxes lost, as well as ongoing fake Deductions causing massive lost taxes from both Companies and rich tax avoiders - all aided and abetted by both sides of politics.
That's why we need to get rid of all Labor, Liberals and Greens.
mike
19th Mar 2018
12:20pm
I have been labeled a filthy wealthy homeowner by both Liberals and Labour. I slaved my guts out for 55 years on a salary of $35000PA, up to $50000 working weekends and overtime, unlike Barnaby Joyces lover who was handed a $190000 position. Our home is worth a modest $250000 unlike the $2-$3Mil homes in Sydney so we cant downsize, and I worked and saved for my retirement, raised and educated four children, branded a filthy wealthy retiree by Hockey, lost my part pension, and because we lost it a few days afyer 1/1/2017 we dont get our pensionner concession cards back, and now we are again branded filthy wealthy retirees by Bastard Shorten and will lose our dividend rebates. I am now branding both Labour and Liberals Filthy Liars and will vote One nation.
Captain
19th Mar 2018
12:44pm
mike, join the club. We retired nearly ten years ago after over 90 years in the workforce between us, bought up and educated 3 children and paid exorbitant mortgage interest rates. We own our house and are SFR's. We saved for years and planned our retirement from when we first married 30 years ago.

Now the Labor Party , the Pensioners friend, is doing a Liberal Party trick and attacking SMSF's (and pensioners) without mercy.

They are all trying to get our funds so they can control the entire population. To paraphrase another old saying - "they will have to prise our SMSF from our cold, dead hands".
ocopa
19th Mar 2018
12:53pm
Mike, Sorry to hear your situation. It seems you have some assets, so you need some advice on how to get the existing or proposed rules to work for you.
The key issue with Centrelink is the way they have to apply deeming rules.If you can arrange your affairs so that you receive a salary you may be able to get a better balance. Centrelink have a free Financial Information Service, but you have to turn up and ask for an appointment.
MICK
20th Mar 2018
3:20am
I understand where you are coming from mike but please calm down. I'll be very surprised if Shorten does not adjust the policy so that it targets the right group. You also need to remember that the Libs are plunderers of the working class and hand money to the already rich whilst Labor normally helps average citizens. You need to get it right mate.
Retired Knowall
20th Mar 2018
7:54am
Your Vote Counts, Vote for an Independent.
MICK
20th Mar 2018
8:07am
I always do RK...but sometimes you gotta do something to rid the country of stench and fraud.
Misty
22nd Mar 2018
9:41am
I don't know how that works out Mike, I own my own home and receive a Allocated pension from my Super and also from my late husband's but I still qualify for a full govt pension, some people commenting here are not telling the truth, at least that is the conclusion I have come to, either they have a lot more assets or have structured their finances through accountants or financial advisers to avoid paying tax.
With the information you have supplied I do not see how you would not qualify for at least a part govt pension if not a full one.
OnlyGenuineRainey
27th Mar 2018
9:53pm
Misty, obviously you don't understand our hideously complex and grossly unfair pension system. It pays people like you generously despite you having private income, and others who have bugger all get a kick in the guts and nothing. Depends on dozens of complex factors. Now those privileged with pensions will get franking credits and strugglers with minimal incomes will pay 1609% tax. This is what you are supporting - clearly not knowingly, but because you insist on disputing the facts. And now you admit you don't have the knowledge needed to dispute. You are just working on assumptions. Sorry, but your assumptions are entirely wrong!
Eddy
19th Mar 2018
12:30pm
What I do not fully understand is if these retirees who do not pay tax and have franked shares for which they receive a tax refund what about those intaxed retirees who have unfranked shares (surely there must be some) and receive a dividends in excess of the tax free threshold (about $18000), are they exempt from paying tax on their dividend income over the tax free threshold?
Another thing shareholders hide behind the law which protect shareholders in case the incorporated body (ie the company) goes bankrupt, trades at a loss, is sued into oblivion etc: the shareholders do not have to put their hands into their pockets to make up any shortfalls yet when it comes to company tax they want it back. Seems to me like a case of having your cake and eating it too.
ocopa
19th Mar 2018
1:08pm
Eddy, Companies which have no taxable income, may pay you unfranked dividends. Similarly for low taxable income they may pay you partially franked dividends. The original purpose of franked dividends was that you could offset part of your own personal income tax with whatever was franked component of the companies tax payment, by letting ATO know how much in franked dividends you received. Then Howard/Costello allowed for cash rebates even if you did not have any tax obligation. Up to i think 2004, super pension recipients had to pay tax on their pensions after that here has been no tax payable. It is a rort (from which i and many others benefit).
For anyone with income outside super, the old rules apply. If there is no franked dividends there is no offset,
TREBOR
19th Mar 2018
2:49pm
Wait one - a company pays no tax... it pays the franking money... so you as a shareholder also get a tax return?

How is it possible for a company to have no taxable income and yet pay out dividends and franking? I know they could borrow endlessly or bank on their 'future development' etc - but somehow this doesn't seem right.

Not just one free ride - but two....
TREBOR
19th Mar 2018
2:50pm
As for that ad to Canada below - I don't have companion flies..... I like to leave them out in the paddocks with the cows... (snuckles) ...
Oars
19th Mar 2018
10:20pm
Eddy- are you serious ? Please slow your pacer down and refer to KSS in this lot somewhere. The refunbd is only whren your TOTAL income is under the $18K. Once your income rises above that ( and that includes the gross income you received from the company) you pay tax at the marginal rate. Please have a quick look at the ATO webpage- it is quite simple and you should be able to grasp it. That way you can totter off to bed knowing that all is fair and the ATO knows what it is doing. More than some people I can refer to -ey???
MICK
20th Mar 2018
3:30am
Thanks Oars. I believe I left that out above.

TREBOR: somebody pays the tax. If companies make a profit they pay it. If companies do not make a profit they can still pay a dividend but that comes out of shareholder funds and the value of your shares should drop. Giving with the one hand and taking with the other!

Oars added the extra bit....the refund SOME shareholders get is dues to their own LOW income. Companies paid tax until recently at the rate of 30%. If you earn say $16,000 pa then you pay no tax. So you get back the 30% (imputation credit). If your income were in a higher tax bracket then you would get back THE DIFFERENCE between your rate and the company rate.

As I said above if any government has an issue with the system it needs to draw a line in the sand and throw the baby out with the bath water. Of course governments a re greedy and would be happy to tax the same profit twice just like they levy a capital gains tax which is no longer applied to the value of an asset adjusted for inflation...which means people who make 'gain' are paying tax on inflation. Don't get me started.
Cheers.
Not a Bludger
19th Mar 2018
12:33pm
Appalling leftie speak!

How on earth can stealing a bit less from retirees be described as a benefit?

Typical of these union controlled funds working with their old mate ex union thug boss Shorten to try to get at SMSF’s.

The facts are that this outright theft will take $645 million every year out of self funded retirees pockets and give it to these left wing big spenders - as I said -appalling.
MICK
20th Mar 2018
3:34am
Leftie speak. You are trolling Bludger as this has nothing to do with unions or Shorten stealing SMSFs. Take a look at what the current batch have done to retirees and worse still what they want to do if they win the next election. The only reason this lot have backed off is they do not want to foul the nest any more with an election closing in. Once back on office it will be on.
Oh yes....you have a SMSF and are a part of the right wing pack? Don't cry when they come after you. They will.
OnlyGenuineRainey
29th Mar 2018
8:24pm
Mick,the Labor party has already declared it's intent to wipe out struggling self-funded retirees, discriminating criminally unfairly against them and in favour of pensioners - INCLUDING the far richer pensioners who manipulate immorally to claim a pension they don't need.
Yes, I fear more attacks by the LNP, but I KNOW the ALP will stuff retirement for everyone with its utter stupidity and greed. Shorten has already shown his hand. Maybe I'll switch my support to Cori Bernadi. He seems to at least have some appreciation of the need to encourage and reward personal responsibility.
alinejordan
19th Mar 2018
1:00pm
i think the only people who will have a problem with this are the ones who will lose money. so if it's true that only the well-off are being penalised we don't have to worry because it will hardly cause a ripple no? i don't understand the issue but i understand the implication. so why should labor worry if it's not affecting moderately well-off pensioners anyhow??
Sundays
19th Mar 2018
3:04pm
No, there are people on the full OAP who have a little money invested in shares. They don’t earn enough to pay tax. Each year they can submit a Refund of Franking Credits form to the ATO. They don’t get much back usually but every little bit helps. For these people a cap of $1000 would be a good thing rather than get nothing as proposed.
OnlyGenuineRainey
19th Mar 2018
9:44pm
If you think only the well off will lose money, alinejordan, you are wearing blinkers - believing Labor's LIES. It IS affecting battlers.
OnlyGenuineRainey
19th Mar 2018
9:45pm
If you think only the well off will lose money, alinejordan, you are wearing blinkers - believing Labor's LIES. It IS affecting battlers.
MICK
20th Mar 2018
3:36am
Agree Sundays. The backlash Shorten received will have him revising the policy. That is as it should be.
Rae
20th Mar 2018
8:31am
That is money that will not be spent in your local businesses.

Another drop in retail and hospitality profits and more job losses and stagnant wages.

More closed shops and poorer towns.

Both Government parties are slowly sending the Country broke.
Misty
22nd Mar 2018
10:22am
I have to disagree with your comment above Rainey, see my reply above to Mike, I will certainly not be worse off as is the case with most people on a full or part time Govt Pension, as apposed to those who are on a full self funded pension, they are 2 different things altogether and should not be lumped together.
OnlyGenuineRainey
25th Mar 2018
9:45am
That's a ridiculous lot of rot if ever I heard it, Misty! Retirees are retirees. They ALL have similar needs. They ALL need income to live.

Good for you not being worse off. So you are happy to see others unfairly hurt and much worse off. That's BLOODY SELFISH IN THE EXTREME.

And you are WRONG. We will ALL be worse off, because the COUNTRY WILL BE WORSE OFF. When thousands more are pushed to claim pensions, the cost of the OAP will go through the roof and BS's BS will be proved to be BS. There will be NO SAVINGS. Everyone will suffer.
Misty
30th Mar 2018
1:15am
Not ridiculous at all OGR, I was talking about pensioners not retirees, too different things altogether.
wombat
19th Mar 2018
1:01pm
$3.2 million in franking credits equates to $10,666,666 grossed up taxable income. There would be still $1.996.298.02 tax to pay when lodging this tax return.

How is allowing one person the right to a franking credit, because they have other income that takes them over the threshold to pay tax, equitable with not allowing the franking credit because your income is not high enough. The rule should be the same for all to be equitable. Middle income earners will be entitled to the full use of the franking credit but those on lower incomes will loose. The $1000 exemption only allows a pensioner to have other income of $3,333 before they are caught. If either political party want to tax the wealthy start with the tax rates on the higher thresholds.
Raphael
19th Mar 2018
1:51pm
Shorten is taxing the middle class retirees . Wants to make them poorer
MICK
20th Mar 2018
3:38am
Give it time Rahael rather than using a single ill thought out policy to scapegoat the only hope you have of not being plundered by the rich. Oh yes...you are one of the rich Raphael. I forgot.
Rae
20th Mar 2018
8:33am
Yes perks for the rich still but middle class hit hard yet again.
Goldleaf
19th Mar 2018
1:11pm
This is NOT a tax grab, it is correcting a Howard\Costello giveaway to older people who have shares. You still cannot get around the FACT that these people do not pay taxes but still get a refund. Corporations pay the taxes, they are separate from the individual part owners of shares. Having already been affected by the changes in the deeming rates to those on defined government pensions by the Coalition government, I cannot see the fairness in this continuing and unless there is some give and take, the next target will be the tax free status of over 60s retirees. What would you rather have?
ocopa
19th Mar 2018
1:39pm
Goldleaf, i made a following post before reading yours (I was typing!). Super pension payments were originally taxed up until Howard/Costello rorted the system by making them tax free and providing for cash refunds of franking credits, around 2004. (My SMSF started in 2001).The scheme has favoured high income earners who get a big saving in the contribution phase compared to low income earners. A lot of investors have quite innocently come to see the existing rules and managed their affairs accordingly.
So let me suggest the fairness test should have something to do with the median income of $78,000 in 2016.
One concern with the Labor scheme is that it isn't neutral to investment risk, since it disfavous companies which do give franking credits.
Please also see my following post.
MICK
20th Mar 2018
3:46am
The Howard government allowed wealthy Australians to pile money into their SMSFs with no limit. This replaced their 50% tax rate with the superannuation rate of 15%, including earnings tax at that rate as well. On retirement owners of the fund could take a lump sum and pay zero tax as well.
Tell me about the unfairness. A system set up for the wealthy and which was a fraud run by coalition governments specifically tailored for the wealthy. The dividend imputation scheme is similarly designed for the wealthy but a few of us get some crumbs too.
Shorten needs to have an upper limit for recouping the tax paid by companies. This will work and not crucify those who are providing their own retirement funds.
TREBOR
20th Mar 2018
11:20am
Ah - so the need here is for a ceiling (not a glass one) after which dividend imputation stops?

