2nd Nov 2018
Friday Flash Poll: Is shutting this tax loophole long overdue?
Friday Flash Poll: Is shutting this tax loophole long overdue?

An alliance has been formed to fight for the financial rights of Australian retirees, and it has joined the Coalition in attacking Labor’s plan to deny franking credit refunds.

Speaking at the Alliance for a Fairer Retirement System Inaugural Summit in Sydney this week, Assistant Treasurer Stuart Robert labelled as unfair the policy to withhold from shareholders dividend tax paid on their behalf by companies.

Investment funds, shareholder and stockbroking associations, and financial advice organisations, along with seniors’ groups and advocates, have joined in the chorus against Labor’s unpopular proposal.

“The removal or adjustment of dividend imputation would be enormously detrimental to the Australian financial system,” said Wilson Asset Management chairman Geoff Wilson, adding that his company had received almost 2000 complaints from those who would potentially be affected by Labor’s move to deny some people their full tax refund.

Australian National University Associate Professor Geoff Warren calculates that cumulative retirement savings could fall by eight to nine per cent on average – for those affected.

Meanwhile, the Assistant Treasurer said “the critical point is that more than 45 per cent of the 900,000 people affected are 65 years or older”.

“Any changes will overwhelmingly hit low and middle-income earners, with 84 per cent of the individuals impacted on taxable incomes of less than $37,000, and 96 per cent of the individuals impacted on taxable incomes below $87,000.”

Of the 3.8 million Australians aged 65 and over, the policy stands to affect just on 10 per cent of them.

In the YourLifeChoices 2018 Retirement Matters Survey, we learnt that more than 34 per cent of the 5203 participants owned shares outside of super.

Those with an income of $37,000 – which may include the Age Pension – still own shares potentially worth hundreds of thousands. Labor’s plan would be to remove the way by which shareholders can reduce their taxable income. Once the franking credits are removed, those declarable incomes would actually be much higher.

“Bob Hawke and Paul Keating created dividend imputation in 1987 to allow investors to reduce the income tax they pay, when the companies they own shares in pay them a dividend,” wrote Opposition Leader Bill Shorten.

“When this first came in, it cost Australian taxpayers about $500 million a year. Within the next few years, it's going to cost $8 billion a year. Every year. $8 billion is more than the Commonwealth spends on public schools or childcare. It's three times what we spend on the Australian Federal Police.

“I refuse to believe cash bonuses for a small fraction of shareholders are more important than a great education for our kids. I can't accept that preserving a tax loophole is three times more important than national security.”

The Coalition’s rhetoric of franking credits refund policy being a ‘retiree tax’, implies that all retirees will be affected and that it will hit poor retirees hardest.

The numbers show that this is not necessarily the case.

“Under Labor's plan, no Australian will lose a cent from their super contributions, no one will lose a cent from their pension and no one will lose a cent from their share dividends. Not a single cent,” states Mr Shorten.

“We're keeping dividend imputation, so you'll still be able to reduce your income tax. But the days of getting a cash refund for income tax that was never paid in the first place will be over.

“This is a tax concession that overwhelmingly benefits the top end of town. Fifty per cent of the cash refunds go to self-managed superannuation funds with balances of more than $2.4 million.

Veteran journalist and finance commentator Robert Gottliebsen says introducing the policy may send us down a slippery slope.

“By all means let’s have a debate about dividend imputation; there are certainly two sides to every argument,” said Mr Gottliebsen.

“However, this intended policy completely undermines the values around equity and fairness that Australians hold dear. For example, three different retirees with the same retirement savings in three different vehicles – an industry super fund, an SMSF and a self-funded retiree – would be taxed at different rates. This is the thin edge of the wedge. Once this is accepted it could occur in all sorts of policy.”

The organisations that form the Alliance include:

  • The Australian Shareholders’ Association
  • Australian Listed Investment Companies Association
  • National Seniors Australia
  • SMSF Association
  • Self-managed Independent Superannuation Funds Association
  • Stockbrokers & Financial Advisers Association
  • Association of Independent Retirees
  • Australian Investors Association
  • Association of Financial Advisers
  • WA Self Funded Retirees Inc
  • Gold Coast Retirees Inc

The Alliance’s spokesperson is Professor Deborah Ralston.

Why not take part in our Friday Flash Poll and let us know if you'll be affected by Labor’s plan to deny franking credit refunds?

Loading...

Do you think maintaining this tax loophole is fair? Do you understand how franking credits work? Do the potential savings to the economy outweigh the benefits for the number of those affected?





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Gra
    2nd Nov 2018
    10:59am
    If Labor does remove the Franking Credit concession you can bet the money he is taking from we pensioners with a few shares will go the illegals coming here who have not contributed one cent to our economy but will be a possible voter for Shorten in time to come. Typical of Shorten and labor, steal from those who have worked, saved and invested for their retirement and hand this money over to the leaners who have not contributed anything to this country.
    Adrianus
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:02pm
    It is in Labor's interest to have more of us dependent on the government. mnay of the self funded retirees I know started with nothing and sacrificed a lot to save for their retirement. While educating their children to attain a better lifestyle with less struggle. Shorten is a dangerous front man of a radical communist union movement. He will not govern for all Australians.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:38pm
    Not at all - if your taxable income falls below the ta level, you will still get a refund... and it will depend on your actual income - not just franking credits alone.

    Under tax rules you must get a refund of tax already paid on your behalf if you fall below the table level... same as the wage earner.

    This whole thing is a beat-up.
    Paddington
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:47pm
    Trebor, you are a voice of reason amongst the doom and gloom of people who are not starving.
    It is a shocking beat up and people are falling for it unbelievably.
    Another divisive preelection ploy!
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:52pm
    Argh - thankee, m'lod...
    Misty
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:54pm
    Get real Adrianus, what a load of codswallop, typical Coalition response, COMMUNISM indeed, I have never heard such a load of rubbish, I suppose you will be spouting "Watch out Reds under the bed next", RUBBISH, RUBBISH, RUBBISH, just what I would expect from you anyway going on your previous comments.
    MICK
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:20pm
    Actually TREBOR it is the big end of town which cannot let this one go. SPECULATION requires tax deductions to balance the risk and the top think their needs to play this game is more important than society getting money for the things that matter, let alone funding pensions.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:22pm
    Different rules - if I sign up to a job I take the chance that the company will stay afloat etc.. same as a shareholder taking shares... roll the dice and take your chances.
    Adrianus
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:50pm
    Shorten is head of the most leftist Labor Party this country has ever seen!
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    2nd Nov 2018
    7:20pm
    Mind boggling how dumb and apathetic people can be. NO NO NO NO NO Trebor. You are WRONG! Shorten's policy continues to indulge the well off. It continues to indulge rich part-pensioners and those with high incomes from pension + investment returns. It ONLY persecutes the strugglers who are saving the taxpayer tens of thousands annually. It taxes them 30% UNFAIRLY on income that should not be taxed.

    Bowen has confirmed absolutely and definitely that low income self-funded retiree investors WILL NOT RECEIVE THEIR TAX REFUND no matter how low their income. Their dividend income WILL be taxed at 30%. And yes, Misty, it IS Communism by stealth. It's persecuting those who worked hard, paid tax for decades, and saved well to minimize their dependence on taxpayers. It's going to force hundreds of thousands onto pensions, depriving them of the benefit of their saving. AND it's going to do massive harm to the economy. Reducing investment in Australian companies will reduce business growth, slash tax revenue, and increase unemployment. Not to mention the extra cost to support more aged pensioners.

    Pensioners are the new elite in today's Australia - and so consumed with greed, selfishness and envy that they are cheering Shorten's vicious attack on the self-funded. Sadly, they will hurt most when the policy is implemented and the damage it threatens to the economy is realised. Poor fools think there is a bottomless pit filled with money. They just don't get that someone has to foot their bills - and destroying the lifestyle of those who not only funded pensions when they were working, but planned to ensure they continued to be lifters in retirement, may well be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back - plunging us into deep Depression.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    9:02pm
    It's not about pensioners v SFRs, Rainey - anyway - here is Bowen's statement:-

    https://www.chrisbowen.net/issues/labors-dividend-imputation-policy/

    I remain, as I said before about the apparent exclusion of SFRs (small, Mk I) from Shorten's comment on the issue - that Bowen does not state exemptions apart from very few. 'charities and not-for profit' including universities.. hmm NFP these days? Not too sure about that but they certainly run a sweet super deal for staff!

    It indeed appears that Bowen will not refund but rely on tax reduction using DI...in which case we all know that some deserving will miss out. This needs to be rectified. I can see why there is an issue with a fund receiving $2.5M refund... no tax??

    That points to where the current system is fatally flawed....
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    3rd Nov 2018
    6:58am
    A fund DOES NOT receive a $2.5million refund. That's a blatant LIE Trebor. Nobody gets a full cash refund from shares owned in super if they have more than $1.6 million in super. I think that's too high, but the problem ISN'T FRANKING CREDITS. They are correct, fair, right and proper tax policy - requiring people to pay tax according to their taxable income.

    The problem is the way taxable income is calculated. STOP THE BS AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE. Only a useless inept fool attacks the wrong target, and the ALP is attacking the wrong target.

    For the umpteenth time, FRANKING CREDIT POLICY IS RIGHT AND FAIR. It taxes according to individual income, which is precisely what should happen. Taking it away is UNFAIR, as it taxes people with low incomes at 30% - when their income SHOULD be tax free.

    A FLAWED SYSTEM CANNOT BE FIXED BY IGNORING THE FLAW AND CHANGING SOME FAIR, CORRECT AND RIGHT UNRELATED POLICY TO HURT THOSE WHO DON'T EXPLOIT THE FLAW.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    3rd Nov 2018
    7:22am
    I agree OGR. Tax people according to their income instead. It is not right people can earn $110,000 and pay no tax after retirement age. Under Labor many of these people will still do that but a person earning $20,000 will have his income reduced by not refunding this franking credits. This is the same as taxing him at 30% whereas the person on $110,000 pays not tax.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    3rd Nov 2018
    7:40am
    Trebor, did you bother to do any calculations before swallowing the stupid ALP lie?

    $2.5 million in cash refunds. They'd have to have some $8 million in dividends, and therefore around $160 million invested in shares. Self-managed funds can only have 4 members, so that means each has $40 million, $38.4 million of which MUST be in an accumulation fund and taxed, so they keep their franking credits.
    TREBOR
    3rd Nov 2018
    7:48am
    Well - the statement from Bowen did say a few... and it is distinctly possible for some to have such a big 'super' account accumulated before the 'roof' was installed. The Packers etc of this world have to get their tax-free money from somewhere...

    As I've said before - strict limits on what can be accumulated as super and then the rest is taxed as savings.

    I've already addressed the issue of people only being taxed on their assessable income, and we are in agreement. I am well aware that there are only a few copping it very sweet after an already sweet ride... they but they are there...
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    3rd Nov 2018
    8:25am
    The limit has already been imposed, Trebor. Bowen is shutting the gate after the horse has bolted, and crucifying all the honest battlers who didn't bolt.

    Those few ARE NOW NOT ABLE TO HOLD THEIR MONEY IN TAX FREE ACCOUNTS. The fix HAS ALREADY BEEN APPLIED.