The correction of past errors and excesses in the superannuation system will hurt some - but not those with little, it seems.
ocopa
19th Mar 2018
1:21pm
It comes down to where to draw the line. The original franking credit scheme was against earned income tax payable. Howard/Costello made it a rort around 2004. I benefit from the cash refund to the tune of several thousand dollars and have pension assets of around $500,000. If you go to ATO you can extract these statistics (for fy 2016, the latest):
• Tax free pensions averaging over the following specified values were received by:
o 819 SMSF members @ over $1m in pension payment each pa, and having pension assets over $10m
o 4,273 @ over $400,000 having assets between $5m and $10m
o 32,800 @ over $188k having assets between $2m and $5m
o 68,518 @ over $100k having assets between $1m and $2m
o 98,368 @ over $57k having assets between $500k and $1m
o 94,128 @ over $34k having assets between $200k and $500k
o 30,525 @ over $20k having assets between $100k and $200k
o 22,372 @ over $10k having assets between $1k and $100k
The median income was about $78,000 in 2016 and tax on that was close to $18,000.
So, where is fair to draw the line?
OnlyGenuineRainey
21st Mar 2018
3:27pm
Ocopa, Howard/Costello DID NOT make it a ''rort''. What they did was fix a grossly unfair anomaly that resulted in people paying tax when they should not have to because they earned too little. It was wrong BEFORE 2004 and righted in 2004, and if Shorten has his way it will be WRONG again because it will OVERTAX people who rely on share income to survive. It will also raise the tax on superannuation from the current 15%, thus hurting the retirement of all working Australians. It will force a lot of SFRs onto pensions, and part pensioners onto larger or full pensions. It will probably reduce share values substantially as people bail out of shares, resulting in more pressure on the pension system. Ultimately, experts have calculated that within 2 years it will substantially INCREASE the debt and deficit while also reducing the net wealth of millions of Australians.

Nobody now is permitted to have pension assets above $1.6 million, so the table you quote is not relevant, but to the extent that people HAD pension assets above that figure, those people still get their franking credits because they now have accumulation accounts that are taxable. So this nonsense only hurts the less well off, and the claimed savings will be offset by higher demand on the pension system as the less well off are forced to drain their savings to compensate for lost income and reduce their assets below the pension threshold. Good one, Short-on (brains)!

Please don't be fooled into swallowing his lies. This is a seriously detrimental move that will do major harm to the economy.
Bancon
19th Mar 2018
1:35pm
I would not trust this man as far as I could kick him, he is a low life treats us like peasants. I am in my late 70st and do not get any pension, or have any super to rely on so am totally self funded I will loose approximately $7,500 and that will require me to really cut back on everything I do and make my life difficult
Curious
19th Mar 2018
3:01pm
I am in the same boat. My superannuation fund invests in Australian shares and should receive dividends and franked dividends or tax imputed credits. Because of its huge holding of shares, its franked dividends would be great. Does Bill Shorten classify this superannuation fund wealthy and will take away or cap the franked dividends? If Labour does that, my allocated pension will be reduced accordingly. My allocated pension just allows me to survive above the poverty line, the remove of the franked dividends or imputed tax credit will see me below the poverty line.

I don't think any decent politicians will do that. I think Bill Shorten has been badly advised and poorly briefed or he barks up the wrong tree!
TREBOR
19th Mar 2018
5:47pm
I think he just has no idea how to sell his version of events to the public - which raises questions about his leadership qualities, don't you think?
Oars
19th Mar 2018
10:29pm
The obvious point that comes out of this all is that Bill Shorten has become well known to all of us. Where was he 10 years ago. Where was he after the mine disaster that his Union mate Combery ?? who had to call Billey to get there once cameras arrived at the scene. This is a huge publicity stunt. Bill can't even add up, like most of his blinded followwer. So Bill has our attention. What will he do IF he gets to put this into action. Another rort or two, and a budget deficit that's hidden under the carpet, then hand the bankrupt country back to the Conservatives to have to grind it back into the black. Gee I get tired of repeating myself- but seriously- Bill as PM. Nah !
OnlyGenuineRainey
20th Mar 2018
8:08am
But Oars, the LNP is just as bad. ''Grind it back into the black''? No. They have sent the debt skyrocketing at rates never before seen, and they've done that despite wiping out the retirement of hundreds of thousands who actually managed their money well and could probably have told the government how to fix the budget if they'd been given half a chance!

We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. There ARE no valid options available.
TREBOR
20th Mar 2018
8:40pm
And all of that by not abolishing the genuine welfare (which social security is not being long ago paid for out of taxation), such as NG + Concessional CGT (not one or the other), childcare subsidy, paid parental leave, concessions to superannuation that are currently setting fair to overtake and then bury pension costs, private healthcare subsidy, deemed R&D for corporations failure to apply a minimum tax on offshore corporations, allowing workers to flit in and out from offshore without paying income tax here ... there must be others, but I don't know them all.

One look will show that list is a massive and genuine drain on the economy as well as THE generational debt being handed down to present and future generations - NOT the pension and healthcare for the aged.

On the flip side - I can see where many small SMF holders are actually worse off through not having health care cards, concessions for power, licence, registration etc, and such.... and that some actually pay tax and costs to manage their fund and do not receive a top-up to pension level from The Good Colonel C'Link.

OGR, for one, says his figures place him and wife (don't use that term if you work for QANTAS) in a highly invidious situation v pension, and I've met others who pay full cost for medications etc while having a not very large income. (My medications alone add up to around $300 a month - then the ex has a cabinet full)...

An assets free pension with same rights and concessions for all is the only way to go, and then taxing according to the scales above that.
floss
19th Mar 2018
1:40pm
Both parties go after the large companies that pay no tax at all . Hard to believe but one gas producer stated they would be taking some 50Billion out of Australia and pay no tax at all.To both parties show some guts and balance your budget my going after these over seas companies that are playing you for fools that you are.First Hockey now Shorten where does this disaster stop, when we are all back on a full pension and with out health cover.
TREBOR
19th Mar 2018
2:55pm
There have to be brown paper bags doing the rounds, floss...

All budget problems could be resolved by a full review of Revenue Capture, primarily from those escaping paying tax here.

A Trump style minimum tax might do it - or someone suggested here yesterday that a cash transaction tax of as low as 0.01% (from memory - think that was the figure) would resolve it and would catch the Offshore Bandits... Pirates Of The Current Aeon - Davy Jones' Bahamas Cash Locker.... (argh)
Curious
19th Mar 2018
3:53pm
You hit the nail on its head.

Our old universal social systems for all have been broken by the implementation of the global economy and the invasion of conglomerations and international corporations. Some are hidden state owned corporations or corporations with heavy state subsidies. In the current form of globalisation is one of laissez-faire system, just like the global financial and share markets, one can exploit the unbalanced markets and countries lacking regulations to make a fortune. Even better examples are the Internet, social media, internet buying and selling, earning big bucks and paying no tax.

The corporate players manipulate the rules of the sovereign hosts and tax havens to exploit the little people like you and me. Does one think, a small government advocating free market in the name of democracy will help our tax reform, budget deficit, adequate funding for schools and hospitals, adequate age care, industrial relations and bargaining, full employment and above all defending our boards? Globalisation has not only broken our long established systems,it destroying the intrinsic values of our Australian way of life, the love of our land and climate, our natural beauties, a fair go for those who try. This is so because money speaks louder these days, foreigners can now come and buy our land, farms, factories, companies and properties and take the profits overseas to line their pockets, giving nothing in return to Australia.

I remember, John Howard said once, in relation to the boat people, "We decide who should decide who can come this country and the circumstances by which they can come", words to this effect. It is time, our governments should vet and decide which corporation should to this country and the circumstances by which they came.
TREBOR
19th Mar 2018
5:51pm
Yes, Curious - it IS the Return Of the Robber Barons.... hiding and skulking offshore and sucking nations dry.

Again on that book "How To Kill A Country" - the authors make it clear that one major aspect was literally opening our borders to laissez faire capitalist corporations operating with NO rules and literally bullying to get what they want. Many such took over Australian companies or belted them out of business and then began to monopolise the markets.

This lot - the government of two parties - haven't got the balls to stand up and say NO to anything these days.
floss
19th Mar 2018
1:54pm
Good thinking Cosmo a point I have missed ,just to throw in another dropping the company tax rate from 30% to 25% reduces franking credits is this so.
Theo1943
19th Mar 2018
3:16pm
Yes, I already figured that out. Turnbull's company tax cut reduces imputation by 20% for everybody but no one is complaining. Could it be that they think the tax savings are going to dividends instead of reinvestment and wages? Do pensioners know that less company tax means less franking but they get more of the dividend, 75 instead of 70%?
floss
19th Mar 2018
2:08pm
So the workers friend Bill is putting a cap on his mistake sounds like Turnbull when he woke up that his pension asset test on pensions was going to be a disaster and doled out a few pension cards that also turned out a farce.The end result is for retired Australians super and private health insurance are now a bloody disaster.
Big Al
19th Mar 2018
10:44pm
What gets me Floss, is that he announced this policy just before the Batman by-election, and almost put at risk the chance of saving that seat. Leaving aside the stupidity of that particular electorate (they almost elected a Green, and have a Green municipal council), what nous does that show? That he is now back tracking is no surprise.
Why don't they look at real areas of waste to get budgets back into shape? Do we really need Climate Change commissars, for example? How poor has been the advice of Tim Flannery on water policy, and who has held him to account?
Raphael
19th Mar 2018
2:32pm
No one should be taxed twice

Better to have a cap on the amount that can be held in super than to tax anyone twice - be it income from non super or super assets
TREBOR
19th Mar 2018
2:59pm
Many fair points - but since the retirement packaging system is broke - it will cause some pain to some until it adjusts itself - once repaired....

Anyone with a cursory look can see that tax concession on contributions to super and then a tax free super 'pension' is double jeopardy, and benefits those with rather than those without - when clearly many of 'those with' will have no need of a pension anyway.