    Keep up, for goodness sake. Bowen is NOT attacking the big end of town. They are safe. He's NOT attacking the Packers of the world. He's attacking battlers who have very small nest-eggs and whose diligence Is saving the government over $1 million over the course of their retirement. NOBODY is ''copping it sweet after a sweet ride". NOBODY.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    4th Nov 2018
    5:50am
    Trebor, please reassure me that neither you nor Bowen or Shorten are STUPID enough to think people of enormous wealth actually hold it in pension accounts in superannuation! OMG! What an IDIOTIC notion! The death tax would be horrendous. The rules are far too limiting. They have much more sophisticated ways of dodging tax.

    Nobody with Packer's wealth is getting their tax-free money from a pension super account. That is the most ridiculous notion imaginable.

    Face it. Bowen and Shorten have conned the gullible with a pack of lies. No SMSF is getting $2.5 million in cash franking credit refunds. Never have. NEVER. No SMSF has $160 million worth of shares, and nobody with extreme wealth holds it in a superannuation pension account, because there's a $1.6 million cap - and before the cap was implemented they limited their holdings because of the tax hit when they die. And nobody can accurately predict when that will be.

    Shorten and Bowen are LYING to con the gullible into supporting a tax that is designed to cripple self-managed superannuation funds. It is designed to hit working class and lower middle class retirees who saved to be self-sufficient, because the ALP can't stand the notion that people can actually work and rise above their station in life. Their ethos is basically Communist - keep everyone but the super-privileged equally poor and then you can control them. Sad, because the LNP's ethos is equally evil and harmful. But that's the way it is.
    Rae
    4th Nov 2018
    9:25am
    No wealthy person would hold excess funds in Superannuation. Too much Sovereign risk and taxes in accumulation.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    4th Nov 2018
    8:47pm
    Wealthy people don't have that sort of money in SMSFs and certainly not all in the Australian supermarket. At the most they woukd h ave about 5% in the Australian supermarket. Their $2.5 million in franking credits would just be used their tax payable from the returns if their other investments. So Labor gets nothing mire from them.

    There are funds called wrap accounts which are polled SMSFs that will become very popular as people with SMSFs will use them to keep their franking credits. So Labor gets nothing from those SMSFs,

    Families who just add 4 young m embers and their contribution tax will be paid for by the funds franking credits. So Labor gets nothing more from them either.

    The people that will lose are those just above pension assets test and it not take them long to divest enough to get the pension. L As for gets nothing from them either.

    Others will just invest elsewhere and screw the Australian economy. So Labor gets nothing but a stuffed economy.

    If it is a loophole then closing this loophole is going to be a very costly exercise.
    SeniorCit
    2nd Nov 2018
    11:03am
    This is not a tax "loophole"
    It is returning money to the retiree that has been taken from their income, but that they should not have had to pay.
    Adrianus
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:05pm
    Correct! It is not a tax loophole. It is dishonest to call it that.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:43pm
    Like PAYE tax - it is tax paid to the ATO on your behalf - and constitutes part of your gross income - and a tax return is applicable depending on your total net income.

    How should the shareholder not have had tax paid to the ATO in advance, for consideration later as part of total income?

    The reason for dividend imputation is to preserve 30% of dividends franked FOR the shareholder in the event the company does a runner... and if your total income does not make you liable for 30%, you will get some or all of it back.

    At least if the company does a Bondie, the ATO will still hold 30% of your dividend money and that is better than 1c in the dollar. The ATO is protecting you - not taking money from you.

    **rolls eyes in disbelief at the naivety of shareholders and their entitlement complex**
    Circum
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:50pm
    Totally agree.It is not a loophole,It is simply returning tax withheld in situations where tax should not have been payable.Shortens proposal is unfair.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:55pm
    Tax should not be paid on shareholdings? Are you serious, saying that people who can afford to run shares should not be paying tax?

    As I said a few days ago - it's not as if the companies involved are creating a viable national economy or as Kerry Packer said about the ATO, doing anything good with it.

    Shareholders should not be paying income tax on income earned? Is that your position?

    Again - simple solution - abolish dividend imputation entirely and all pay their own taxes on income earned. No problem.,
    MICK
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:22pm
    To take your claim one further: you earn money and pay tax on it. You then pay a tradesman. Does the tax you paid on this money now become a rebate to you?
    Thereby is the nonsense in your argument and that's why NOWHERE ELSE in the western world do you have imputation credits. It is a rich man's tool to offset the risks of speculation.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:31pm
    Or you get your after tax cash and hand it around to your shareholders - the family etc.. does it then become a tax deduction and a rebate?
    Adrianus
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:44pm
    TREBOR, your pretence that you don't know the subject matter is not working. Your continual stating of the obvious is obviously meant to detract from the subject.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    3:02pm
    I merely repeat the sanity since some simply do not wish to understand it.... I do nothing to distract from the subject... merely offer my reality-based views.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    2nd Nov 2018
    7:25pm
    No Trebor. You are deliberately misrepresenting the facts., The fact is that tax is taken out of dividends BEFORE they are paid to the shareholder. No different to PAYG tax taken out of wages. There would be hell to pay if Shorten threatened to refuse low income earners their fair tax refund when too much PAYG tax is taken, but that's EXACTLY what he's doing to struggling retirees who derive their income from share investment. He's denying them a refund no matter how low their income, so they will be paying 30% tax on income that the law says shouldn't be taxed. 30% of income that, if derived from ANY OTHER SOURCE would be tax-free.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    9:07pm
    That's exactly what I said, Rainey - it's like PAYE tax taken out and MUST be viewed as such. The issue of the ability of a few at the top - the 10% Bowen says recoup 50% of the benefit and pay no tax - amazing - you can just make as much as you want and pay no tax... shows where the system has failed.

    I agree with you - it must be treated the same as tax withheld from wages or salary, but with a limit - it is not an open-ended handout of millions for a few.

    Note also the link I put elsewhere about the coming ATO purge - it's an LNP government BTW, before someone starts ranting about Labor in isolation ripping people off.

    Funny how this government can get off its ass when an election is looming...
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    3rd Nov 2018
    11:26am
    Bowen is LYING, Trebor. What he says is happening CANNOT happen unless people are breaking the law. And he's not addressing that. He's bashing honest, hardworking battlers. This whole policy is a blatant con job. And anyone who examines it sensibly will see that immediately. IT IS A FRAUD.

    10% do NOT get 50% of the benefit. It simply isn't true and it isn't possible under the current system.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    3rd Nov 2018
    11:32am
    Sorry, that should have read ''10% may get 50% of the benefit, but THAT 10% WON'T LOSE A CENT. Bowen has carefully protected the wealthy and even moderate income-earners. The ONLY losers are the battlers and the cheats, and the cheats will just cheat by another method. It won't make a blind bit of difference to them, but it will hurt the economy and cripple honest retirees.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    2nd Nov 2018
    11:07am
    If you think this unfair Labor policy won't affect you think again? Merry Christmas 2020 under a Labor government as we will be in recession when the effects of not refunding these franking credits will really hit town.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:44pm
    *rolls eyes* only if it a total blanket ban, which it cannot be under income tax rules.

    You're jumping at shadows....
    MICK
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:26pm
    You need to tell me WHERE in the western world imputation credits exist. Only in Australia. Read my analogy above.
    You are clearly telegraphing the next attack on retirees. We'll be hit as well!

    Shorten should consider franking dividends with a ceiling, after which they cease to work. Problem solved!
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:37pm
    IC exists in one or two countries - ours with a full refund without question is unique.

    As I said - the real issue is cash manipulation to ensure a zero net income while actually spending heaps...

    Bro Shorten has signaled that the bloodhounds will be out for dual citizens who transfer money to evade tax here (and the Offshore companies) - people like diablo pay back their own account in Offshoria, and then 'borrow' it again to buy more shares, and then repeat until no tax is paid anywhere.

    The world market is slowly catching up with this kind of thievery/piracy. He may well install a cash movement tax on money going offshore/onshore as part of a business... and we may even see a register of licenced shareholders who will be kept under a microscope.

    The only reason why not is that he would be cutting Labor throats as well as others.... and he might cop a JFK...
    Adrianus
    2nd Nov 2018
    3:00pm
    VCBB, the last time we voted for a Labor/Union government everything shut down. Many planned developments were put on the back burner. Labor will not create jobs outside of the Public Service and they will increase taxes substantially.
    DaveL
    2nd Nov 2018
    4:01pm
    Trevor and others. Do you understand how this work. Your responses are vague as to the workings on this. Time to give away.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    3rd Nov 2018
    7:25am
    Mick leave franking credits alone and tax people according to their income instead. The no tax payable over 60 benefits the wealthy not the middle class or poor.
    Knows-a-lot
    3rd Nov 2018
    6:29pm
    If Australia goes into recession, it will be entirely down to the LNP's incompetence.
    Old Geezer
    5th Nov 2018
    11:49am
    Australia will go into a recession but under Labor it will be so much worse.
    Retired Knowall
    6th Nov 2018
    8:58am
    "You need to tell me WHERE in the western world imputation credits exist. Only in Australia"
    WRONG again Labor Troll Mick.
    Australia, Malta and New Zealand have imputation systems. Chile, Canada, Korea and the United Kingdom have a partial imputation system. Germany had a dividend imputation system until 2000 and France until 2004. Other jurisdictions (Singapore, for example) achieve a similar result by not taxing dividends at all.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    8th Nov 2018
    10:00am
    Many respected economists say our dividend imputation policy is really what got us through the GFC in so much better shape than other nations - because it encouraged investment that gave Australian companies capital to grow and create jobs.
    Old Geezer
    9th Nov 2018
    3:19pm
    I get a refund of the tax I pay in the US on US shares I own too.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    2nd Nov 2018
    11:18am
    If some one has a balance of $2.4 in their SMSF turn they would have to pay enough tax to take advantage of their franking credits so will not be caught at all by this unfair scheme. The wealthy will not lose a cent and companies will no longer pay franked dividends so not gains in this for Labor at all.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:49pm
    You should be happy to pay tax on your genuine income.... no problems here. Someone has to pay for warships, SAS training, and politician retirement funding.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    2nd Nov 2018
    7:30pm
    And someone has to foot the bill for all the pensions paid to retirees - many of whom are far richer than those who will be overtaxed 30% under this unfair policy. But there will be hundreds of thousands more on aged pensions when Shorten makes saving useless. And there will be hundreds of thousands more without jobs when his stupidity slashes investment in growing Australian companies. And the morons supporting this policy - because they can't see through their deep green eyes and they don't have the decency to care about other folk being unfairly hurt - will actually suffer most when the economic impact of this idiotic idea is felt. Good luck! It's tempting to say I hope all you fools who endorse this crap policy suffer long and greatly.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    10:16pm
    "Although the recipients are taxed on the full amount of the profit represented by the distribution and the attached franking credits, they are allowed a credit for the tax already paid by the corporate tax entity."

    https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Imputation/

    Simple really... 'taxed on the full amount represented by the distribution and the attached franking credits'... i.e. - as times weary - franking credits are part of the recipients gross income.

    'they are allowed a credit for the tax already paid by the corporate entity' - i.e. they are allowed a tax credit on the tax paid on their behalf by the company. As times weary - this is NOT company tax and the company and shareholder (note the word used) are separate entities - not one and the same.

    So - if a shareholders tax level falls below 30% in gross income (after legitimate deductions), a refund of some of that DI tax paid already is in order.

    It is hardly fair to say that a person who legitimately does not earn enough to pay 30% should be paying 30% on part of income that is made up of franked dividends... if Chris Bowen is saying this he is wrongski.

    Again - the problem is the ability of a few with a heap to manipulate their finances so as to theoretically have no or low taxable income - and THAT is what needs to be addressed - how, when, where and why this has been allowed to develop and continues to operate.

    Simple answer to that last? Politicians and cronies benefit from this, since many such are in that top 10% and take full advantage of these (lack of) rules .... thus I believe Hell will become an ice skating rink before anything meaningful is done about this piracy.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    3rd Nov 2018
    8:30am
    Trebor, what Crhis Bowen is saying is that if you DO earn enough to pay 30% tax, you can keep your nice little taxpayer-funded bonus - a healthy tax reduction.

    You will ONLY lose if you DON'T earn enough to pay 30% tax - in which case you will be effectively taxed (though indirectly) at 30%.

    NO RICH POLITICIAN WILL LOSE. NO HIGH INCOME EARNER WILL LOSE. NO RICH SUPERANNUANT WILL LOSE. ONLY THOSE WHO DON'T EARN ENOUGH TO PAY 30% TAX LOSE.

    Stop believing stupid propaganda from liars and READ THE POLICY.
    Old Geezer
    5th Nov 2018
    10:02pm
    Do you realise that the people who benefit from the no tax after 60 on super are in fact those who get very high incomes tax free and include the pollies? Food for thought.
    Grob
    2nd Nov 2018
    11:23am
    These questions are unbelievably biased to your normal left of centre views!
    bob menzies
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:30pm
    I totally agree and thought the same
    MICK
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:27pm
    Some of the arguments are based on fear, not fact.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    2nd Nov 2018
    7:32pm
    No Mick. They are based on FACT GENERATING FEAR, I've written to Bowen. I have his responses, The plan IS to demolish the income and lifestyle of low-income, modest-asset-owning non-pensioner retirees by overtaxing them on share dividend income.
    old frt
    4th Nov 2018
    5:54am
    How true GROB , even if you disagree you have to say where you would spend or cut back .
    Retired Knowall
    6th Nov 2018
    8:59am
    And yours Mick are based on IGNORANCE.
    Grob
    2nd Nov 2018
    11:25am
    These questions are unbelievably biased towards your normal left of centre views!
    Ferny
    2nd Nov 2018
    11:25am
    To change tax rules that impact retirees and make it retrospective is patently unfair. It could be grandfathered for example to give those of us who dare to be self funded and do not rely on government funds for our retirement.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:51pm
    ... and Shortenski already addressed that when he said 'pensioners exempt' - my only issue with that is that he did not include all retirees in the same basket... but then - the fat cats don't need exemption... so Mick's idea of a limit is the best option.

    Again - the issue isn't small shareholders - it is big shareholders who are manipulating income strands so as to ensure zero net income and thus a huge refund.
    MICK
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:30pm
    Indeed TREBOR. The top end always takes care of itself and retirees have been constantly under attack from the current government. The last thing we need is to force self funded retirees to live off their capital rather than the dividends thereon. The result of that will be many more on the pension. What then?
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    2nd Nov 2018
    7:35pm
    And Shorten is taking very good care of the top end. He won't touch them at all. His target is low-income modest-asset self-funded retirees. Correct, Mick. He will force hundreds of thousands of SFRs onto pensions. And what then? It ought to be obvious, but not to the green-eyed selfish fools who support his stupidity.
    Captain
    3rd Nov 2018
    12:57pm
    Trebor, Shorten did say pensioners would still get the DI, however he is going to not allow the DI for SFR's. They will be the one's missing out.

    Those Self Funded Retirees who have less than $1.6m in Super will be the one's who without the DI, will generally then have an income less than pensioners (when you take into account pensioner concessions). Is this fair? SFR's are costing the Govt nothing and yet it is considered, by Labor to be fair to change the rules (like Liberals did with the lowering of the Asset Limit) and therefore forcing SFR's onto pensions sooner rather than later.

    Short-sighted policy made by loony Left and rediculous Right.

    Who to vote for in the next election? None of the idiots in our Federal Parliament are worthy of my vote.
    Circum
    3rd Nov 2018
    8:47pm
    Hear Hear Captain
    Retired Knowall
    4th Nov 2018
    2:01pm
    Find an Independent of some standing and vote for them. The Wentworth bi-election has seen the Liberal stronghold smashed.
    The main Parties need to be destroyed and sent back to the wilderness until they get some semblance of decency.
    Captain
    4th Nov 2018
    2:33pm
    Unfortunately RK, there has not been an independent candidate in our electorate in the last two Federal Elections.

    Here's a thought, perhaps I could stand as an independent. Then I may be eligible for all the perks our pollies receive. On second thoughts I don't think I could lower myself to associate with our current crop of fools.
    MON
    2nd Nov 2018
    11:36am
    Great and meaningful survey. My cynical view of Mr Shorten is that he is working to remove the loop hole for the benefit of industry super funds. If my wife and I owned a business, we would distribute the profits between ourselves and pay tax only once. My wife and I part owners (shareholders) in approximately 30 companies and they pay tax on our behalf hence we are entitled to claim it back if we are not liable (Franking Credits). We are not wealthy, but independent through 45 years of marriage, working hard and managing our expenditure to provide for an independent retirement. SHorten needs to come clean and tell us which industry super funds put pressure on the Labor party or which union leaders.
    Adrianus
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:13pm
    I don't see imputation credits as being a loophole of any sort if it continues as is. What is unfair is not allowing an individual to receive the same benefit as a large commercial entity. Shorten and his comrades have revealed their true agenda with this policy. I dare them to take it to the next election!!
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:58pm
    True Adrianus - but a refund will still be made depending on taxable income... as I said - this whole thing is a beat-up.

    If you have a total net income from all strands that means your tax rate is over 30% - you may actually have to pay more, but not many small shareholders will be in that category...
    MICK
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:33pm
    MON - why do you believe you are entitled to claim back the tax paid by companies?
    If you pay tax and then employ a tradie does he claim back (income) tax paid by you? Of course not.
    The problem with franking credits is that we have all come to rely on them and don't want to see them go. This is a direct result of this dirty government attacking retirees and trying to destitute them anyway they can.
    Pay a pension to all and then take away franking credits. No worries.
    Not a Bludger
    2nd Nov 2018
    3:58pm
    Mon - you are not cynical about Shorten at all - he is an ex, union, crooked, thug boss who is a Marxist.
    You are absolutely correct in your summary

    And, in rides Self advised Getup member Mick, who has never, in his life, added any value to anything or employed anyone or ever risked anything and now wants to lecture/hector you and your wife - both of you have done all of the above.

    And, now Shorten and Mick and their mates, who only ever take from the system (and never give) want to cruel you in your retirement.

    Appalling - this is not the “fair go Australia” that I grew up in.

    And, as to industry super funds trying to get control of SMSF’s aided and abetted by thug Shorten and his controllers from CFMMEU and ACTU, you are absolutely correct.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    4:33pm
    Amazing, simply amazing....
    see all.Maryakate
    2nd Nov 2018
    5:28pm
    Where or which party saw the need for an Aged pension? Lib? no! Which party protected Financial Institutions from investigation and only caved in when when pressured. Farmers were forced from their farms and people were losing their life savings, all because the Institutions were allowed to self-regulate by their mates, LNP? yes!
    Who introduced financial help to mothers? Lab? Who introduced maternity leave?
    What did Abbott do for the wealthy new mothers?
    I can't seem to remember the LNP ever helping out the unemployed, disabled, in fact any welfare designed to assist those in need.
    Governments depend on using scare tactics all the time and the gullible believe them. So when share dividends are distributed and you add your divvy to your tax return, do you want a double dip? Or are you willing to share with those less fortunate than yourselves?
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    2nd Nov 2018
    7:40pm
    Oh yes, Labor introduced many policies that increase dependency on the State, because dependency = ALP support. And now they are trying to destroy those retirees who are NOT dependent, and force them into dependency, Because dependency = ALP support. And they can't stand the fact that those hard-working, frugal Australians have set themselves up in retirement and don't HAVE to bow and scrape and beg for sustenance. They can't stand the fact that SFRs are free to vote for whomever they please. Got to make them dependant. That's how Communism works.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    9:12pm
    That's a very long bow to draw, Rainey - countless people in receipt of government largesse don't vote for Labor, and such things are also handed out by any LNP government as well..... no difference really.

    Watch the pork barrel rolled out over the next year or so. No budget emergency there... nah... nah.. all covered by tripled borrowings.... no problem.
    Travellersjoy
    2nd Nov 2018
    11:37am
    Everyone with this sort of investment only has it because it is 'tax effective' ie, rips off the general public.

    Anyone affected will just ask their accountant to find a new investment vehicle.

    Big deal.
    Jim
    2nd Nov 2018
    6:50pm
    You couldn’t be more wrong, franking credits are a tax paid to the ato on behalf of the tax payer, why do you think this is unfair for anyone to claim the tax back if they are not liable for any tax, it is the same as any other tax payer receiving tax back from their PAYE if they fall below the tax free threshold, why do you think pensioners or anyone else who is on a low income shouldn’t be able to receive the tax back that they are not liable for?
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    2nd Nov 2018
    8:09pm
    TravellersJoy, if over 1 million shareholders find a new investment vehicle, how much investment capital does that take out of Australian companies? How much tax revenue does that investment capital generate? How many jobs does that capital fund?

    It's mind boggling how envy blinds! It truly astounds me how STUPID this idea is.

    Let's say those 1 million shareholders have an average of $50,000 invested in Australian shares (probably quite conservative!). How many BILLIONS does that translate to that will be lost to the economy? Let's say 500,000 of that 1 million suffer a loss of $10,000 income each. That's 5 billion of reduced spending that is feeding business growth, creating jobs, generating GST revenue, and generating income tax revenue.

    Let's say 300,000 retirees suffer such a hefty income reduction that they have to go on the aged pension. How much extra cost does that impose on the nation?

    It is just mind-boggling to think that anyone could be idiotic enough to think this policy could benefit the country!
    TREBOR
    3rd Nov 2018
    7:59am
    I doubt many will withdraw from an opportunity to make money...same as companies whining about paying company taxes (which they don't anyway in many cases) - someone will happily take up the market share.

    What this nation, and many others, does not need is more investment for pure profit without paying its way here and thus generating the economic activity for this nation that is required. That's why some nations mandate 50% local ownership of any project and local employment first, such as Vietnam - they've learned from their time as a Banana Republic - we are still only at the Gates of Hell of true Banana Republicanism.... got a way to go yet before the reality bites.