Quite simply - if you had a tax concession while stashing your cash, you should not receive it when drawing it out. Like negative gearing and concessions capital gains - simple justice and sense says you should have one or the other, but not both.
TREBOR
19th Mar 2018
3:01pm
These are the kind of freebies that ARE causing long term havoc to the Budget, and they are climbing annually and are out-stripping the bought and paid for pensions, which, unlike concessions such as those, are not hand-outs but a bought right.
OnlyGenuineRainey
19th Mar 2018
9:25pm
But many didn't get any tax concessions on their retirement savings, Trebor, yet they suffer the same pain. Besides which, those who forfeit pension entitlements are effectively paying a massive ''tax'' - in many cases more than 100% of their retirement earnings. And now they'll pay another 30% on top of that. I can point to people who are effectively paying 120% now. When they all throw up their hands and divest their assets and go on pensions, as BigBear has done, what then?
David
19th Mar 2018
3:14pm
I think that many people misunderstand what this is all about. Put simply:
I have 1,000 Telstra shares.
Telstra makes a profit, some of which is paid to shareholders (a "dividend")
Telstra says: "For each share we will give the shareholder 14 cents.
So I am due to get 14 cents X 1000 shares = $140
But before paying me, they take out 30% ($42) and give it to the ATO (as provisional tax).
It's exactly the same as your employer taking out "pay as you go" tax from your weekly pay and giving it to the ATO.
So my $140 payment is reduced to $98, with $42 pay as you go tax taken out.
I'm a low income retiree whose income is less that the $18,000 (or thereabouts) where you start having to pay income tax.
So, as I have so little overall income (including the $140 dividend) that I don't have to pay any tax, what happens to the $42 tax that has already been taken from me?
I am entitled to it back. The taxpayer is not paying it to me! Telstra is providing the refund, which it sent to the ATO to hold until my annual tax liability is calculated.
ie:
14c per share X 1000 shares = $140 dividend to me.
I get $98 now, and the $42 withheld is returned to me once it is realised that my income is so low that I don't pay tax.
$98 + $42 = $140.
If I was earning let's say $80,000 a year, I wouldn't get any of the $42 back - it would be used to cover my tax liability, just as the amount your employer deducts money every week from your wages, which is sorted by the ATO when you submit your tax return. Some people get a refund, some have to pay more. If you gat a refund, is it NOT taxpayers $ you are getting, but your own (withheld) money being returned to you!
What would you think if a politician said from now on no one will be refunded any overpaid payg deductions by their employer? This is exactly the same!
les.61
19th Mar 2018
4:08pm
Well worded and this is also my understanding.
VeryCaringBigBear
19th Mar 2018
4:15pm
I agree. It is the low and nil income earners that will suffer as the rest can use their franking credits to reduce their tax paid. It is the same as your 3mploer tak8ng out too much tax and then not allowing any refunds.

Those who have lost their pension or have had then reduced are going to be hurt again by the policy.

For many it will be better to cash in their super on retirement and use the franking credits to pay their tax instead. Super will have no benefit but costs and sovereign risk so why have it?

Bill is certainly not on this planet on this at all.
TREBOR
19th Mar 2018
5:53pm
Ah - David - you're the man who explained this yesterday.

Thanks.
Captain
19th Mar 2018
6:15pm
David, if you have 1,000 Telstra shares and they pay you a 14 cent dividend, you receive a cheque or payment into your bank account for $140.

The dividend is paid from after tax dollars. Telstra has already paid their 30 cent tax on their earnings. With imputation you can claim back the 30 cent tax if your income is less than $18,500 per annum.
Ahjay
19th Mar 2018
3:28pm
My understanding is that pretty well all people with superannuation funds, both industry and SMF have a large proportion invested in Australian shares, weather they realise it or not as they allow the fund to choose what they invest in.The net may catch just about the entire working and retired population. If this is the case, many people will have less retirement income than they are planning on.
If say 50% is invested in dividend paying shares which pay a 6% dividend which is fully franked at 30% they would be losing around $4250 on a fund balance of $200,00 which is well bellow the average retirement benefit, unless you chose to have your money in cash or bonds at a much lower rate of return in which you would lose even more due to low interest rates. Most people in superannuation go with the default options as they are illiterate when it comes to finance.
TREBOR
20th Mar 2018
8:44pm
In that book I've been referring to, the authors say that up to 80% of the corporations offshoring profits are not even listed on the ASX..

(I'm going to have to revert to my study days habit of post-it marking each page with a significant reference or figure or issue and adding notes to the post-it - too hard to find again)....
Alan
19th Mar 2018
3:41pm
As I read it I think that there will be an interesting effect in my household - there will be no change for me as my existing superannuation is partially taxed and partially not and my share of the family SMSP is significantly smaller than that of my wife. Her income is only from the SMPF and therefore would have to pay tax while I won't. Totally ridiculous and inequitable.

Money was taxed going in and earnings tax free to encourage one to save for retirement. Now it will still be taxed goping in and also going out. Ridiculous.
VeryCaringBigBear
19th Mar 2018
4:26pm
Here is some maths.

$1000 in franking credits equals $3,333 in dividends.

To get $3,333 you would have to own about $35,000 in bank shares.

Many pensioners would own a lot more in shares in today's low interest environment.

Bill you hardly saved a vote.
Rae
20th Mar 2018
8:42am
Yes it will drop the yield on fully franked shares around 2% to 3% according to AFR reports.

That makes a lot of overseas investments comparable and probably a lot safer too.

With interest rates about to rise this just could turn out to be the black swan we are expecting to crash the ASX.

Time will tell.
mogo51
19th Mar 2018
4:28pm
This is another policy 'on the run'. Both parties are guilty of grandstanding and deception. I am a small time investor just trying to scratch out some extra income from a very shaky share market. This policy should only effect the 'high flyers'. It is time to lower the economic gap between the two.
It is a shame but reflective of how little either party care about us battlers.
TREBOR
19th Mar 2018
7:08pm
Just thinking out loud here...

The low income earner should fall below the tax free threshold of $18,200, which at a 5% return would mean a share portfolio of $91,000...

What concerns me is that this low income earner/pensioner is dumped with a Hidden Tax of pension reduction, whereas anyone else on the same income without pension is not hit with that.

Of course, anyone else way above that would only enter the tax regime after $18,200, and then would pay 19c in the dollar up to $37,000, and so forth...

That alone seems to me to be a huge anomaly.
OnlyGenuineRainey
19th Mar 2018
9:31pm
The low-income SFR is already dumped with a hidden tax of some $28,000 a year, and now they will be hit with another.
Rae
20th Mar 2018
8:46am
Yes OGR you give up a great deal of income and discounts to be a SFR and obviously the government believes all SFR are "rich" so possibly being a SFR is a very stupid idea unless you are really rich.

Perhaps we have been pretending to be something that isn't possible and that the wealthy, including politicians are going to ensure we are put back in our places.
TREBOR
20th Mar 2018
11:33am
I think that argument comes down to whether or not the SFR has received tax concessions during the 'accumulation phase' as Mick pointed out above.

In that case taking tax and hidden tax such as no PBR etc is offset by earlier tax deductions, in the same way as any business should (should) operate in tax law.

Again my position is that no SFR should fall below pension level in retirement without a top-up to pension level, and none should be treated as second class in any way, pensioner or SFR.

Again unless the income level is above minimum tax - $18,200 AND should include Senior's Offset in the case of retirees or over the specified age people, which effectively means a dividend recipient should almost get to the lowest paying tax bracket before losing a cent.

Anomalies are the case of a couple forced to live on $37,000 (or so) who should receive a top-up, part pension and perks, and as I said before, the pensioner who earns extra, who has pension included as taxable income every year.

These are simple enough anomalies in my mind to resolve, leaving the truly fat cats who, as Mick said, have already stashed heaps away (and received tax deduction for management fees etc) at a lower tax rate, to pay tax now where they have gained concession before.

Silly system all round and shows the need for change, but like NG and CGT, you should not be gaining both.

Again - perhaps shorten is simply not capable of selling the facts to the public.
OnlyGenuineRainey
21st Mar 2018
1:10pm
Actually, Trebor, the argument is simpler than you think and has nothing to do with low retirement incomes or whether people got tax concessions on super. The principle in Australia has been, for many years, if you OVERPAY tax because someone deducts tax from your income before paying it to you, YOU GET IT BACK. The fact that the government was slow to recognize the gross unfairness and inconsistency of not refunding franking credits doesn't make it right to reverse a proper and needed correction that fixed a massive wrong.

Shareholders are OVERTAXED, because the company takes the tax out of the dividend. Franking Credits -as currently managed - REPAY THAT DEBT to the shareholder, amending their tax to the amount they are properly obligated to pay.

Shorten's proposal is THEFT, and many haven't cottoned on yet that it doubles the tax paid on superannuation, eliminating the concession workers are currently enjoying and in many cases making workers pay more tax on their super than they pay on their wages. It will dramatically reduce the capacity of ALL Australians to fund their retirement. But that's probably okay in Shorten's view, because doubtless, like the LNP, he thinks we should all work until we die.
floss
19th Mar 2018
4:28pm
Do you think the Labor party really know what they are doing to low income retirees.Like Hockey and his mates they have no idea.They squandered our gas and mineral resources and now we have to pay for their stupidity.
OnlyGenuineRainey
19th Mar 2018
9:17pm
Yes, they know. I wrote to Tanya Plibersek and she replied making it very very clear that they know AND DON'T CARE.
4b2
19th Mar 2018
4:30pm
I had not herd of this loop hole introduced by the highest taxing treasurer Australia has ever had. He introduced many dodgy financial tax minimisation schemes for the wealthy during his term. Time to wipe them out.
And yes I do own Australian Shares.
OnlyGenuineRainey
19th Mar 2018
9:34pm
And get a pension, no doubt, so happy to wipe out the incomes of self-funded retirees whose income is less than the pension already. Yes, let's push them into hardship so they qualify for pensions, ''cause the drain on the taxpayer to pay aged pensions isn't NEARLY enough now.

The ''wealthy'' are NEVER hurt by these changes. Either they earn and pay tax to offset the credits, or they have fancy accountants to find another loophole. It's the strugglers on low incomes who will hurt.
Knows-a-lot
19th Mar 2018
4:48pm
What a shame South Australians were too dumb to keep the ALP in government there.

And what a shame greedy oldies want to weasel their way out of paying their fair share in tax.
OnlyGenuineRainey
19th Mar 2018
9:12pm
What a shame some greedy green-eyed pensioners want to stuff the nation by destroying all benefits of saving and planning for retirement and ensuring every retiree (apart from the rich) is equally poor.
OnlyGenuineRainey
19th Mar 2018
9:16pm
Knows-a-lot, think again. X saved $500,000 over a lifetime by sacrificing lifestyle. That money WAS taxed when earned. Now, every fortnight, X effectively pays ''tax'' again by forfeiting pension benefits. X lives on a income from investment, but will now pay yet another 30% tax on that investment income, despite not earning enough to pay tax and not having as much to live on as a pensioner. Please explain how X is ''weaselling out of paying a fair share of tax''.

Meanwhile Y, who earned the same amount and paid the same tax, but didn't save, is collecting around $1 million from the taxpayer over the term of his retirement. Who is ''weaselling'' here?
Rae
20th Mar 2018
8:50am
Yes OGR makes no sense to save at all and on retirement it is sensible to work down the bucket list until a full OAP is obtained.
HS
19th Mar 2018
5:08pm
"Mr Shorten claims he is on the side of older Australians, saying: “When it comes to pensioners, pensioners are always going to do better under Labor.”

Hmm, losing the dental health care assistance wasn't the way for pensioners doing better under Labor. Quite the opposite, more and more pensioners are walking around with lost teeth or no teeth at all because they can't afford the hefty dental fees. Labor is full of "it" as much as all the other political dopes.
OnlyGenuineRainey
19th Mar 2018
9:11pm
Pensioners WILL NOT do better under Labor if there are countless thousands more of them straining the budget because Labor bashed the marginally self-funded who were struggling on low incomes and desperately need ALL their franking credits.
George
20th Mar 2018
8:06pm
Labor has never been better for pensioners - remember they raised the pension age to 67 (originally Keating raised it to 65 from 60 for women - made them Equal to men!), and also refused to reverse the moronic Asset Test changes from an 2017? I think the last decision may have cost Labor the last election - Chris Bowen's contribution!
Throw them both (and the Greens) OUT!
floss
19th Mar 2018
6:41pm
Not smart Bill you have lost my vote and speaking to older friends in our street they think the same way. You had the next election almost won and now that result must be less likely.Your only hope is to forget the idea or perhaps grandfather it.Billy you are no better than the Libs and you have let down your main supporters lest we forget.
OnlyGenuineRainey
19th Mar 2018
8:58pm
Agree, Floss. And reading Tanya Plibersek's reply to my email convinces me that Labor WILL bash the marginal self-funded retirees any way it can, until they are ground into hardship and have to put their hands out for pensions. She made it very clear THEY SIMPLY DON'T CARE WHO THEY HURT. They are just hungry for dollars from anywhere they can find them.
Sundays
19th Mar 2018
9:33pm
More information would be good. What did you ask, what did she respond. Was it from Ms Plibersek, or a staffer. I can’t help but think that Labor just aren’t abreast of the issues affecting Pensioners, and are receiving very poor advice. Bill Shortens proposal just wasn’t thought through.
OnlyGenuineRainey
20th Mar 2018
8:03am
From a staffer? I don't know. Signed by Tanya, but who knows if she wrote it - or even actually read it before signing? What I asked was if she understood that a SFR couple could potentially be getting a 5% return now, on money that was taxed at full rate when earned and saved by sacrificing lifestyle, yet losing 7.8%++ income, and left with less than the pension for a lifetime of going without, and Shorten's proposal would position them paying around 200% tax on their income, so they would likely be strongly motivated to cash their assets and blow the lot and claim a pension - or do as BigBear did and give it to offspring now, so it doesn't all end up in the taxman's hands, or they might use the mattress bank.