    Again - the ATO is cracking down on Offshorites and their current rip-offs..... under THIS government.... and I'm pretty sure that Labor and Shorten/Bowen will have a fallback position of adopting the 'ceiling' idea as put forward by Mick. Politics is played like that - come in hard and tough - then 'moderate' to where you wanted to be all the time..... who can forget the theatre of a Labor government pushing an unpopular move while PM Hawke was out of the country, and he 'flew back' to set it straight.... pure popular theatrics ...so long ago I've forgotten the exact issue...
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    3rd Nov 2018
    8:36am
    You are showing your ignorance, Trebor. The companies that pay franked dividends DO PAY TAX. They can't issue franking credits if they haven't paid tax. And if someone takes up the gap left by withdrawing investors, that will INCREASE the divide between rich and poor. YOU ARE PROPOSING WE OVERFEED THE PRIVILEGED and screw working class battlers.
    That's what you are supporting. Feed the rip-off merchants, and bugger those who slaved and paid tax their whole lives.
    Circum
    3rd Nov 2018
    9:05pm
    Seems that Travellers does not understand the concept of dividend imputation.Mick and Trebor I believe know better,but their comments are pure propaganda supporting the party line no matter how ridiculous the partys policy is.Sadly some gullible people will get sucked in by their rhetoric.
    Paddington
    2nd Nov 2018
    11:42am
    Maybe sell the shares? If they are such a burden get rid of them and use the money in another way. Luckily, we have nothing but our home to worry about protecting.
    Maybe pity the single pensioner who has no home and is struggling to afford their medicines and food. Some have become homeless.
    In Venezuela people are starving and children are on the streets. People are going through rubbish dumps hoping to find a bit of food. Watching this on tv this morning should put things in perspective about first world issues where we have food and don’t have to give away our children because we cannot feed them.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    2nd Nov 2018
    8:31pm
    Yes. I agree. Sell the shares. Take up to $75 billion out of Australian companies and watch them cancel growth plans, sack their workers, reduce their profits and pay way less tax. Sell the shares and spend the money and go on a pension. Drive the OAP bill sky high!
    Great thinking Paddington. Just shows why this nation is in such an awful mess.

    If you want MORE poverty - support stupid ideas conceived in envy that will destroy growth, reduce overall tax revenue, and kill off jobs. Let's make Australia a nation where we have to give away our children because we can't feed them. What a capital idea!
    Rae
    3rd Nov 2018
    9:38am
    Paddington I saw this in several places where population growth has quadrupled in two generations, 40 years. It seems infrastructure, jobs, GDP, can't keep up to such rapid population growth. We have only doubled ours thank goodness.
    JohnLM
    4th Nov 2018
    10:07am
    The trouble with selling shares is the Oz share market is already very weak with anticipation of Shorten and the Socialists winning the next general election -- a view strongly reinforced by the disfunctional Liberal govt following the Wentworth bi election
    When they do win, the sharemarket will totally tank as the rush for the exits by shareholders as the ALP also wants to increase the capital gains tax [by half effectively]

    John L M .
    Old Geezer
    5th Nov 2018
    10:05pm
    JohnLM it would not surprise me to see a rise in our sharemarket after a Labor win. Reason is that markets hate uncertainty.
    Old Man
    2nd Nov 2018
    11:48am
    To start with, there is a mistaken belief that the recipient of DI pays no tax. Some do, some don't but all will be swept up in this proposed legislation. Companies with shareholders pay their tax and, after tax, dividends are paid out to shareholders. What DI means is that as tax has already been paid on profits no further tax should be paid on that profit when it is distributed to shareholders who are required to declare dividends as income.

    This proposal by Labor is half-arsed in that it only affects some of the community, not all. It is worth noting that a group not to be affected is the industry super funds although SMSF's at present will not be affected. If Labor was serious about all of this, and not playing wedge politics, the proposed legislation would revert to the pre-Hawke era and exclude all recipients of dividends from DI.

    I have read various articles on this proposal and the numbers and percentages vary greatly. Those supporting the proposal write that less than 8% will be affected and a saving of over $12B will be made whilst those against the proposal claim that over 55% will be affected for a saving of less than $3B. The truth is out there and most likely falls somewhere in the middle of the above numbers but I believe that this proposal should be a matter of all in or all out. Anything else is politicians playing games.
    Adrianus
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:25pm
    My quick (and rough) calculation on the results shows that around 44% of respondents to this survey could be faced with relying more on the Centrelink aged Pension. It shows that 63% of respondents believe they will be affected negatively by the change.
    Old Man
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:34pm
    Thanks Adrianus but polls are not always a fair indication of the true reflection of what ALL people think.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    1:18pm
    Yes - OM - that is why I discuss the difference between a blanket ban on refunds and then explain taxable income and tax due... or try to.

    It is not possible to believe that Shorten would actually make such a statement of a blanket ban - I'm certain this is being misrepresented, and the amount of refund or extra tax levied depends on the actual net income of the shareholder.

    If you are already getting enough income that your overall tax rate is over 30%, you certainly don't need a free refund without questions asked, and you should be paying more than 30% on your dividend income.

    As before - that cannot apply to the small shareholder and small income person, who would fall way below the 30% line...
    MICK
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:36pm
    Support my take on this OM. Introduce a ceiling of say $20,000 in franking credits, thereafter dropping to zero. Done! That way the top end of town is not paid to take ever more risks and retirees can afford a few of the basic luxuries of life.
    Adrianus
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:38pm
    Old Man, if anyone knew what ALL people think, then they are truly not of this planet.
    There may be the very young who don't need imputation credits because they have not yet started to accumulate wealth to invest, and as such, they may also have limited knowledge of how the system can work for them. These are the people who are easily convinced to vote for something which may adversely affect themselves in future years.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    2nd Nov 2018
    8:36pm
    True, Adrianus. And then there are those who didn't save for their own old age and are blinded by envy. There are the selfish who can't think past ''It doesn't hurt me so I don't care''. And there are the ignorant who lack the intelligence to see the very clear contradictions and deceptions in Shorten's dishonest claims. And then of course there are the privileged who are just saying ''Close that avenue. I'll find another''.

    Very few bother to think about the longer term consequences. Even the ALP admits they haven't bothered to consider them, because they don't know how to predict likely changes in behaviour or to estimate the potential cost of such changes.
    Rae
    3rd Nov 2018
    9:13am
    Yes in a balanced portfolio it should work out that the franked credits are included in the final figures. I was surprised to find a small amount in my return when I had a good look. They allowed return of tax paid on off shore funds coming home already taxed. I can't see any of that changing. I don't hold individual shares only indexes. Outside of superannuation though. Maybe moving the money out of super will work out cheaper for many investors.

    It will be interesting to see if business owners who pay little tax still get the credits. I know farmers often do as their tax is depreciated quite a bit. If no refund for no tax paid is the rule then a lot of people will miss out. Surprisingly I don't think it will work that way though. Perhaps just SMSFs which they hope to get their hands on or slow down as the Industry hates the idea of all that money and no fees and charges to them.
    Old Geezer
    5th Nov 2018
    10:07pm
    Yes Rae I also get tax credits from overseas companies that help pay my tax.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    6th Nov 2018
    4:32pm
    You pay tax, but you only live on $22500 a year? The other one plays jingle bells, IDIOT. Do you seriously think everyone here is stupid enough to believe your ridiculous contradictory lies?
    Finni
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:02pm
    I am on a disability pension, during winter I go north to get some relief from out winter weather the imputations credits help pay for my accommation in Queensland.
    You can bet the money saved will not go to the pensioners, but ppl who can help our local pollies get re elected we the people are most likely the people who brought shares in all the privateration when governments were chasing money, now that there is nothing left to sell they cannot balance a budget,
    God help our kids, the present pollies have their mouths in the trough, hopefully we get a lot of independences into parliament that way no one will be game to make a decision
    see all.Maryakate
    2nd Nov 2018
    4:12pm
    So you get a DSP, pay no tax and get a benefit from shares? Those SFR who invest in shares, pay no income tax then rely on Government welfare to maintain their lifestyle. I think I need to change accountants. Would appreciate a Pharmaceutical card please!
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    2nd Nov 2018
    8:42pm
    Excuse me, seeall,Maryakate? What is this crap you are peddling? SFR's invest in shares, pay no tax, then rely on Government welfare? NO. That's PENSIONERS. Not SFRs. PENSIONERS rely on Government welfare, pay no tax, AND keep their franking credit refunds. SFRs paid tax all their lives, saved, and now, in retirement, save the taxpayer up to $40,000 a year by living off their savings. And all they ask is to be taxed FAIRLY on the income they receive, and NOT on income that, if derived from any other source, would not be taxable. All they ask is a tiny tax refund to enable them to continue self-funding and NOT being a burden on the taxpayer.
    Rae
    3rd Nov 2018
    9:21am
    The problem will be different rules for different folk.

    Will the business owner who writes down everything and negatively gears to not pay tax but get tax refunds get the franking credits or not? They shouldn't if no tax is paid that year or last or the one before. There are hundreds of companies that don't pay taxes. Will they get credits or not?
    Old Geezer
    5th Nov 2018
    10:09pm
    Rae they leave the franking credits in their companies until they can use them. This is already happening.
    Polly
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:03pm
    There was not a button to say that the present arrangement is fair. I Mr Shorten changes the imputed tax credits, me & a lot of other people will then become part pensioners & therefore need to claim on the taxpayer. My husband & I worked very hard & paid taxes but we also were provident in investing to pay for our retirement. Now shorten wants to turn me into a pensioner & that means all the extra perks that pensioner also get which I now pay from my own funds.
    Paddington
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:42pm
    So that is a good thing? Halves your car rego is the best one. Do you have one car to share or one each? Sounds like you won’t be worse off!
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    1:20pm
    Retirees below a certain REAL net income should all receive the benefits of pension perks.
    MICK
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:39pm
    Quite correct TREBOR. Some of our readers may want to ponder the reality that there would be more than a few self funded retirees earning around the pension level anyway. That is what makes this issue so distasteful: kept off a pension and then cannibalised.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    3:11pm
    I was actually stunned to discuss with a chap who was treating the ex his finances - since he still works, he pays full cost for medications and such, even though his income is slightly above pension. Crazy system... why would anyone want to work and pay tax to not get retiree benefits?

    Rainey I think says income is just about pension or even slightly lower - and no extra benefits since he/she is a SFR. Strange system we have.
    Rae
    3rd Nov 2018
    9:24am
    TREBOR there are thousands of people who like to be independent and not dependent on the Government. If they all start filling in pension forms what happens then? Centrelink collapses. Perhaps that is the whole idea. It makes no sense to keep targeting this group, then that group with different rules for each group.
    old frt
    4th Nov 2018
    7:41am
    How true Polly, we worked and saved so we would not have to put our hand out for help or be a burden to anyone , unlike some, Paddington who know how to milk the system .
    Priscilla
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:09pm
    If Labour does this then it is taxing people twice! When will they stop ripping us off. They have increased water services charges plus everything else. We are being punished for politicians' inability to budget properly!
    Adrianus
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:14pm
    Precisely Priscilla!!
    Misty
    2nd Nov 2018
    1:01pm
    Labor is not the Govt so they cannot change water costs or anything else, the Coalition are the one in charge so blame them.
    Adrianus
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:55pm
    Misty, what a stupid post. If we didn't have this stupid electoral system then the government would still have a majority.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    4:39pm
    Puh-lease - the current government blew its one seat majority... the fat lady has sung.

    How are you being taxed twice, Priscilla? I've posted the official ATO line times many - and yet some here still refuse to accept reality. DI is tax paid on your behalf to the ATO against possible tax liability - and is part of your gross income... and you are not the company - you are a separate operating entity titled a shareholder.