If we keep bashing SFRs and denying them any benefit from their savings, there will be far more pensioners and far less to go around. I made that point. I stressed that people are manipulating to claim pensions they don't really need because they are being denied fair benefit from going without to save.

The response was simply ''We know this proposal will hurt many in the community, but we need the tax revenue to pay the national debt, which has risen at a rapid rate under the LNP.''

In other words, we know it's unfair AND WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN. Got savings. Give us all of it NOW.
Rae
20th Mar 2018
8:55am
Did you point out that as a Sovereign Nation we need money from overseas to pay the debt. Taking it from people here won't do that.

Honestly with such hopeless understanding of how debt markets work and economies it's no wonder we are in this mess.

We need money from sales of resources which we aren'y getting because the Government signed losing deals or sold the asset to a foreign government or corporation.
TREBOR
20th Mar 2018
8:50pm
Early start by Laberal over the 'budget crisis' rhetoric....

Ways of attaining the revenue needed to chop back budgetary issues has been laid out on this forum many times by old heads, methinks.

Plibersek IS an East Euro, after all... they have their own way of thinking... especially the women... Polish women etc can be beautiful but vapid or blatant gold diggers pure and simple....
TREBOR
20th Mar 2018
8:55pm
Like Librador, Laberal is still totally locked into the idea that somehow pensioners and retirees are the cause of all the present and future budget problems.... they obviously have no idea of looking at the entire range of government spending to see where the true problems lie, since all spending is equal in determining what will and won't be a 'generational debt' on the economy and future generations.

They could always chop out the commissions and QANGOs that are used to support their old mates and politician pals in fine style after they're out of politics....they could look at $50bn projects being built HERE and returning cash and economic equity to the community and the nation ... and a serious look is needed at such luxury items as PPL and childcare subsidy at a time when the nation simply cannot afford these any more.

Stoopid is as stoopid does, as they all say down in Green Bow...
Eddy
19th Mar 2018
9:37pm
Seems that the SMSF are the most affected by this proposal. I am suspicious of SMSF. I know of SMSF owners who have retired at 55 so they can spend it all before they become eligible for the age pension, having a ball for 10 to 12 years before they settle down to loife on the OAP. More than once I have been called a 'mug' for waiting until I was 66 to retire. A few years ago I was on a cruise ship from Seattle to Alaska when I struck up a conversation with a fellow Australian. We discussed our retirement and he told me he retired at 55 and he and his wife took at least one cruise a year, their next cruise was to be around the world at a cost of about $100,000. He had calculated by the time he was 67 they would be eligible for the full age pension, having spent all his SMSF. So I have little sympathy for many who rail against this proposal, the idea of getting a tax refund when you do not pay tax sounds like a rort to me, a legal rort but still a rort.
OnlyGenuineRainey
20th Mar 2018
7:54am
Eddie, most SMSF owners set up SMSFs because they were getting crappy returns from industry super funds. I set one up because the fund my partner was in was charging more than his annual contribution. We got a DEBT NOTICE from his super fund.

I don't doubt there are now people trying hard to spend it all and get a pension. Why wouldn't they, when there's no benefit from having it and you are constantly being abused and bullied by ignorant people (like you, sorry!) who have no idea what they are on about.

If I quit work tomorrow, my earnings from SMSF savings - every cent of which was earned at low earning rates, taxed with 0 concessions (because we didn't earn enough to benefit from tax concessions on super), and saved by sacrificing lifestyle, would be effectively taxed at the rate of 160% - because the earnings are 5% and I'd lose 7.8% pension and all concessions. If Shorten's proposal were adopted, I might as well piss the whole lot up the wall in a big hurry, because the tax rate would go up to nearly 200%. Yes, I'd go on cruises and blow the lot, because I'd be paying a massive and very cruel penalty for having sacrificed to save, while those who lived it up in their working life get around $1 million in handouts from the taxpayer as a reward for not saving.

Maybe you need to stop judging everyone by the comments of a few you meet on cruise ships and start examining FACTS.

Shorten's proposal taxes people who can't earn high incomes and rely on those tax credits to keep them off the pension. When they throw up their hands and claim a pension, there will be less for everyone and the neediest will suffer most.
Rae
20th Mar 2018
8:58am
Exactly so Eddy. People can choose how and when to spend though.

Many simply leaked money all their lives buying coffees, lotto, bottled water, magazines etc etc and never saving.

This person chose to save for trips when he had the money and the time.

Smart person actually.
OnlyGenuineRainey
20th Mar 2018
1:01pm
Very smart, and there will be many more savers taking that option - and imposing on the taxpayer - rather than forfeiting a massive retirement benefit as a penalty for saving, and being bullied at every turn by the green-eyes who didn't bother to save.

Fairness to SFRs would save the government far, far, far more.
Eddy
20th Mar 2018
3:05pm
OGR, I was not aware my comments could be interpreted as you being 'abused and bullied'. I take pains to ensure I never post abusive comments about anyone, not even in retaliation when abuse is poured onto myself. However I find it ethically and morally wrong for an individual to take advantage of tax concessions for superannuation then to spend it on fun and games, then to front up and claim the age pension when all their superannuation has gone. I feel the same about people who spend their superannuation on upsizing their house to preserve their assets and claim the OAP because their multi-million dollar house is not included in the assets test.You are fortunate you get at least a part pension with all the attached concessions. My wife and myself have to live on my superannuation, and pay tax and medicare levy, as I fail the income test. Apart from our Seniors Cards we get no concessions whatsoever.
OnlyGenuineRainey
20th Mar 2018
5:29pm
Eddie, I do NOT get a part pension or concessions. Don't know where you got that idea. As to those who spend their super, on whatever... I agree, but that's what the government is forcing us to do because the poorer SFRs - those just above the thresholds - simply can't afford the mammoth loss that results from being ethical and honest. And when all said and done, the majority had the same opportunities to save - or better - than I did, but spent more freely during their working years.

If you fail the income test, you are well off. It is far more generous than the assets test, which leaves many with incomes of half the aged pension and having to eat away their savings. Who can blame them cruising or extending their house? They are denied fair benefit for going without lifestyle to save in the first place. All the benefit is being stolen. Why shouldn't they manipulate to take it back?

The fault is in the system. If the system were fixed, there would be far more SFRs and part pensioners and far less cost to support the aged. But our pollies are too dumb and self-serving to fix it.
OnlyGenuineRainey
20th Mar 2018
5:33pm
And sorry, your last sentence was bullying - given that your interpretation of my situation and that of many others who will lose a great deal is completely incorrect. My franking credits are most certainly NOT a rort. The government is correctly refunding overpaid tax. I have paid far more than my share, despite earning very low wages most of my life, and I believe I have a right to object to paying tax when my income is well below the tax threshold, especially since I get no pension or benefits/concessions of any kind.
Eddy
20th Mar 2018
10:57pm
OGR I misinterpreted your comment that you would lose "7.8% of pension and all concessions too' I assumed you were on a part age pension. My apologies.
Even if my last sentence had been directed to you specifically rather than a general comment I cannot see how you could claim it to be bullying. I was expressing an opinion with which you obviously disagree. It does not make my opinion any less valid than yours.
OnlyGenuineRainey
21st Mar 2018
1:04pm
Eddy, obviously you are far better off than those who will lose 30% of their desperately needed income and now be TAXED at the rate of 30% despite their income being below the tax threshold, so it would be easy for you to call a PROPER REFUND OF OVERPAID TAX a ''rort''. It most certainly IS NOT.

This IS tax that has been overpaid. The recipient earns too little to pay tax, yet their income IS taxed at 30%. It's no different from a worker having 30% of their earnings remitted to the tax office when their income is below the tax threshold. They are entitled to get it back. So should those who rely on share income to survive be entitled to get their OVERPAID tax refunded.

Gee, you are fortunate, Eddy, to have a high income from superannuation to live on. When I quit work (and I'm still working at 67) I have to live on my savings until they are all gone and all the benefit of having gone without holidays and restaurant dinners and new clothes, etc. flows to the tax man. Very likely when my partner needs expensive medical treatment and care, there will be far too little left to pay for it because the tax man ripped me off and stole all our hard won savings. Enjoy your superannuation income, Eddy. Yes, it IS bullying to support an unfair attack on the incomes of others. And sorry, your opinion is flawed. You need to study more. Go read the website Floss referred to. It explains it well. It also clarifies that this STUPID proposal will blow up the national debt and reduce the capacity of EVERY Australian worker to fund their own retirement.
Oars
19th Mar 2018
10:01pm
I would like to see how these"magic numbers" are arrived at. Is this another sly move by the labor support group ( this column no less) to fool us hard working "retirees"- who don't get a pension ???
old frt
20th Mar 2018
7:18am
To all Labor supporters who claim the Coalition is in bed with the big end of town. Who is the party trying to kill off the SMS funds? LABOR. Why will the retail and industry super funds still receive the franking credits for their members , so they will have a 30% better return than SMS Funds & discourage people from starting a SMS fund in the future.
TREBOR
20th Mar 2018
10:43am
So wait one again:-

A company pays to the ATO a deemed amount to cover tax on dividends = 30%
That 30% is included in the accounting of that company as a cost = tax deduction.
The shareholder receives dividends, and then has tax assessed and if short, receives a refund from the 30% held by the ATO.

It seems to me that thus far in the argument, that 30% is not being included in advance as income to the shareholder, and then tax assessed. It clearly should be, because all income is included as taxable income BEFORE assessment/calculation.** The OMISSION of that 30% would go a long way towards explaining the anomaly of overly fats receiving a refund cheque, and perhaps that is what Shortenski is selling so unsuccessfully.

Perhaps his 'sell' is failing through lack of fair coverage in the media - or through his own and his Party's inability to sell its workings and figures.

** That is indeed the case with the working pensioner, who has pension included as taxable income before assessment. What that clearly means is that our system of income taxation (in retirement specifically here in this case) is tiered and flawed.
OnlyGenuineRainey
20th Mar 2018
12:08pm
I'm no expert, Trebor, but your understanding seems wrong to me. The company pays tax, then distributes after-tax profit to the rightful owners. Now, if the rightful owner has a taxable income, he/she adds the dividend to other income, calculates total tax liability, then claims the tax already paid on the dividend as a tax deduction to avoid double taxation.

If the rightful owner earns too little to pay tax, they have been wrongly taxed on income that should have been received tax-free, so they SHOULD GET IT BACK.

Seems to me the current system is correct.

Now consider the situation of a SFR couple getting 5% return currently. Let's say they have $850,000 in assets, of which $100,000 is in liquid cash (for living costs) and/or car, furniture, personal effects etc. - so $750,000 returning 5%. Income =$37500. If in an SMSF, they likely have around $4000 in management/advice costs, so net $33,500. Less than the pension.

By not receiving a pension, they are effectively paying around $36000 a year in tax, so about 107.5% tax on their income.

Shorten's proposal will take 30% of their gross income if all their investments are franked shares, so they are down $11250, to now a net income of $22250, an effectively paying tax (by not drawing a pension) of somewhere around 137.5%.