    This shouldsend some shivers up a few spines:-

    https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/5-million-aussies-landed-atos-watch-list-034543788.html?utm_source=Campaign_Monitor&utm_medium=Edm&utm_campaign=DailySnap_Newsletter&utm_term=DailySnap_Newsletter&ncid=dailysnapshotau_dailysnaps_yaptekbs7gs

    "The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is about to start holding a magnifying glass up to Australian shareholders, on the back of concerns that mistakes on their tax returns are rampant.

    The ATO will examine details around the price, quantity and timing of individual trades as far back as 2014."
    Misty
    2nd Nov 2018
    9:56pm
    Can't accept the truth Adrianus?, please explain to me how Labor can change the water costs or anything else for that matter, if they are not in Government?.
    Adrianus
    3rd Nov 2018
    8:39am
    They will find a way Misty. Labor has $200b in taxes planned for us if they can get their grubby little hands on the keys to the lodge. Hitting retirees is the tip of the iceberg.
    franklucas
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:32pm
    Gee, who drafted that survey! Too many questions slanted towards eliciting an answer for Mr Shorten’s new position. The dividend imputation system was introduced by Labor in the first instance to stop the double taxing of company profits, once in the hands of the company making the profits then secondly in the hands of the shareholder who received the dividend from those same taxed profits. The system was introduced as a matter of fair play by Labor and has served us well to this point. Too bad now Mr Shorten wants to change his mind about the fair play bit. You could call the proposed system the ‘cash grab system’
    Concerned
    2nd Nov 2018
    1:25pm
    Labor implemented the policy to those who pay tax. Howard and Costello came up with the idea of refunding beyond a tax commitment and giving money back to those who could get their tax to zero. All that is happening is the correction of a typical LNP help your mates to get more money tax dodge. It it a long overdue change. As for the survey. Well it shows greed and fear that has been set up by the media about what should be accepted as a great reform.
    Adrianus
    2nd Nov 2018
    3:44pm
    Concerned, your lack of understanding is on display.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    2nd Nov 2018
    8:02pm
    WRONG COBCERNED. You have no idea what you are on about. Shorten is continuing to refund to the well off and to pensioners. But he is saying if you are a struggling low-income self-funded retiree who invests in shares to support yourself, you should be taxed 30% on an income that would not be taxed if it came from any other source.

    The greed is solely on the part of those who support this grab for cash from strugglers who are saving the nation over $1 million in pensions and concessions by their hard work and frugal living. Pensioners are cheering their TRIPLE handout - pension + concessions + franking credit refund. Many of them are far wealthier than those SFRs who will have their lifestyle destroyed by unfairness. And they are happy to bleed the taxpayer dry and deem their income an ENTITLEMENT. But they want people who saved to hand all their savings to the taxpayer and live on fresh air - or join the pension queue and increase the cost of supporting retirees until it's intolerable.

    Adrianus is right. Your lack of understanding is on display.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:36pm
    Under tax rules it cannot be a simple blanket removal of refunding franking credits. As it should be here and now, since dividend imputation forms part of the end user's gross income - a refund may or may not be applicable, depending on the individual's NET income after costs.

    This whole issue is either being misrepresented, or Shortenski is wrong in the way he has tried to sell it.

    The real issue is those with large and taxable incomes who are currently able to write it down to zero and thus get a bonus on top of a heap of cash to spend ... this does not apply to the small shareholder unless he/she has additional income that raises net income above the taxable level.

    I think this whole issue is being blown out of all proportion, and is becoming a tool in the hands of the fat cats to hold onto an unwarranted benefit.

    Unfortunately, in order to restore sense to this whole thing, dividend imputation should simply be removed from the table, and everyone simply pay their own tax.

    It is simply not acceptable for both a company to write down its tax burden by transferring it to shareholders, and then for every shareholder to do the same - meaning zero tax recouped on earnings by either. Shareholder and company are two discrete operating entities - they are not one and the same.

    Someone has to pay tax - and companies should not be using this as a loop hole, thus it should simply be abolished.
    Paddington
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:48pm
    Get ready for the onslaught Trebor!
    Old Man
    2nd Nov 2018
    1:02pm
    Thanks Bob, there is another way. Companies pay tax on profits after share dividends are distributed and those receiving dividends are then required to pay the tax on their income. Simples.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:25pm
    Yes, OM - good thinking. Pretty simple really but many seem confused.
    Not a Bludger
    2nd Nov 2018
    5:16pm
    Completely wrong, Trebor.

    As Paul Keating recognised, the only fair and proper approach was that an income should only be taxed once and this is why he introduced this taxation reform.

    Hence, the earning company has already paid tax on the income balance distributed as dividend - hence, the recipient is entitled to count this tax (already paid) in their own income/tax balance - simple.

    Now, you and marxist Shorten want to take us back to the dark ages of double taxation and no doubt, like the greens (are you one?) death duties again plus heaps of other taxes on the (reducing) number of people who earn a quid so as to pay for all the great unwashed who do not!
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    6th Nov 2018
    4:34am
    Ah, but Shorten only wants to take battlers back to the dark ages, making them poorer. The well off keep their credits, Not a Bludger. So do the bludgers, by the way!
    rob101
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:55pm
    If you are going to run a Poll ,PLEASE do NOT use PUSH POLLING!



    rob101
    Pierre
    2nd Nov 2018
    12:56pm
    Removing the imputation rebate results in double tax on the same income amount - once at company level and once at individual level. Your notes imply that Labor's proposal is good policy. Are you a bunch of closet Labor voters???
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    1:13pm
    How so, Pierre? Do you also think that the shareholder and the company are one and the same?

    Both are discrete operating entities - they are NOT one and the same.

    A company has an obligation to pay its taxes - what it does with what is left over is its own concern... but both company and shareholder should not be escaping tax.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    2nd Nov 2018
    8:51pm
    The company IS PAYING TAX, Trebor. It can't claim franking credits if it doesn't pay. But it pays with the shareholder's money. And if the shareholder isn't liable to pay tax, because their income is low, they should get that money back. There's no rort currently. And there's no double refund. There's no dodging of tax. There's just a FAIR AND EQUITABLE POLICY that ensures those who are NOT liable to pay tax on that income are not taxed. The company pays on the shareholder's behalf, because the shareholder IS the company. It's not some mythical entity created out of nothing! It pays, and if the shareholder has taxable income, the government keeps that revenue, and potentially taxes more if the shareholder has a high income. If the shareholder has been overtaxed, it's refunded. Just like PAYG. Just like it SHOULD be. Just. Fair. Equitable. Logical. And in the interests of economic health because it encourages investment that grows business and creates more jobs.
    rob101
    2nd Nov 2018
    1:01pm
    Adrianus! How many Union Provided Benefits for Workers INCLUDING Compulsory Super did you give up? Also how many benefits have ANY Coalition Government provided for Workers!



    rob101



    rob101
    Adrianus
    2nd Nov 2018
    3:38pm
    Interestingly, the unions who take credit for the 40 hour week, are opposed to casual/part time hours, which provide a more flexible workplace and opportunity for workers to work either 60 hours or 20 hours to suit their lifestyle needs. To answer your question, I cant think of a single benefit provided by a union which has benefited me in my working life. Anyway, whatever the unions may have done over the last 100 years, is it any reason to put them in government?
    1984
    2nd Nov 2018
    5:08pm
    Comrade Adrianus if you haven't had a single benefit that has been provided by the unions then you are one of the very few that haven't. Must be the silver spoon stuck in your mouth.
    Accumulation of wealth at one pole is at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, ignorance, mental degradation, at the opposite pole.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    2nd Nov 2018
    8:55pm
    Sorry to burst your bubble, Karl, but I lived in poverty most of my life and I've never had a single benefit provided by unions. Quite the opposite. They shafted me more than once. And they shafted hundreds of thousands of other battling workers. Only some didn't understand what the union was actually doing so they didn't correctly allocate blame.

    Yes, accumulation of wealth for some means accumulation of misery etc. for others. And the demolition of incentive and reward means the accumulation of wealth for the very privileged and widespread degradation and misery for the vast majority. That's what the ALP is promising. Wait for it! It's coming!
    Adrianus
    3rd Nov 2018
    8:57am
    Karl, I started work at the age of 10 out of necessity, I was self employed. Forced by choices a child should not have to make at such a young age, I was in full time employment by 14, grabbing as much overtime as I could. My work ethic and leadership skills were so well developed that regardless of the job I was promoted into management positions on a salary negotiated by me. The only interaction I had with unions was disruptive and designed to stop me from completing my tasks. When a union boss is offered $12m to retire and refuses because its not enough, then you don't need to understand any more than that.
    Circum
    3rd Nov 2018
    9:45pm
    Not sure what pole Karl is talking about but I think he is sitting on it
    Quizzical
    2nd Nov 2018
    1:12pm
    Hey... don't know whether the results of this survey are going to be reliable. The article states $8 BILLION dollars in savings per annum from removing the refund in the next few years. The survey states $8 MILLION dollars. Which is it?
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    5th Nov 2018
    1:48pm
    Neither, Quizzical, because the ALP is EXCLUDING nearly everyone except the low income-earning self-funded retirees from their hit, and they admit openly that they haven't even tried to calculate the losses from driving tens of thousands more onto pensions, people changing their investments to avoid the hit, and the loss to the economy if money is taken out of funding growth in Australian companies. There won't be any savings. There will be losses all around.
    Denis & Narelle
    2nd Nov 2018
    1:14pm
    My wife and I have a SMSF and are totally self funded but do not have a million dollars in the fund. A lot less but just over the pensioner threshold. We will be very much impacted by this Labour proposal as approximately half our annual income will be removed.
    I think any sensible and right minded person must concede that a proposal that affects only a sector of the community and not all taxpayers, is unfair. Also that it is unfair for retirees of our vintage (70), that have provided for themselves in their retirement by following investment rules that were laid down many years ago as legitimate, will now be heavily penalised.
    What a lot of the community do not realise is that unless you were in receipt of a pension on the 28 March this year, you will never be able to claim the refund of franking credits ever again unless you have a tax bill. This obviously applies to all those who have not yet reached retirement age, including your children, so it will affect a much larger percentage of the population in future years. And don't for a minute fall for Mr Shorten's spiel that this money will all go towards education and hospital costs. A classic example of politicians scope for waste was realised only this week that showed a number of politicians purchasing books from a Coalition related think tank on the speeches of Robert Menzies, spending thousands of tax payer dollars, to give as "their donations" to schools and children as a reward for their scholastic efforts, when the publications as e-books are available free. As if school children are interested in Robert Menzies speeches. And of course it is not only the Coalition that involve themselves in this type of taxpayer funded waste.
    Tables have been prepared by some vey well reputed financial experts that show that a couple in our position would be better off financially is we divest ourselves of some of our assets to gain a part pension, taking into account the discounts and exemptions given to such pensioners. So, my wife and I have booked a round the world cruise for 2019 and following that we will then be eligible for a part pension. So Mr Shorten, we lose our franking credits refund but the taxpayer foots the bill for our part pension. He will also lose as we also intend to close our SMSF and, unfortunately, will roll-over our funds to an industry fund where the franking credits on the worth of our shares in the fund will still be eligible for taxation benefits.
    What an ill-conceived, unfair and stupid plan this is.
    Adrianus
    2nd Nov 2018
    3:05pm
    Then Shorten will have achieved his objective. Provided an advantage for his union mates as instructed.
    Rae
    3rd Nov 2018
    9:31am
    Move some of your funds out of super and then you will have a tax bill and receive a refund if entitled. You can generate quite a lot with off sets etc. And just maybe paying a little tax will be cheaper than losing the lot. There is no rule that you have to stay in Superannuation vehicles.