And some CLOWNS think that's fair! Why? Because this person has managed to save $850,000, potentially from fully taxed wages with 0 concessions in many cases, by going without the lifestyle benefits others who now draw full pensions enjoyed. The logic seems to be ''if they saved, take their savings''. Well, when there's no reward for saving, there will be countless thousands more pensioners. Our couple In the example above will have to draw at least $15000 a year to be as well off as a pensioner, so in no time at all they will be getting a part pension, increasing every 6 months, and imposing heavy administration costs on the government. How the hell does that benefit the nation?

Do you know of any other group of people who would tolerate a 137.5% tax rate? How many people do you know who would agree that rate is fair if imposed on wage earners or business operators?
OnlyGenuineRainey
20th Mar 2018
12:17pm
Oh, but $1000 is generous. It will cut the tax grab to $10250 and boost income to a whopping $23250 pa.
OnlyGenuineRainey
20th Mar 2018
12:32pm
I just did the figures again. I'm lousy at maths so maybe someone will check for me, but it seems to me the tax rate after Shorten's grab goes to 162% of income!!!!

Trebor, do you seriously think someone would happily take even a 30% tax concession (which is more than most people get) on their super contributions if they knew it would cost them 162% of their income in retirement?
VeryCaringBigBear
20th Mar 2018
5:37pm
Franking credits can only be 30% tax on income or less. if you receive a dividend of $700 it has taxed paid of $300 giving you a taxable incone of $1000.
OnlyGenuineRainey
20th Mar 2018
10:00pm
Do the sums again, VCB. A pension - as much as many would like to dispute it - is nothing more than a tax rebate. It reduces your net tax and reduces the tax man's take. If you don't get a pension, the tax man's take increases as a result of you paying more total net tax over a lifetime.

Now, if you have $750,000 of your total $850,000 assets invested at 5%, with a management cost of $4000, your net income is $33500. If you lose 30% of your income through loss of franking credits, your income reduces by $11250 to $22250. You are paying tax despite not earning enough to pay tax. But you also lose about $36000 in pension income (if a couple), so you effectively pay $11250 tax on your dividends plus $36000 a year lost rebate = $47250 total tax on a net income of $33500.

I am well aware that many will argue that the $36,000 isn't tax, but it IS. You either collect it from the taxpayer every year, or you forfeit it to the tax man's benefit and have to draw on your savings to live.

Nobody would endorse a tax of $47250 on an earned wage of $33500, so why are some greedy people endorsing over-taxing SFRs to grind them into hardship and deny them the benefit of their savings.
floss
20th Mar 2018
1:55pm
HI. KIDS Go to Super Guide. com .au they fully explain the whole disaster in a easy to read manner even I understand it.
OnlyGenuineRainey
20th Mar 2018
6:31pm
Great explanation, and shows very clearly that abolishing franking credits means DOUBLE TAXING, and will have devastating economic effects.
OnlyGenuineRainey
21st Mar 2018
6:59am
Actually, everyone should read all of that website, in depth, because it presents very clear and credible detail of how BOTH Shorten's policy and the 2017 assets test changes are hurting ALL Australians and will result in HIGHER DEBT AND DEFICIT in the future.

This ''grab-it-now'' mentality is about conning the public into thinking a party is doing good, but in fact it's selling us out. Those who introduce these ill-thought-out policies won't be in power when they come back to bite and we all realize the awful truth, so they don't care. But if YOU care about future generations, you will OPPOSE RIGOROUSLY both Shorten's proposal and the assets test change and DEMAND that the government stop this short-sighted money-grabbing and misleading the public.

Did Shorten happen to mention, in his sales speak, that EVERY SINGLE AUSTRALIAN WORKER will suffer loss of their retirement benefit as a result of his policy, and it undermines the whole idea of superannuation? Nope! Actually LIED claiming 90% of Australians don't own shares and won't be affected. WRONG! 90% DO own shares - through their super fund if not directly - and WILL be affected adversely. Their tax rate on retirement savings will double. Now, maybe that's not such a bad thing, but if that's the case, WHY ISN'T HE TELLING THE TRUTH?
VeryCaringBigBear
20th Mar 2018
5:47pm
If I hadn't spent and given away my wealth under this proposal I would have lost at least $25,000 a year of my income. Thank goodness I planned ahead with such stupid policies as these being put forward.

For most people it will make no sense to keep super after retirement age if franking credits are not refunded. Ut is like saying to the wage earner your employers deducted too much tax but we will keep it instead of refunding it.
OnlyGenuineRainey
23rd Mar 2018
7:40pm
You must have been VERY rich then, BigBear. No wonder pensioners are angry. But they are attacking the wrong people. They should STOP attacking the SFRs who are honest and helping the nation and start screaming for the blood of those greedy selfish people like you who ARE ripping off the nation.
VeryCaringBigBear
25th Mar 2018
10:11pm
I have not ripped off anyone in fact I have helped my family, bought myself a more suitable house and love dnjoying myseof holidaying around the country and the world. That's what retirement is all about.
Misty
26th Mar 2018
3:49pm
I agree with you to a certain extent VCBB, if every wage earner stopped eating out occasionally, having coffee every now and then with friends and taking the occasional holiday just imagine the damage it would do to the tourist industry. Jobs would be lost left right and centre, also with the restaurants and cafes too. People's health would suffer too with no enjoyment in their lives other then work and save.
OnlyGenuineRainey
26th Mar 2018
5:25pm
But it's okay for SFRs who are contributing $30-40K a year to the tax man to be deprived of their lifestyle and forced into hardship, as long as a cheat's grandkids are well of and workers have plenty to spend.
What a hypocritical and cruel statement, Misty.

Shorten will reduce SFRs to incomes lower than the pension, but that's okay because they can just use their hard-won savings to prop up the bludgers and cheats, contributing 150% of their income to the taxman by forfeiting pensions, and getting NOTHING for their years of hard work and sacrifice, and they are still abused and called 'greedy 'rorters''.
OnlyGenuineRainey
20th Mar 2018
6:33pm
The purpose and effect of the dividend imputation system is to ensure that Australian shareholders pay tax on their dividends at their marginal rate and no more. It is NOT a tax concession to shareholders.
OnlyGenuineRainey
21st Mar 2018
6:05am
Thinking through the claimed ''justifications'' for Shorten's policy that I've seen so far, I smell a big rat. How can it possibly save billions?

It WILL NOT affect wealthy retirees who have more than $1.6 million in super because they will still be able to offset against the accumulation portion of their income.

It WILL NOT affect healthy folk who are still working and earning because they can offset against their earned income

It WILL NOT affect those fortune enough to have a permanent income stream from other sources that is taxed.

It probably won't have much impact on members of institutional super funds because those funds will likely have enough members in accumulation phase to offset the tax hit.

It won't affect anyone with a younger spouse still in accumulation phase (and some of those are ripping off big time by transferring their super to their spouse's accumulation account and claiming a pension they don't need!)

If the $1000 handout goes ahead, the unfair tax (and it IS unfair, because it taxes income below the taxable threshold and at a relatively high rate) won't inflict much pain on a lot of pensioners who just have a small shareholding, so no saving there.

It WILL be very harmful to poorer asset-tested retirees who have modest incomes and limited options for achieving an income from their savings. It will force them to draw down on their saving faster and therefore move onto a pension sooner, imposing more pressure on the budget and more than offsetting any savings from attacking folk who sacrificed lifestyle to try to be self-sufficient.

It seems to me that pretty much the only people it will impact are the struggling retirees who have no other source of income and rely on franking credits to avoid draining their savings and becoming pensioners. They will pay up to 30% tax on income that shouldn't be taxed because they earn too little to pay tax, and their loss will not benefit the budget because it will increase the cost of aged pensions by forcing them to draw down savings faster.

It will also very likely cause a fall in share values as those affected or fearing being affected later sell off shares. If that happens, it will reduce the assets of nearly all retirees, thereby increasing the cost of the OAP substantially.

Now, Shorten justifies this policy with LIES. First, he claims over 90% of Australians don't own shares. WRONG. It's more likely 90% DO own shares, since virtually everyone who has superannuation owns shares. Secondly, he claims someone is getting $2.5 million in franking credits and paying no tax. As pointed out by others, that person would have to have over $100 million in shares to generate that much in franking credits. How many people have that size shareholding? If there's any truth to it - and it sounds VERY doubtful, especially given the $1.6 million cap on super in pension phase, it would be very easy to adjust tax law to tax someone with that amount of wealth.

Please can someone offer me a SENSIBLE explanation of how this huge budget saving is going to be achieved, given that the it seems pretty much the ONLY people the change will hurt will be poorer asset-tested retirees who will be forced onto pensions much sooner and will draw a greater amount of aged pension over their retirement years than they would have if they were taxed fairly - recognizing that their dividend income has been taxed despite them not earning enough to pay tax, and therefore that tax SHOULD BE REFUNDED (as correctly happens now).

The only RORT here is by the Labor Party lying to the public, I think. There has to be another rather sinister motive for this policy, because it does not appear that it's going to have much impact at all except on poorer SFRs who will cease to be SFRs and add to the cost of the OAP.

Sorry, but I think those of you who are supporting this attack on struggling SFRs are swallowing a load of BS peddled by someone whose motive has nothing to do with ''fixing'' the tax system (and it isn't ''fixing'' it, it's breaking it, because it's taxing people who don't earn enough to pay tax, and handing refunds back to the wealthier folk who DO earn enough to pay tax)
OnlyGenuineRainey
21st Mar 2018
6:27am
Correction. Someone just pointed out that super funds in accumulation mode will actually pay up to 30% tax instead of the current 15%. That will dramatically reduce the benefit of superannuation, which is supposed to ease pressure on the OAP. Every Australian worker will suffer a reduction in their retirement benefit.

Those who wrongly think of franking credits as a ''rort'' should think again. What if the government decided to stop refunding excess PAYE tax payments to people who earn too little to pay tax. I suspect there would be a massive uproar. Despite the fancy name, ''franking credits'' are no different. They are merely a refund of overpaid tax. If you earn enough to pay tax, they are correctly counted as tax paid. If you don't, you should get them back. There's no ''rort'' here. The system is correct now.

Other countries don't have this policy? Other countries do a great deal differently. For one thing, they don't means test pensions. The US allows tax deductions for housing loan interest on your own home. Why are we ONLY copying a policy that wipes out the incomes of struggling retirees who are trying not to be a burden on the taxpayer, and one that will reduce self-sufficiency in retirement in the future - thus undermining the whole concept of the superannuation scheme?
MacI
23rd Mar 2018
6:16pm
From reading elsewhere it would appear that large pooled Super Funds will not be severely impacted. This is because the majority of the fund members are in accumulation mode and therefore are paying 15% contribution tax that the tax credits earned from fully franked dividends can be offset against.

It is the SMSF Super funds that, dependent on their exposure to Australian shares, that will be severely impacted. In fact it may be the case that assets currently held inside an SMSF in pension mode will do better if they were held outside the fund because of the cost of administration and compliance costs of running an SMSF.

As people who are impacted by this proposed change re-jig their financial affairs the expected return to revenue will likely come in well below what is anticipated.

It is educational to note the lack of alarm from the large Industry Funds (some have come out in support of the change). Given their close tie to unions there would be an outcry. Makes you wonder if another agenda is at play to force the closure of SMSFs.
MacI
24th Mar 2018
12:00pm
Further to my comments in the foregoing I refer to Noel Whittaker's piece in the Brisbane Times with the headline "Dying retirees to blow hole in Labor's $59b tax grab". He explains how this revenue raising policy will eventually go the way of Labor's mining tax that caused a lot of angst and a tiny return to revenue at best. He makes a number of points:

1) Because of the restrictions already applied by the LNP government the really large SMSFs are already on the way out and will die out completely with the demise of the members of these funds, the majority of whom are at least 65 now.
2) The really large SMSFs have the ability to re-jig their investments to optimise their after-tax returns. In Noel's opinion large SMSFs could easily change their investment strategy to completely avoid Labor's proposed tax hike.
3) Large retail funds (I include Industry Funds) can avoid the impact because tax credits from imputation can offset other taxes such as contribution tax and tax on earnings. The majority of the members of a retail or industry fund are in accumulation mode and subject to contribution tax and tax on earnings so members in pension mode get the tax advantage of being in a common pool.
4) The foregoing leaves those with relatively moderate investments in Australian shares as the most vulnerable with a significant proportion of their retirement income at risk.