    Do get advice from your accountant. I can generate more income out of super than in it after fees, charges etc.
    Rae
    3rd Nov 2018
    9:33am
    Be aware tax outside of super is very different and moving out of super may save your franking credits. I'm not sure but a good accountant will know.
    Old Geezer
    5th Nov 2018
    10:12pm
    Many SMSFs in pension mode are now only worth having due to the refund of franking credits. Without the refund of franking credits the money many be better outside super. Many SMSFs will be just closed down if people have already met a condition of release.
    Concerned
    2nd Nov 2018
    1:20pm
    I have never read more uninformed comments. Actually stop reading biased information and read the REAL policy. The return of imputation credits will continue. What will not continue is a DOUBLE payment. The company paid tax. Not You. When you complete your tax assessment th imputation credits come of tax OWED. If you did not pay TAX why are you expecting a tax refund. Get that you did not pay tax. If you did pay tax you are recreditex all imputation credits off your tax bill. What happens now is a free payment for no reason other then you have shares. IT IS CALLED DOUBLE DIPPING. You are not losing money.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    2nd Nov 2018
    10:40pm
    Stop reading Labor propaganda and learn how it all works instead.

    So it is fair than a person who pays enough tax gets their franking credits refunded and goes on a holiday but a person who pays no tax loses their income and has less to spend each week on groceries?

    That is the reality of this unfair policy.
    Denis & Narelle
    2nd Nov 2018
    1:21pm
    From the comments on this page by Trebor, it is obvious he has no knowledge of taxation and share matters. It is a pity distorting comments like his are made to wrongly influence other readers.
    HillwoodAllan
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:42pm
    You are quite right - Trebor does not know what he is talking about. He says we will not lose a cent but we will. My wife and I are on the full Age Pension and also get $6,000 in dividends but do not pay any tax because we are below the tax threshold. But we will lose the full $2,600 imputation credit refund we currently get back every year on top of the $6,000 in dividends. OK, we did not pay any tax but why should we be $2,600 a year worse off when someone who has a marginal tax rate of less than the 30% company tax rate/franking credit get a refund of some of the imputation credit but we get nothing.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:44pm
    Please explain?
    Adrianus
    2nd Nov 2018
    3:08pm
    TREBOR and MICK are trolls.
    HillwoodAllan
    2nd Nov 2018
    3:21pm
    You appear to be right. A "Please explain?' from Trebor to my simple example means he is a troll or does not know what he is talking about (or both!).
    Paddington
    2nd Nov 2018
    4:29pm
    Adrianus, if anyone is a troll it is you!
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    4:50pm
    Not my fault you are unable to grasp simple realities as laid down by the ATO.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    4:53pm
    Poor old Hillwood - how is it that you are paying at least 30% tax on such a low alleged income?

    You will not be worse off - good God, man - even Shorten said so.... 'pensioners will be exempt'... hello!!

    You are confusing the whole issue.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    2nd Nov 2018
    8:26pm
    You are right about Hillwood, Trebor. He will continue to be allowed to TRIPLE DIP - claiming pension + concessions + franking credit refunds. But those with LESS income, who are asking only for a FAIR DEAL - the proper rate of tax so they can keep being self-funded - THEY will suffer a tax rate of 30% on income that should not be taxed. THEY will have their lifestyle demolished.
    Kev
    2nd Nov 2018
    1:47pm
    From what I understand without the credits inside Super are absolutely needed to offset the lowest earning interest rates in 30 years. Centrlink will have a few new customers
    VeryCaringBigBear
    2nd Nov 2018
    3:14pm
    Those 1200 extra Centrelink staff u see Labor will be very busy indeed. The wait for benefits will be many times longer.
    Old Fella
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:01pm
    The franking value in/on dividends are real monetary value. I ask? - If the Company from which franking is paid converts the franking value of any dividend to form part an increased total dividend distributed, - in effect dismantling altogether the franking arrangements,- this would provide most shareholder retirees with the same income rather than a tax claim rebate income from the franking entitlements. Leaving other investors to seek tax minimization elsewhere.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    3:00pm
    Just pay dividend and leave it at that. Solves the whole argument.
    HillwoodAllan
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:09pm
    My wife and I are on the full Age Pension and our only other income is around $6,000 a year from share dividends. The dividend imputation refund gives us a further $2,600 so we stand to lose that $2,600 every year. We are certainly not from the top end of town Mr Shorten!
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:21pm
    You won't lose a cent....
    HillwoodAllan
    2nd Nov 2018
    3:49pm
    I'm afraid you do not know what you are talking about. My wife and I are on the full Age Pension and also get $6,000 in dividends but do not pay any tax because we are below the tax threshold. But we will lose the full $2,600 imputation credit refund we currently get back every year. OK, we did not pay any tax but why should we be $2,600 a year worse off when someone who has a marginal tax rate of less than the 30% company tax rate/franking credit get a refund of some of the imputation credit but we get nothing.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    4:47pm
    So how would you lose that $2600? Calculated in your annual tax return it will tell the ATO to refund it to you.. if your figures are correct.

    *rolls eyes again* It is tax withheld on your behalf - same as PAYE tax to a wage earner or salary earner, and is treated the same.

    If a PAYE earner made that small amount - he/she would get all tax back... so will you.

    I told you - this whole issue is a beat-up and a misrepresentation of facts, and is a fear campaign to suggest that all low income shareholders will lose money...utter nonsense.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    4:56pm
    This policy idea is aimed at those who are pulling a couple of million in dividends and still paying no tax and thus getting a huge handout.... not you cannon fodder with ten shares...
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    2nd Nov 2018
    8:15pm
    NO IT ISN'T Trebor. It won't touch them at all. It will only hurt honest battling SFRs on lower incomes. NOBODY is getting huge handouts due only to franking credit refunds. They have to be cheating on tax or have fancy avoidance strategies to get franking credit refunds if they are wealthy. So attack the avoidance strategies and leave the honest battlers alone.

    You are deliberately misrepresenting the facts claiming those on low incomes will get their refunds back. THEY ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT, UNLESS THEY ARE PENSIONERS - THE NEW ELITE! But the rich are laughing. It won't touch them at all.
    Gee Whiz
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:13pm
    Labor has just hand the next Federal election to the Coalition on a plate. Start stealing from pensioners and retirees and you a committing political suicide.

    The number of seniors in of our society runs into the millions of voters. They will ensue and rightly so that any government that interferes with their income and as a result their standard of living will pay the penalty.

    Something to remember come polling day.
    Captain
    3rd Nov 2018
    1:30pm
    The LNP and Greens cost 93,000 part pensioners their pensions and lowered the pensions of 372,000 others by their Assets test changes in Jan 2017.

    Labor wants to cut DI refunds to SFR's.

    So, Gee Whiz, who do you think those 460,000 affected by the cuts of Jan 2017 and the several thousand SRF's are going to vote for in the next election?

    We have been bitten by one lot already and are set to be bitten by the next lot after the next election.

    As I have said previously, none of the current set of idiots in our Federal Parliament deserves our votes.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    4th Nov 2018
    6:05am
    Gee Wizz, they are not stealing from pensioners. They are BUYING their vote with exemptions, and it seems the majority of pensioners are sufficiently selfish and greedy to support stealing from the self-funded. Green-eyed monsters are happy to see anyone they THINK might have more than them suffer loss.

    Captain, the problem for those who will lose under Labor's policy is vast numbers of them (probably the vast majority) are the same folk who lost under the assets test change. They have already had their income sliced by up to 30% and now they face losing as much again. And what is this ''don't pay tax'' BS! They save the nation around $1 million over the course of their retirement by not being self-supporting. And the ALP wants to demolish their lifestyle for doing that????
    Rae
    4th Nov 2018
    9:43am
    I wouldn't put it past Shorten with a large majority to bring in Land Taxes and raise the GST. Those pensioners might just regret their lack of concern for the self funded. At least the SMSF people will be able to stay in their homes with a bit of frugality. Where is a cash poor aged pensioner going to get thousands of extra dollars to pay Land Tax from?

    They want our houses. It's that simple. That's what the Nursing Home Bonds is all about. No other consumer has to pay hundreds of thousands to access a service that is quite expensive day to day on top.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:29pm
    I've got a brilliant solution.. why not just go the Full Singapore and shareholders pay no tax on income!! The fat cats would also not have to pay fancy accountant fees and thus would have even more to play with!!That would help us along the road to a society massively divided between the infra-rich and the ultra-poor!

    As Kerry Packer said - and it is a two way street and double-edged sword - it's not as if you're doing a good job with money.. and from the state of the economy for real, the fat cats aren't doing much of a job.. proof is the number of companies collapsing.

    Eventually we could extend this income tax largesse to everyone, one section at a time, and eventually just get rid of government entirely.

    Wouldn't that be cosy??
    see all.Maryakate
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:34pm
    I can't believe there are so many people who are unwilling to share. People lucky enough to have worked and paid tax all their working life has contributed to the public purse of those less fortunate.Some, unfortunately, found themselves dependent on a hand up.Some of those taxpayers want a Government handout, even thinking they are entitled to some of their tax back. Just as the Government puts refugees out of sight, some individuals wants their money back, as in this case. So who pays for hospitals, schools, roads, rail etc? Tax payers. Now these individuals want to be propped up, to maintain their lifestyles, at the expense of the poor, the refugees, the homeless. And as Gra wrote 'go to fund illegals', which is untrue as this country does not fund illegals. but is obligated under the UNHRC to look after refugees. Unfortunately LNP and Hanson both subscribe to the incarceration of refugees in offshore camps on the pretence they are 'stopping the boats'. If you think drowning (?) at sea is preferential to a slow death in an off shore hellhole, is acceptable from a Country which prided itself on a Fair Go for all, then Australia is losing its moral compass.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:42pm
    Boats aren't stopped - they are ambushed on the High Seas in an act of piracy and forced to a destination not of their choosing... if the Somalians did it the US Navy would toast them...
    Adrianus
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:48pm
    There are no offshore hell holes, but what does that have to do with an ideological change to imputation credits?
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    3rd Nov 2018
    8:31am
    Well, Adrianus, killing off the incentive to invest in Australian blue-chip companies might well push Australia towards being a hell-hole.
    JLB
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:45pm
    if the companies didn't pay the tax before you got your dividend you would get a higher dividend so just pay the higher dividend and let the people pay the tax on the shares
    Adrianus
    2nd Nov 2018
    2:52pm
    There is nothing wrong with the system as it is.
    mr.auspicious
    2nd Nov 2018
    3:50pm
    This would eliminate all the brouhaha - whether the corporate sector would adopt this
    approach is problematic. Note that BHP is about to return $10.5 billion to shareholders
    by way of a special dividend and proceeds of a share buyback. The share buyback is
    interesting - although the price offered is yet to be determined, it will serve as a
    means for BHP to divest itself of " surplus " franking credits which will be treated as a
    capital return by shareholders. Any shareholder retaining realised capital losses can
    offset capital gains to achieve a tax effective result overall.