3)
Gee Whiz
21st Mar 2018
9:43am
Its only eighteen months ago that Turnbull raided retirees and pensioners savings. Hundreds of thousands retirees were effected and some pensioners were forced below the poverty line.
Shorten is planning a similar robbery just under a different name. You will note of course that politicians pensions will not be effected. They go out on a guaranteed annual income no matter what happens in the private sector. Trusting the LNP or the ALP is like getting into bed with a Taipan and trusting it won't bite you.
floss
21st Mar 2018
10:43am
O.G.R I am glade you read that article this proposal by Labour is a sinister piece of work and a lot worse the more you go into it.Hockey was bad enough but Shorten Is worse as we expect that from the Libs not from Labor.Who to vote for at the next election not the two major parties unless big change to super happen I am sick of being bashed by these idiots.
OnlyGenuineRainey
21st Mar 2018
4:38pm
This change won't ''benefit'' 350,000 Australians! What a disgusting con job! $1000 is an insult to people who will lose 30% of their retirement income, and a gross insult to everyone who is concerned about the cost of the OAP, because Shorten's stupidity will push a lot more people onto much higher pensions.
Circum
21st Mar 2018
9:24pm
You are quite right Rainey.It is deceit to even claim 350,000 will benefit.Its not a benefit giving someone a bandage after stabbing them in the guts.Its a bandaid solution to a problem that did not exist in the first place.
Misty
22nd Mar 2018
9:46am
I think both major political parties have a lot to answer for when it comes to pensioners and by this I mean TRUE PENSIONERS, who have no assets or income other then the Govt pension, not wealthy people who structure their financial affairs to avoid paying tax.
Radish
22nd Mar 2018
7:47pm
And structure their finances to get a part pension....albeit only a small one to get access to concessions.
OnlyGenuineRainey
23rd Mar 2018
7:37pm
Misty, the people who have a lot to answer for are the jealous and selfish dunces who can't see that those they are attacking are their benefactors, and they are killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

For the millionth time, Shorten IS NOT HURTING THE RICH. But battlers those he IS hurting WILL drive taxes up when they throw up their hands and say ''Well, I'll just take a pension, since you idiots don't appreciate my huge contribution to the nation by being self-funded, and you won't let me enjoy a decent income from my limited assets.''

This is nothing to do with wealthy people structuring their affairs to avoid tax. It's about people who planned to be self-sufficient - and not a burden on the country - paying WAY TOO MUCH TAX AND BEING SLUGGED UNFAIRLY.

Most who have nothing but the pension were spendthrifts or bludgers during their lifetime, or manipulated to claim it unfairly. Only a minority are genuinely needy, and it's thanks to those who worked and paid tax and saved that they can be looked after, despite the rorting of millions of pensioners who have no valid excuse for not being self-funded (or substantially so).

The SFRs you are attacking with your greed are donating about $1 million to the taxman by NOT CLAIMING A PENSION. But many are getting heartily sick of the abuse and will START manipulating. And when they do, there will be FAR LESS for the whinging bloody self-serving pensioners who are supporting stealing the SFRs livelihood.

Get used to poverty. YOU ARE CAUSING IT.
OnlyGenuineRainey
23rd Mar 2018
8:19am
Smooth operator, this BS! First tell whopping lies to deceive the selfish into thinking he's hitting wealthy rorters, then when it's exposed that he's hurting some pensioners, pretend remorse and offer a few crumbs in compensation, continuing the massive lie about his real objective. Of course it's easy to fool the selfish green-eyed brigade whose only focus is ''he's got more than me - take it and give me more'' and who never think of the consequences of such stupid communist ideals.

If BS is seeking to establish a dictatorship over a poor nation, he's going the right way about it. When most of the nation is poor and dependant, it's easy to control them. Then the evil rich can do as they please.

If that's NOT his goal, then he's totally incompetent and a dangerous man to have in power, because he's going to impoverish the people who are keeping this country afloat.

We need workers and savers. We need investment in Australian companies. That's what grows the economy. Workers are savers, in retirement, donate massive amounts to the taxman. The average SFR gifts the taxman more than $1 million over the course of their retirement by not drawing a pension and benefits. Part-pensioners also make substantial donations.

Now it seems the full pensioners and blinded workers who are obsessed with the fear that someone might have more than them want these SFRs and part-pensioners OVERTAXED UNFAIRLY to grind them into hardship and push them onto full pensions. That's really dumb. Moreover, they want investment moved to property (pushing housing prices up), foreign shares (building foreign economies at the expense of our own), precious metals (lining the coffers of rich miners and doing nothing for the nation)... anything but growing and strengthening our own economy.

Don't you people get it? If SFRs and part pensioners are poorer, and workers pay more tax on their superannuation investments so save less, there will be more people claiming $1 million handouts over their retirement and less savings for the nation. Ultimately, we'll ALL BE WORSE OFF.

Yes, some folk are ''lucky'' - NOT! They are hard working and smart and responsible, and they are contributing substantially to economic health.

There are plenty of ways to address the budget deficit without crucifying those who are keeping our nation strong. Tax high retirement income across the board. That's much fairer and more economically responsible than overtaxing people who buy shares - regardless of their income. Stop allowing rich people to load their younger spouse's super account and claim a pension they don't need. Increase the upper tax rate a little - taking just a tiny bit more from people who have tons. Tax multi-national companies properly. Reduce capital gains tax. The options are there in abundance. There is NO NEED to attack the battlers whose hard work and sacrifice is good for the nation.
Misty
23rd Mar 2018
3:05pm
Not overtaxed unfairly, why should young people have to pay tax so that SFR who pay NO TAX receive a tax refund?. Talk to the workers now who are paying tax and you will find they have no sympathy for SFR who are crying poor and a lot of them will be eligible to vote in the next election.
OnlyGenuineRainey
23rd Mar 2018
7:28pm
Misty, PENSIONERS are putting tax up - NOT SFRs. SFRs contribute about $1 million to the tax man over the course of their retirement by NOT claiming pensions and benefits. That REDUCES taxes. But your selfish approach supporting an attack on these people who REDUCE taxes will force more onto pensions and drive workers taxes UP.

You are clearly blinded by jealousy, and you are being very nasty to people who have a genuine concern that after a lifetime of hard work, paying taxes, and going without lifestyle to save, they are being punished with UNFAIR tax. You are also clearly blind to the fact that its ONLY the poorer who will pay. Those with taxable income as well as their super will continue to get rebates. The rich will manipulate.

Your attitude will stuff the nation, drive workers' tax up and pensions DOWN. But sadly you can't see past ''I think he has more than me so take it off him''. Greed and jealousy is wrecking this country - and it seems you are badly infected.

I hope you don't expect anyone to support your complaints when your income is threatened or the government threatens a cruel and unfair tax on you.
OnlyGenuineRainey
23rd Mar 2018
7:47pm
BTW Misty, BigBear is a FULL pensioner. He boasts he would have lost $25,000 a year under Shorten's policy if he hadn't given away his wealth and claimed a pension. That means he had well over half-a-million in shares that he gave away. And he boasts $500,000 wouldn't be a deposit on his home, so he owns a multi-million dollar luxury mansion. But he RORTS to claim a pension. Why? Because fools like Shorten attack people who are honest and decent and do what's good for the nation - living on their savings to save the taxpayer having to support them. And selfish people like you support that attack.

Well, I hope all the SFRs do what BigBear did and the cost of the OAP doubles, and then there are calls to slash the pension or hand out cashless welfare cards because the nation can't afford to support all those extra pensioners, who are pensioners BECAUSE YOU AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE SELFISH AND NASTY AND WANT TO SEE OTHERS HURT UNFAIRLY JUST BECAUSE THEY SAVED WELL.

Good luck pensioners when the SFRs give up trying because the idiots won't stop attacking them and telling lies about refunds of OVERPAID TAX being unfair.
OnlyGenuineRainey
24th Mar 2018
10:14am
And one final comment Misty. Any worker who thinks this IDIOTIC policy change will reduce their tax is an IDIOT.

Expert economists estimate flow-on effects will eliminate the claimed savings without 2 years and within 5 years the policy will be costing the nation heaps.

Every worker who has superannuation (and that's almost all now) will LOSE under Shorten's policy. Their super will be taxed at a higher rate. If their marginal tax rate is less than 30%, their super will be taxed at a rate higher than the rate applied to their earnings. The only folk who WILL NOT LOSE are the genuinely wealthy.

Misty, if you understood economics well enough to argue that I'm wrong, you, like me, would have substantial savings and be among those hurt by the policy. Don't kid yourself that you had it harder than I did. I supported a disabled partner for most of our married life, had years off work myself due to chronic illness, paid out over $100,000 out of pocket in the 70s for treatment for a special needs child, and hardly ever earned more than a minimum wage. I have never had a windfall of any kind and as both my partner and I were orphaned early in life we had no family support or help.

I was determined NOT to be poor in old age, so I set out to learn how to understand economics. Now, I am being robbed of everything by STUPID LAZY politicians who just think ''I see money - take it'', supported by people who don't bother to try to understand finance and economics but just swallow their favourite politician's lies or let envy rule their heads.

If you care about young workers, you'll warn them that Shorten is telling big whoppers and his policy will hurt THEM.
VeryCaringBigBear
24th Mar 2018
11:01am
I will still lose some franking credits as I have money in shares as they pay so much more than bank interest. However of I had not spent, given away my wealth and travel the world and bought a more expensive house before I reached pension age I would be more than $25,000 out of pocket just with what was in my super fund alone.

This proposed policy has me so grateful for what I did now.
Misty
24th Mar 2018
11:08am
What rot OGR, I take exception to the comment you have made about me, I am certainly not jealous of anyone thank you very much, but I do object to people crying poor who have millions in assets and shares, who pay no tax yet receive a tax free income, there is no equity in that in my opinion.
Misty
24th Mar 2018
11:14am
OGR I certainly don't know how anyone on a minimum wage could possibly save $100,000, especially in the era you are talking about, it doesn't add up. I am sorry you have had all these hardships in your life and hope things are better fro you and your family now.
Misty
24th Mar 2018
11:41am
Stop calling me selfish and jealous OGR, time to calm down and stop your ranting and raving.
OnlyGenuineRainey
25th Mar 2018
9:08am
Misty, you are missing the point. This tax DOESN'T HURT THE RICH. The people it hurts DO NOTY have millions. They get a tax free income BECAUSE THEY DON'T EARN MUCH. Many have less income than pensioners - a LOT less. But they have the option to rearrange their affairs and claim a pension, and THEY WILL if fools keep hitting on them unfairly.

Explain this to me Misty:

If the policy is ''fair'', how come those with MORE than $1.6 million in super will still be able to claim at least part of their tax credit, but those with LESS than $1.6 million will not be able to claim any?

How come those with other income will get their tax credit, and those with nothing else will not?

How come those in super fund with lots of high income working members will get their tax credit, and those in funds with lower income workers and/or lots in pension mode will not?

How come rich property investors will get their tax rebate and people who invest overseas will get their foreign tax refunded, but people who invest in Australian companies will be overtaxed?

You seem to be focused on proving anyone who complains is wealthy and deserves to be hurt, instead of examining the FACT of the issue.

I'm sorry if my assumption that you are jealous is incorrect and offensive, but that's how you are presenting yourself. You appear to be motivated by jealousy because you dismiss FACT as ''rot'' solely on the grounds that you WRONGLY assume anyone who complains must be wealthy and you ignore the facts of the issue.

BigBear is very wealthy, but he gets a full pension and costs the taxpayer over $40,000 a year (assuming he's part of a couple). He's not complaining. because he manipulated to make sure he and his family didn't surrender their hard-won savings to the taxpayer unfairly. Is that what you want EVERYONE to do? Let's put the cost of the OAP up $80 billion or so, shall we, and see where BS's BS savings are then.