    All perfectly legal by the way, unless the Labor party see fit to move the goal posts
    again. So let's save everyone the trouble by sending a message that dividend imputation
    is not broken, and does not require fixing by way of the cynical, discriminatory measures
    touted by the opposition leader and treasury spokesman.
    Rae
    3rd Nov 2018
    9:42am
    Or just move all share holdings out of superannuation where Governments seem to keep changing the rules. Nobody is forced to hold shares under the Super umbrella.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    4th Nov 2018
    5:41am
    No gain there, Rae, unless you have high personal income or can qualify for a pension. You still lose your franking credit refund holding shares in your own name.
    Old Geezer
    5th Nov 2018
    10:14pm
    You could set up your own company to hold your franking credits until such time you can use them or the policy changes too.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    8th Nov 2018
    9:58am
    Yeah, right. And I could live to 200 and resume work at 110, OG. What a stupid notion! You really have no idea what life is like for REAL PEOPLE, so you?
    OnlyDaughter
    2nd Nov 2018
    3:07pm
    Rubbish is being promulgated as informed comment. Reading some of the tripe posted makes me think that the major political parties have "plants" on the site, planted to circulate propagaganda and misinformation.
    Adrianus
    2nd Nov 2018
    3:28pm
    There is no denying this proposed change to the imputation system by Labor is a fightback by the Unions to hold onto control of the $$Trillions in Superannuation. Many wise people have seen this battle unfolding and opted out of retail and union funds altogether. The Hawke government showed their hand by introducing a raft of new taxes on Superannuation in the 80's. Superannuation is the battle ground, it is not the reward. The reward is power.
    The question on our minds should be, should we give this much power to a political party?
    see all.Maryakate
    2nd Nov 2018
    3:59pm
    Just like LNP don't let the truth get in the way of an argument. Three word slogans rattled on for so long that the educated turn off and the uneducated believes it. So it takes some intelligence to see through the hype. I would much rather the Union Super funds look after my needs than those financial institutions which the LNP didn't want investigated. Going back some years where a Gov employee fund had a Union member on the Board it was the best performing fund at the time and the Union appointee was asked to get on board with other funds. I am still reaping the benefits. People with means should not expect a handout from a loophole. Double dippers? Yes. If they have shares, sell them. That's what you wanted, save for a rainy day. If your double dip cost this country $8b that is just too much. Fund hospitals, aged care or retirement living. Not waste every year on those who don't need it. As for socialist Government here in Australia, which differs from a Labor Government, getting into power, you should be more afraid of a Trump or a Hanson style government.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    2nd Nov 2018
    7:54pm
    Yep, seeall.Maryakate. Sell your shares. Claim a pension. Join the favoured who are costing the nation a mint and making life tough for taxpayers. Take your money OUT of the companies where it is funding growth and jobs and put it into foreign investment or property, where it will do NOTHING BUT HARM to the Australian economy. Or spend it and put your hand out - join the pensioner elite!

    How can people be so dumb! $8 billion? Shorten's policy change could well add $14 billion a year to the aged pension bill by wiping out the benefit of saving for retirement. It could take up to $75 billion of growth funding out of Australian companies, wiping out billions in tax revenue and killing off hundreds of thousands of jobs. It could easily reduce spending - and therefore GST revenue, business income, tax and jobs - by billions by depriving hundreds of thousands of the income they rely on.

    Be careful what you wish for. Nobody is double-dipping you fool. They are asking for a FAIR tax policy that treats them the same as it treats other retired Australians. Shorten wants to triple-dip! And he's allowing pensioners to triple dip too - pension +concessions + franking credit refunds. But those greedy selfish leaners respond by biting that hand that feeds them and demanding that those who get virtually NOTHING be taxed unfairly.

    News flash dunce. We are ALREADY living on our savings. And by doing so we are saving the nation over $1 million over the course of our retirement. But fools like you want us to stop contributing and join you on the handout queue. Well, when there's not enough to go around because your greed supported OVERTAXING US BY 30%, please don't ask for sympathy.
    Adrianus
    3rd Nov 2018
    9:40am
    seeall.Maryakate,
    There is no double dipping with the imputation system. You are a fool to believe there is.
    Do you honestly believe this planned 'denial of imputation credits' for some retirees is designed to spark an ASX sell off? Then you are either a Marxist or a fool, perhaps both.
    Fascism and racism, are the traits of the so called socialists. They gave the world the KKK and now they are focussing the simple minds on identity politics with an emphasis on white males. They benefit from divisive policies. This is just another example, but it comes with a short term advantage and a long term advantage for those who could not care less about the nations prosperity.
    Cosmo
    2nd Nov 2018
    3:30pm
    Paddington you said that the people in Venezuela were living on the streets and feeding out of rubbish bins. So be careful what you wish for. That not so long ago mineral rich exporting country's fortune changed to mass poverty when they were saddled with a socialist goverment!
    Jim
    2nd Nov 2018
    4:20pm
    Here we go again, I am not sure if the confusion regarding franking credits is an intentionally misleading argument by Labor or if Shorten doesn’t understand, if the latter is the case, then Shorten should never ever take the reins of the countries finances, the franking credits are tax that has been paid on behalf of the investor, any other argument is redundant, I see comments here regarding trades people and the notion that you think you could claim tax back on the money you pay them, I am assuming that the person making this comment is talking about the gst you pay the tradesman, how is this argument remotely comparable to the franking credits is ludicrous and is an attempt to cloud the straight forward argument regarding franking credits, this is Shotent’s attempt at envy politics, trying to compare other countries is just as ludicrous and misleading, eg in the UK each member of a couple on the pension are allowed to earn around £6000 from shares before there is any tax payable, again it is just a comment to cloud the issue, the only person in Labor who is seriously considering the removal of the franking credits is Shorten, he was pulled up by the party hierarchy when he first raised it and told it would cost votes and that it was also an unfair tax on pensioners.
    Dave R
    2nd Nov 2018
    4:52pm
    Retuning franking credits to people who don't pat tax is a rort plain and simple. Out tax system is full of such rorts usually in the form of concessions which work in such a way that the richer you are the bigger the benefit you get.

    Good on Labor for having the guts to start cutting them out. The Coalition loves things as they are so their super rich mates get maximum benefit and the masses get crumbs.
    Jim
    2nd Nov 2018
    5:08pm
    I don’t know if you genuinely don’t understand the franking credit debate, but in a nutshell the company that I have shares in pays 30% tax on my dividends it is exactly the same as any other taxpayer, if my income is below the tax free threshold I am entitled to claim that tax back, which is exactly the same as any other tax payer, if my income is above the tax free threshold I am not allowed to claim it back, which is the same as any other tax payer, the article is poorly worded to convince people that it is a loop hole, if my dividends are not franked I then receive a higher dividend, which then becomes my responsibility to declare my total income, if my income is above the tax free threshold then I am liable for any tax payable, if my income is below the threshold I am not liable for any tax.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    2nd Nov 2018
    7:44pm
    Correct, Jim. The current policy is fair, equitable, and right. And Shorten's policy is UNFAIR IN THE EXTREME and will do massive economic harm.

    WRONG WRONG WRONG Dave R. Sorry. But Shorten isn't touching the rich. He may hit a few tax cheats, but the vast majority of the revenue he is claiming will come directly out of the pockets of people who are poorer than you are - people who will give up trying to be self-funded and claim aged pensions, increasing an already intolerable burden on taxpayers.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    3rd Nov 2018
    6:28pm
    So why return franking credits to pensioners?
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    3rd Nov 2018
    9:21pm
    Votes, VCB. Pure and simple. Dependants mainly vote ALP. Feed the dependants. Bash the self-sufficient. Push more folk into dependency. More ALP votes!
    Circum
    4th Nov 2018
    7:53pm
    I suspect no amount of explanation will convince Dave that he is barking up the wrong tree.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    5th Nov 2018
    5:03pm
    You are right, Circum. Some people just don't have the intelligence to analyse the facts objectively. They swallow politicians' lies hook, line and sinker, and then regurgitate the rubbish. Appears Dave is one of those.
    Fair Dinkum
    2nd Nov 2018
    4:59pm
    If franking credits are removed I will probably have to go on the pension I have a small share portfolio that give me a little better than the pension,
    but if bill gets in this will be the start of many tax increases I read an article that he was going to introduce Death taxes and as Adrianus said he will be a burden for us pensioners and low income earners. so he can get more immigrants here .we don't have the infrastructure to support the people we have so emigration should be cut to 0 until the waiting period at hospitals is cut to no more than half an hour in the emergency department and say 1 month for operations so only bring in health workers and those that are not going to drain the tax system.
    gerry
    2nd Nov 2018
    5:06pm
    I was never employed as I have a disability,so I hadto run my own small business 24/7
    naturally I had no boss to give me superannuation so I scrimped and saved and invested in a managed fund ie. my super with no taxbreaks
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    2nd Nov 2018
    7:41pm
    I have a similar story, Gerry. But we don't count in this new world where pensioners are the elite and working and saving is a crime.
    Nerk
    2nd Nov 2018
    5:32pm
    That will bring my income down so I will be eligible for the pension
    Anne Ozzie
    2nd Nov 2018
    8:04pm
    OMG I cannot believe the selfishness and racism of the people on this forum - its all me me me. You didn't save when you were younger, nor get a better education then when it was free, and now you want to whinge again. I am a female self-funded retiree who is a hell of a lot more scared of the NAZI platform of the current Liberal party - their stated policy is do defund all government services except the military and the police - where will you lot be then? No medicare, no pharmaceutical benefits scheme, no hospitals, no nursing homes, no aged care nor home help, no pensions - get the picture? vote for them at your peril!
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    2nd Nov 2018
    8:11pm
    And you are NOT scared of taking tens of billions of growth funding out of Australian companies, wiping out hundreds of thousands of jobs? You are not scared of pushing hundreds of thousands more onto aged pensions? Get real, Anne Ozzie. I despise the LNP and their policies, but we can't afford this ALP's stupidity.
    Circum
    4th Nov 2018
    8:05pm
    More emotional scaremongering Anne without any facts.Typical political tactic used by both parties.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    2nd Nov 2018
    8:22pm
    I wrote to Bowen asking for clarification of the policy. He confirmed absolutely that struggling low income SFRs will lose a massive chunk of the income they rely on to live, and confirmed that the ALP is not concerned about that because ''there aren't that many of them''.

    I asked him had the ALP costed:
    (1) the likely increase in reliance on the OAP as SFRs become less able to get by on their slashed incomes;
    (2) the likely reduction in tax revenue due to major reduction in spending by those whose incomes are demolished
    (3) the likely economic impact of up to 1 million investors taking their money out of Australian companies, and the resulting lost tax revenue, reduced economic growth and reduced employment

    His office's reply? ''We do not have the resources to predict people's reaction to the policy, nor to estimate the possible cost or loss that might be an indirect result of a policy change. We can only calculate the direct saving based on historical data and assuming that nothing will change except that those refunds will no longer have to be paid.''

    In other words, they are haven't got a flippin' clue what the hell they are doing and they are too damned inept and arrogant to even care about the consequential harm that will result.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    3rd Nov 2018
    7:42am
    I agree they have no idea even how it all works let alone the fallout. The worse part is they are so put headed they are not listening either. Worse still it is case of I'm not going to lose anything but I don't care if you do.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    3rd Nov 2018
    11:35am
    I think a lot of them actually have listened and learned, VGB, but having supported their favoured hero, they are too weak and gutless to admit they were wrong.
    Adrianus
    3rd Nov 2018
    2:36pm
    Golly Rainey, That reply from Bill Shorten's office is more evidence in support of what many people have often believed. Labor does not have a clue what they're doing!!! Their policies are born from some sort of emotional instability. Gosh, I wished we had a viable alternative government. Competition improves like nothing else.