Please wake up, Misty. You are clearly not understanding the issue at all.
OnlyGenuineRainey
25th Mar 2018
9:30am
And STOP believing the massive LIE about people will millions not paying tax, Misty. Those still earning might. The filthy rich with all sorts of complex structures might.

The average SFR couple is paying $40,000 a year tax by not drawing a pension, PLUS thousands by not getting concessions, PLUS GST and indirect tax. And Shorten wants to take yet another 30% from them, while giving that 30% BACK THE MUCH WEALTHIER WHO HAVE ONGOING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES.

I'll calm down when you stop accusing decent people who are being cheated of the livelihood ''rorters'' and dismissing FACT as ''rot''. Sorry, but IT IS SELFISH to ignore FACT and make nasty comments just because a measure doesn't hurt YOU and apparently you prefer to believe a politician's lies than examine the true facts - all of which have been presented here by many intelligent posters who took the time to examine Shorten's BS and find the massive holes in his argument.
Misty
26th Mar 2018
4:00pm
You never replied to my comment OGR how a person who has been out of work for years, had to support a special needs child and a disabled partner on a minimum wage could end up $100,000 out of pocket?, no one I know of on a minimum wage has money to save, or very little after they pay their rent/mortgage and cost of living and childcare/school expenses.
OnlyGenuineRainey
26th Mar 2018
5:42pm
Everyone working in Australia has money to save, Misty. They just DON'T. They all spend much more than necessary. We grew our food. We made our clothes and furniture. We bought an old car from a wrecker for a few hundred dollars and rebuilt it with parts from wrecks. We built our own home, from the ground up - doing EVERYTHING ourselves. We bought old houses and renovated and sold at a profit. We joined bulk buying syndicates and trade groups. There are plenty of ways to save money, but very few make the effort. They would rather go to the club Friday night and rent a holiday house on the Gold Coast than spend their weekends and holidays concreting and painting and digging up vegetable patches.

It's truly amazing how little you can get by on when you have to. Faced with $100,000 debt for specialists and therapy, and having grown up in poverty, we resolved to find every possible way to save so that our kids would have a good education and we would not retire poor. It takes hard work, but it's entirely doable. And that's why I object to the greedy, selfish people who now want to strip others of their hard-won savings. They could have had much more if they had made the effort, but having spent more freely, they now want SFRs stripped of the benefits they earned and forced to hand over money to be given to those who lived better and saved less.
Misty
26th Mar 2018
7:51pm
I am sorry OGR but that was yours, and your families,decision to spend your lives in the way you describe but not everyone wants to live like that and they shouldn't have to, live and let live and don't try to tell other people how to live their lives.
OnlyGenuineRainey
27th Mar 2018
9:56pm
You are unbelievable, Misty. You tell me not to tell others how to live their lives, but you are supporting policies that deny me and others the right to live as we choose. The HIDEOUSLY UNFAIR AND CRUEL policies you are supporting torment and deprive people who made the choice to save for later, while handing out over $1 million to people how chose to spend. What kind of hypocrite pretends to support freedom of choice, but ONLY if it favours THEM and hurts others?
Misty
28th Mar 2018
2:46am
Something doesn't ring true with your story OGR, where would you get the money from to buy houses and do them up if you were out of work and out of pocket $100,000 and when you did work only got a minimum wage and who did the work if you had a disabled partner and worked yourself. Stop your whinging, if you notice no one else is listening to you.
OnlyGenuineRainey
28th Mar 2018
8:02am
Misty, just because you couldn't achieve something doesn't make it impossible. Resourceful people do amazing thing - particularly when their only choice is to be incredibly resourceful or see their family live in severe poverty.

I never said we were out of work all the time. I said we MOSTLY worked for a single minimum wage, and we did. And obviously the debt wasn't incurred in the first year of our partnership. The child was not formally diagnosed until 2 and a half, even though it was clear there were problems from weeks after birth.

Perhaps you are not aware that it's actually possible to buy and sell a house without ever outlaying a dollar? A relative bought two houses wrecked houses for $500, renovated them, and swapped them for a very lucrative business owned by a man who was retiring and just wanted a nice house for himself and one to give his daughter for a wedding present. A lot of folk wouldn't believe that possible either. Another bought a house with $0 deposit after supporting six kids and a drunken unemployed husband through the Great Depression. Not everyone just gives up and cries ''poor me'' when things are tough. Which is why Shorten's stupid brain fizz won't help the budget. It will simply force investors out of shares to the detriment of the nation.

And I am NOT whinging, Misty. I am just DISGUSTED with the HORRIBLE people who enjoy seeing unfairness hurt others and are content to ignore the harm a policy will do the nation.

This is an issue EVERYONE should be united on, and it's unbelievable that anyone could be so disgracefully selfish and self-serving as to want people attacked for saving.

Clearly, you are very comfortable on a pension with private income and a home. Good for you. How disgusting that you want people who are less secure deprived of their hard-won savings, at enormous cost to the nation, and you are too arrogant and self-focused, apparently, to even consider that there may be facts that you have considered - or your view of the world might be wrongly influence. Much easier to attack and accuse someone you know nothing about of being untruthful.

Anyone who pays attention to FACT instead of swallowing stupid political propaganda knows that (a) Shorten's brain fizz will NOT hurt the rich. They have ways around it, and (b) It will be extremely bad for the nation to push people to divest Australian shares.

No matter who you vote for, or what your personal financial situation, this is a time when we should all unite. And only the most selfish and self-serving will continue to attack me for exposing facts that evidence how wrong this policy is.
Misty
28th Mar 2018
9:17am
Sorry OGR it seems you are on your own when it comes to your views about this policy, no one is listening.
Old Geezer
23rd Mar 2018
2:47pm
I won't even bother commenting on such a silly policy as this one except to say no wonder we are now such a welfare dependant country. Time to become a global citizen and pay no tax anywhere me thinks. Just have to work out where in the world I will live for the other six months of the year.
OnlyGenuineRainey
23rd Mar 2018
7:55pm
It's definitely true that greed and selfishness addle the brain. That's very obvious from the comments of the selfish people who want struggling SFRs and part pensioners to be UNFAIRLY taxed into hardship.

It boggles the mind that a pensioner or worker could want the people who are keeping this nation afloat bashed and beaten until they give up and put their hand out for the $1 million or so that the non-savers are being handed over the course of their retirement.

Who the hell do these dumb fools think is paying for their pensions? Some SFRs are losing more to the tax man than they are earning - dipping into savings to prop up pensioners by effectively paying more than 100% tax (by losing $36000 a year plus concessions while only earning maybe $25000!). Now the greedy selfish fools want to take yet another 30%. Are they really so dumb that they can't see that all that does is push SFRs to give up and claim a pension? When there's no reward for saving, nobody will. And then the welfare burden will collapse the economy.

Stop bullying your benefactors and start saying ''Thank you for helping reduce the deficit and taxes'' and support them to get a fair deal so they will KEEP ON HELPING TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT AND TAXES.

The RICH are rorting. We all know that. Shorten's dumb policy won't touch them! It's killing the responsible battlers who are keeping this nation afloat.
Misty
24th Mar 2018
11:34am
OGR I never had it easy, I worked 2 jobs, School Assistant TILL 3 pm and the worked 2 to 3 shift a week, 3 until Midnight in a Nursing Home and my husband worked overtime when ever he could, we were comfortably off when we retired, own our own home and had overseas trips to visit my in laws, as well as bringing up 4 boys. I have had 3 cancer ops as well but I am not complaining I am just grateful to still be here and enjoying life.
OnlyGenuineRainey
24th Mar 2018
6:03pm
So why are you wishing hurt on people in similar circumstances who chose to invest a little in shares rather than take overseas trips, Misty? Explain that to me. You say you retired comfortably off. I'm guessing you draw a pension?

There are many out there who elected not to take overseas trips, and to perhaps buy a less costly home and go without other luxuries, because they wanted the security of extra income in retirement. They are NOT wealthy. They probably have no more than you would have if you had not travelled. And many of them are already being very heavily ''taxed'' by forfeiting pensions and concessions. Why are you supporting an attack on those people that will unfairly deprive them of the income they planned and went without to achieve?

If I pay too much PAYE tax, I get a refund. If a businessman pays too much provisional tax, he gets a refund. If a pensioner has tax incorrectly deducted from their bank interest, he/she gets a refund. Why shouldn't battlers who have invested in shares to boost their retirement income get a refund of the 30% tax that is deducted from their dividend before they receive it? Why should they pay 30% more tax than everyone else, just because their income comes from shares? And why should those who have other sources of income be able to offset it, but those who have no other income are just overtaxed?

Please think again, Misty. You clearly don't correctly understand either how franking credits work or who actually benefits from them. Perhaps you are just deceived by LIARS. If so, I urge you to do more research, because franking credits are NOT a rort - the current law is entirely fair. And Shorten's proposal will NOT hurt the wealthy, but will do enormous harm to the economy and cause very unfair and savage hurt to many people just like you.
Kathleen
25th Mar 2018
4:48pm
I am beginning to suspect OGR that you are a Liberal stooge being paid to trash Labor in order to persuade people to vote LNP in the next election. You respond to every comment and must spend huge amounts of time wading through all these posts to argue your case.
If this does not affect you as you say why are you shouting about it relentlessly?
People need to question your motives!!!
OnlyGenuineRainey
25th Mar 2018
6:50pm
It affects EVERYBODY, Kathleen, because it will do MASSIVE economic harm. It's sad that some people just can't see it.

No, I'm not a Liberal stooge. I'm not a Liberal supporter at all. In fact, I think the LNP has done huge harm to the economy. Just their idiotic assets test change, for a start, was very damaging.

If people want to question my motives instead of considering the FACTS I present that PROVE Labor's policy harmful and their claims dishonest, I can't help the poor fools and they will just have to learn the hard way if Shorten does get this through.

I really don't understand how anybody can think there is any merit in such an idiotic and harmful proposal. It won't affect the rich, because they simply manipulate around any tax law change. It will hurt marginally self-funded retirees and part-pensioners, pushing more people onto higher aged pensions that cost more.

And anyone who believes the POSITIVELY IDIOTIC LIE that these people pay no tax is mind-bogglingly ignorant. By not claiming a pension, single SFRs effectively pay $30,000 a year in tax and couples over $40,000 between them. ATO figures reveal that most who will be hurt by Shorten's brain fizz only earn $34,000 a year, so they pay more than 100% tax, in reality, and will pay yet another 30% UNFAIRLY under Shorten's proposal. And they will be TRIPLE taxed, because they paid tax on earnings that they saved, and now they pay tax by forfeiting a pension, and Shorten wants to take another 30%.

Gee, I'm sorry if it offends you that I continue to try to expose the truth and prevent further harm to our economy and unfairness to good hard-working people. Maybe everyone should be like BigBear and just cheat the system to draw a full pension. Then I wouldn't have to be concerned about all the unfair hurt this proposal threatens.

People need to question YOUR motives for defending a liar and supporting an unfair attack on those whose hard work and sacrifice is paying for all the OAPs.
OnlyGenuineRainey
25th Mar 2018
10:33am
How about some of you swallowing Shorten's massive lies actually look at the FACTS as shown from ATO figures.

• Tax free pensions averaging over the following specified values were received by:
o 819 SMSF members @ over $1m in pension payment each pa, and having pension assets over $10m
o 4,273 @ over $400,000 having assets between $5m and $10m
o 32,800 @ over $188k having assets between $2m and $5m

There we have a total of 37,892 SMSF members who will NOT lose their credits, because they have to have accumulation accounts and can offset against them. Given their wealth, they probably have other income and complex avoidance structures as well. Shorten will get NOTHING from that 37,892 millionaires.

o 68,518 @ over $100k having assets between $1m and $2m

Depending on their actual balance and their spread of investments, SOME of the above 68,518 MIGHT be affected. With over $1 million, it's fairly easy to rearrange your investments TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE NATION to avoid hurt. Those with that much would typically be people who understand finance well and can achieve high returns.

o 98,368 @ over $57k having assets between $500k and $1m
o 94,128 @ over $34k having assets between $200k and $500k
o 30,525 @ over $20k having assets between $100k and $200k
o 22,372 @ over $10k having assets between $1k and $100k

Here we have 245,393 with assets BELOW $1 million who will be affected. Of those,some 98,000 have enough assets to be self-funded. The rest probably receive at least a part pension.

More than 53,000 have SMSF incomes LESS THAN THE AGED PENSION and are probably receiving a FULL aged pension.

So Shorten is NOT attacking the wealthy. He IS attacking 53,000 full pensioners with limited assets; some 100,000 who have barely enough to be self-funded and are already giving the government over $28,000 a year each by not claiming a pension (and that's TAX!) - and many of whom will be struggling; and maybe 150,000 part pensioners who ARE supporting the taxpayer by not claiming a full pension.

Now, BigBear says he would have lost $15,000 on a $500,000 shareholding if he hadn't given all his money away. I know a couple who will lose $7000 a year on $200,000 worth of shares.

So let's consider the 98,000 odd who are just managing to be self-funded. They will lose between $7000 and $30,000 a year from incomes of just $57,000 a year. Most will throw up their hands and either shift to property or foreign shares, etc., or divest some assets and claim a pension. If just 5% do as BigBear did, that will be an increased pension bill of $147 million per year plus administration costs. And that's NOT counting the reduction of BS's claimed savings from people shifting to other investments. Nor is it counting the part pensioners who will divest enough to increase their pension income.

Add to that, the share market is likely to fall as a result of investors shifting, so more part pensioners will draw more pension and many SFRS will qualify for part pensions, adding more to the budget loss.

Every year, the proportion of the population drawing a full or part pension will increase dramatically because it's harder to be self-funded when you are being UNFAIRLY TAXED - and it IS unfair to take 30% of someone's income just because they invest in shares, when investors in other assets don't pay tax.

Now consider the claimed ''fairness'' of this policy.

Let's say I am a single SFR with $500,000 in share assets, a $400,000 home, and a net income of $38,000 a year. I lose $15,000 a year in franking credits, reducing my income to $23,000 a year. I am now effectively gifting the taxman about $43,000 a year by a combination of forfeiting a pension and concessions and paying tax on my share income (by the government keeping the tax the companies paid out of my dividend)

My neighbour is in the same position, but is invested in property. He loses nothing. My other neighbour has $2 million in a combination of property and shares, a $1 million house, and an income of $70,000 a year. He loses NOTHING, because he offsets his franking credits against other income.

My other neighbour is working and earning $150,000 a year and has $500,000 in shares. He loses NOTHING because he offsets his loss against his salary income.

My friend down the road has a $900,000 house and $200,000 in assets, gets a full pension, and will probably be compensated for any loss of income under Shorten's policy.

Gee, is this looking FAIR to any of you? Every single one of those who WON'T LOSE is richer than (the mythical) me, but I'm the only one losing 40% of my very modest income.

One more point - if Shorten is truthful that hitting 'self-managed super funds of retirees will yield $8 billion, it appears to me that he's planning to somehow take $33,000 from each of those affected each year. Given that he won't get anything from the richest 38,000 odd, and that only leaves about 245,000 who have LESS than $1 million in assets, and incomes less than $57K a year (most way less than that), where is he getting these savings from. Something doesn't seem to me to add up.
Misty
26th Mar 2018
8:22pm
Well you can quit your ranting and raving OGR as it seems you have got your wish and all pensioners will be exempt from Labor's policy if they are elected next year and it is passed into law.
OnlyGenuineRainey
27th Mar 2018
9:47pm
Pensioners will be exempt, Misty, and struggling SFRs who, despite having only just over pension thresholds and very low income, and are propping up the nation by NOT drawing pensions, will be persecuted and deprived of 1/3rd or more of their income - ground into hardship. And the greedy, selfish pensioners are cheering.
alfie
26th Mar 2018
11:35pm
The labor party is really at a lost here. First they tell you to save in your super so that when you retire you won't depend on the pension. Then they reduce what you can contribute to your super so you invest in shares to make up for the lost. Now that people have a large share porfolio making some extra income and independent of the pension they want to tax it. Now a days you do need a large share porfolio to get a decent extra income out of it due to low dividend yields. What happens if your shares is your only source of income and you receive less than what a pensioner receives every month? So what will you do? sell some shares and then eventually be on the pension. How stupid is that!! I need the money to pay for my health requirements which a pensioner almost gets it for free. Will Labor give me the money to cover that? No, in fact they're taking it away from me. Our politicians are not visionary... they're spur of the moment politicians.... throw things out and see which one catches the media. I'll stick with the devil I know rather than change to the unknown.
Misty
27th Mar 2018
11:15am
If the polls continue the way they are now alfie I don't think much of the chances of this govt getting back into power next election.
OnlyGenuineRainey
27th Mar 2018
9:49pm
If the moronic Labor party keep shooting themselves in the foot with their IDIOTIC policies, the LNP will romp it in. I see their approval rate has shot up since that idiot BS announced his BS.
Misty
28th Mar 2018
2:38am
Well it certainly didn't do the Labor Party any harm and definitely didn't help the LNP did it OGR.
OnlyGenuineRainey
28th Mar 2018
7:40am
Actually, it did the ALP a lot of harm, Misty. And it boosted MT's approval rating for the first time in a long time. Maybe you are not keeping up.
Misty
28th Mar 2018
9:11am
I don't know what poll you saw OGR but the one out this Monday showed Labor had gained in the 2 party preferred and also BS went up a point as did MT in the preferred PM so Labor did not suffer from the Labor policy announcement.
OnlyGenuineRainey
29th Mar 2018
8:13pm
Oh, that's okay then. Labor can wreck the economy, be cruel and unfair in the extreme, and it's fine as long as a lot of people are too selfish and green-eyed to even try to understand facts and stand up for what's right and good for the nation.
OnlyGenuineRainey
29th Mar 2018
8:13pm
Oh, that's okay then. Labor can wreck the economy, be cruel and unfair in the extreme, and it's fine as long as a lot of people are too selfish and green-eyed to even try to understand facts and stand up for what's right and good for the nation.
Cogsen
27th Mar 2018
9:57am
We now have a Dumb & Dumber team in Labour proposing a discriminating bill to remove Franking Credits from investors in company shares.
For Tricky Bill who had not so long ago verbally abused a sandwich worker in a milk bar because he wasn’t served quick enough, to claim now he wants to champion and protect ‘small people’? Yea, as John Elliott had said, ‘pig’s ass’.....

The government if they’ve got any brain, should look at removing pensions from people, people with literally millions stashed in so-called ‘legitimate’ trust funds to then claim government pensions.
Misty
27th Mar 2018
11:12am
I am sure any govt worth voting for will do just that Cogsen but I object to people with millions in assets and large incomes getting taxfree income from Franking Credits, that does need to be changed.
OnlyGenuineRainey
27th Mar 2018
9:58pm
Misty you really don't get it, do you. The RICH WILL STILL HAVE THEIR CREDITS. The privileged pensioners - even those with high incomes and lots of assets - will still have theirs. The workers will still have theirs. It's only the POOR STRUGGLING SFRs who are marginally above the threshold and battling to draw anything close to the pension in income who will be deprived and forced onto pensions.
Cogsen
27th Mar 2018
11:25am
For those who think The a Labour is on the right track to disallow Franking Credits from SFR, THINK AGAIN! This bill if sanctioned will create a tsunami through the financial market in Australia. Everyone with super, thru’ to owning a few shares will be hit, fullstop.

Yes OGR, you are absolutely spot on that it will not hurt the ‘rich’. It will hurt mainstream ppl like you and me and several millions who are at the edge of self funded to tip them all toward becoming pension/government funded retirees.

The only sensible and logical thing the companies who pay dividends to shareholders will need to reverse to paying FULL dividend from Profits-before-Tax to shareholders. This way, it makes accounting easier for both the company and taxation office thus saving ‘millions’ of unnecessary paperwork. Yeah! No withholding tax! We go back doing our tax assessment as before, paying tax if we SFR, earn more than than $18,200
Cogsen
27th Mar 2018
11:28am
Misty, you missed the point.
We are talking about fairness of the tax paying system.
Misty
27th Mar 2018
12:26pm
There is no fairness when those who can most afford to pay tax can get around the system and pay little or no tax.
OnlyGenuineRainey
27th Mar 2018
9:46pm
And you are supporting unfairness by supporting policies that persecute those who are paying more tax than anyone else (160% if Shorten has his way), in many cases have LESS income than others, but are being targeted by LIARS who have carefully ensure that the wealthy are exempt from their cruel policy changes.

I used to be the first to speak out on behalf of pensioners and the needy but they've shown me they are SELFISH in the extreme, nasty, disrespectful, ungrateful, and their own worst enemies - wanting hard workers and savers whose efforts BENEFIT them enormously persecuted unfairly and ground into hardship. What disgusting creeps!
Cogsen
27th Mar 2018
2:25pm
Let’s not envy those with plenty to get around loopholes. It’s the system the government needs to do to close off those loopholes the rich exploits. As long as it is legal, I don’t have have issue with it. Nothing is perfect.

This topic here is about the ‘illegality’ of not returning withholding tax to ppl by government thru’ introduction of tax grab bill to make it ‘legal’.

What say you if the companies remove Franking and pay dividends from profits before tax. In other words, Instead of paying shareholder ‘x’ dollars dividend and ‘y’ dollars Franking Credits after taxed profits, they simply pay them ‘x+y’ dividend before profits are taxed, simply leaving the tax payers to do their own tax assessment.
Misty
27th Mar 2018
5:25pm
No problem with that.
OnlyGenuineRainey
28th Mar 2018
7:38am
That would be sensible.
Cogsen
27th Mar 2018
5:41pm
Thanks Misty but the likes of Bill and Chris don’t want to see it this way. That is, the money aka Frank Credits should not even been raised to increase the treasury coffer as an excuse to service debt. If they are serious about reducing debt, then they should look inward at the way government and its elected officials waste money at taxpayers expense to fund their ‘lifestyle’. Fat Checks, fat supers, rorting expenses on personal indulgence etc etc....these are in $billions....instead they steal from the mainstream mass...go figure....????
OnlyGenuineRainey
28th Mar 2018
7:43am
Surely ALL Australians should unite on this issue. It boggles the mind that some are so selfish that they can only think of their own situation. Self-funded retirees are contributing tens of thousands every year to the budget. If they throw up their hands, divest assets and go on the pension, that's a massive added strain on the OAP system and quite possibly results in more attempts to cut benefits to those who need them.

We should be shouting with one voice that it's STUPID and DESTRUCTIVE to punish people for doing what's good for the nation. Many self-funded retirees desperately need the income from franking credit refunds to remain self-funded. To treat them unfairly should not be acceptable to ANYONE, no matter what your politics and no matter what your personal financial situation.

If you are a Labor supporter, tell the ALP that as a Labor supporter you demand they withdraw from a policy that will be incredibly damaging to the nation and is grossly unfair. Nobody is suggesting you shouldn't support the ALP generally if that's your preference, but you can support a party without endorsing every policy they conceive.

There can be only one reason for endorsing this cruel, unfair and thoroughly destructive policy, particularly now that it's been changed to favour pensioners and discriminate against people who, in many cases, would be better off on pensions but have tried to be proudly self-funded and contribute to easing the pressure on the budget. The ONLY reason now to endorse this policy is extreme jealousy and selfishness - a desire to see others wrongly hurt just because you can't stand the fact that they APPEAR to have a little more than you (and you don't even know for sure that they do - given that pensioners receive about $1 million in handouts over the course of their retirement and you have no idea of the needs of others)

We should ALL be speaking with one voice and condemning what is clearly unfair and very harmful to the nation - WHETHER IT AFFECTS YOU OR NOT.
Cogsen
28th Mar 2018
8:24am
You can count on that OGR.
If Labor continue to pursue blindly as well as stupidly with this discriminatory policy, they will elect a new leader to lead them for another 3 years in opposition!

Perhaps we send them all to a free course in Franking Credits 101....or another course in Understand the MEANING of With-Holding Tax 101 ya.


Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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