    Bill promised us 100 policies and if we didn't like them he had another truck load in the breach ready to fire at us. He now claims Labor had too many policies and wants to be known as the party of ideas. Why not the party of "GOOD" ideas??
    God help us all, pft..
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    4th Nov 2018
    5:37am
    Unfortunately, Adrianus, it's not just Labor. It's both parties. Actually, it's the bureaucrats behind the scenes advising politicians. They freely state that they do not have the capacity to predict reaction to policy changes or the effect of reactions, because that involves psychology and their expertise is economics and finance, therefore they ONLY calculate based on the assumption that human behaviour will not change. If $6 billion was spent in a particular area - say franking credit refunds - they ASSUME that cancelling the refunds will automatically save $6 million. Nobody will do anything different. They will somehow magically adapt to less income without changing their investments and without reducing their spending and without seeking pension compensation.

    Same applied to assets test change. Govt just assumed nobody would do anything different, but somehow magically there would be massive budget savings without any flow-on effect.

    This is the STANDARD approach to policy formulation. They make no apology for it and they will not concede that it's a flawed approach.
    Adrianus
    4th Nov 2018
    11:19am
    I hear what you're saying Rainey, but another explanation is that it is easier to withhold information or knowledge about various knock on effects than to expose themselves to the politically unfavourable consequence of telling the truth. I'm sceptical of all of them, elitists Marxist public servants included. The personal data available to government is enormous. The policy construction team know how many people will be forced to rely more on social security by having a selectively profiled group paying an extra tax that their neighbour doesn't. They know what electorate those affected fall into. It may be easy to say the behavioural response to a change in policy direction is unknown because it relies on the choice of individuals. But when we look at the choices there aren't very many of them are there?
    In my opinion, the more information Labor reveal about this particular policy, the more they reveal their true motives. When the Gillard government announced major and extensive tax reform, the likes of which Australia has not seen, she was handed 100 recommendations. Only 3 were introduced and those 3 were increased taxes to those unlikely to vote Labor.

    Of course the message they want to resonate is that they have saved $6b. This allows them to allocate spending of $6b to buy votes. Then comes the surprised look when they realise the budget is further in the red.
    TREBOR
    2nd Nov 2018
    10:20pm
    Last comment:-

    "Do the potential savings to the economy outweigh the benefits for the number of those affected?"

    The issue is not and never should be 'potential savings to the economy' - it is solely about fair play under tax law and regulation... there are countless other areas of tax revenue capture that need a serious look over..... and this one should only be directed at those getting away with a heap of cash under the guise of zero net income while spending sometimes hundreds of thousands or receiving millions.... that is double dipping due to worn-out rules on how you can organise your cash.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    3rd Nov 2018
    6:50am
    If that's the criteria, Trebor, THE CURRENT POLICY MUST STAY AND SHORTEN SHOULD BURY HIS BS AND LIES. The current policy is FAIR. It taxes people according to THEIR income, and NOT the income of the company they chose to invest in. That's as it should be. NOBODY is getting a heap of cash under the guise of zero net income because of franking credits. If they are presenting as having zero taxable income, either:
    (a) they are genuine and NEED their franking credit refund (if receiving one)
    (b) they are cheating, and should be prosecuted, and taking franking credit refunds is NOT a solution
    OR
    (c) they are using legal avoidance strategies that need to be addressed.

    Franking credits have NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH THE ISSUE, and persecuting struggling retirees and taking investment out of companies WON'T SOLVE ANYTHING, but it WILL crash the economy.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    3rd Nov 2018
    6:53am
    You seem to be suggesting that stopping treatment of the sickness is going to cure it. That's a totally illogical and dumb response. Diagnose the illness and treat it. Don't deprive everyone who doesn't have that illness of life-sustaining treatments they NEED and DESERVE.

    Would you also condemn heart attack victims to be refused treatment because the guy in the next bed has cancer and can't be cured?
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    3rd Nov 2018
    7:37am
    Don't answer the above, Trebor. Because clearly the answer is YES. You would also hang 100,000 innocent battlers because you can't catch ONE CROOK. No, it's NOT about pensioners vs SFRs. It's about FAIR TAX AND HONESTY. It's about taxing according to income, not according to source of income. It's about respect for those who are saving the nation $1 million or more in OAP and benefits by careful planning, hard work and frugal living, and not punishing them for contributing to the nation's welfare. It's about encouraging the habits that feed economic growth and generate increased prosperity.

    Only a blithering inept idiot or a Labor Party troll believes the crap the ALP is peddling. And I know you are not the former, so you must be the latter.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    2nd Nov 2018
    10:48pm
    Many companies today only pay fully franked dividends as people want them. This Labor policy takes away tgat want for fully franked dividends. So companies will just rearrange their accounts do they pay little or no tax. Much more will be lost when this happens and it will.
    TREBOR
    3rd Nov 2018
    6:21am
    I doubt they could arrange their accounts any more to play less tax, BB - all they would do is stop paying franked credits... pay pure dividend.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-14/why-many-big-companies-dont-pay-corporate-tax/9443840

    Jo Bloggs at work, however, is not able to cut out past losses as a tax deduction... say a period of unemployment or child-bearing time or time off to re-educate etc ... and certainly capital expenditure for expensive equipment to get to work such as a car and a home base is not viewed as a tax deduction....

    Business is allowed to operate free of the burdens of expenditure in these ways, and yet cannot make ends meet sufficiently to pay tax - sometimes for eternity - while still being capable of paying out dividends. QANTAS can afford to pay that little thief $25M a year for manipulating the system - but not pay one cent in tax.

    Bit hard to explain that away other than shoving the primary burden of tax onto the mass of wage and salary earners.... those 'leaners' out there who would be nothing without the 'lifters' in business (LMAO).

    Basic business rules were established at a time when only the rich had a vote and were set up to protect their investment in making even more money.... this is the 21st Century and times have changed. No wonder Trump wanted a minimum tax in the US, and many US businesses dread being investigated by the tax man.
    TREBOR
    3rd Nov 2018
    6:28am
    Oh - and 'business councils' - those ultimate unelected swill - get far too much of a say with government, while organisations of 'leaners' are as excluded as possible, even by Labor these days in their endless sucking up to whining portions of the community.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    3rd Nov 2018
    6:43am
    Trebor, franking credits PROVE that the company PAID TAX. They can't issue franked dividends if they didn't. If credits are cancelled, they WILL look to reduce their tax and pay higher dividends, because if they don't, they won't be able to attract investment capital and then they won't grow.

    I agree with you about business councils, but facts are facts and you have to be a bat-eyed socialist fool to think that taking investment capital out of big companies and crucifying people who saved for retirement is good for a nation.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    3rd Nov 2018
    7:30am
    If companies don't pay franked dividends they have not paid any tax.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    3rd Nov 2018
    8:21am
    Precisely, VCB. And more will look to avoid tax if they can't allocate franking credits to their investors.
    *Loloften*
    3rd Nov 2018
    1:07am
    Don't give a damn that haven't claimed the 30% tax paid of most of my fairly small shareholding (TBH - didn't know I could 'til recent publicity). If the Tax Dept comes after me when sell some (not in this mkt!?), I'll just tell 'em that they actually owe me money!! I'm an OAP with minimal funds altho' own my continuingly dilapidating dear 50yo old approx $900,000 home & happy to pay the 30% tax imputations if/when make a decent profit, as long as goes to those less fortunate than me.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    3rd Nov 2018
    6:37am
    You are very naïve if you think any benefit goes to those less fortunate, Loloften, but good on you for your attitude. The difference is YOU GET A PENSION. YOU ARE NOT THE TARGET HERE. YOU DON'T LOSE. The people who are complaining DON'T HAVE OTHER INCOME TO LIVE ON. Get it? The franking credit is essential to feed, clothe and house them and pay their bills. Without it, their incomes fall to so far below the pension that they can't get by and have to drain their savings away, losing all the benefit they worked and saved for and compromising their security later in life. And then they will have to go on a pension, and that will increase the load on taxpayers and lead to more calls to reduce the age pension.
    And who loses most if the pension is cut?

    Remember the assets test change? Not one cent of saving went to any disadvantage person. NOT ONE CENT. I all went to pensioners who had a few hundred thousand in the bank.

    I'd be okay with no franking credits too if I had a $900,000 house, owned shares, and received Dividend Income AS WELL AS A PENSION. I'd be over the moon. But Shorten wants to reduce the income of people like me to HALF the aged pension. And my house isn't worth anywhere close to $900,000. And I need my savings because I have a partner with extensive future health and care needs and grandchildren in crisis - whom I saved to be able to help.
    Adrianus
    3rd Nov 2018
    9:50am
    Loloften, perhaps you could be more honest about the information you disclose to the ATO? And if that results in some extra income to you then you can choose to give it to those less fortunate? Today they come for your franking credits and tomorrow? Who knows what they'll come for? Your house?
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    3rd Nov 2018
    11:34am
    Grattan Institute is already pushing for the government to claim possession of deceased estates if the deceased received a pension, Adrianus. It will happen.
    Old Geezer
    5th Nov 2018
    12:05pm
    It is a good idea to recover any money paid by the old age pension from ones estate. Lets hope Labor does it.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    5th Nov 2018
    1:51pm
    It's a DISGUSTING AND VILE overindulgence of the rich and privileged and a stinking return to the feudal system where nobody can elevate their family through hard work - but the born poor remain poor and pass poverty down through the generations. Only the most selfish, greedy and vile could even think of supporting it.
    Adrianus
    6th Nov 2018
    10:35am
    Rainey, are you aware that the average Australian is wealthier than any other world citizen? Sometimes things can appear to be tougher when you're in the thick of the action.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    6th Nov 2018
    4:42pm
    AVERAGE being the operative word, Adrianus. AVERAGES deceive. They are blown out by massive wealth in the hands of the Packers, Turnbulls etc. They mean NOTHING. The MAJORITY wealth is what counts, and the MAJORITY of retirees are worse off than in most other nations. We have high levels of poverty among retirees and the means test makes it very hard for most to be anywhere near as affluent as they should be given their work and saving habits.
    *Loloften*
    11th Nov 2018
    5:37am
    Hey all, I'm far from wealthy....far more costly for me to pay an Accountant to get reimbursement for the 30% tax paid on my now only abt $12,000 in Shares. My late spouse passed away @ 61 & we both worked our butts off prior to buy 2 (approx 25km East of CBD) Investment properties which we sold to our children @ discounted price so they'd have a roof over their heads/get into the property mkt by mid 20s - as our parents helped us. Prior to spouse's death, we both had to stop working during his 9yr cancer battle (finally diagnosed as "terminal" when just 54) so could be present to drive to/fro the many mths of Chemo/Radiotherapies; GPs/Specialist visits; 5 major surgeries+++ the "$extras" as had Private Health Insurance; $18 daily Hospital parking fee; approx 12% loss of both our Super savings during GFC approx a yr prior to my husband's death. We spent all of my Super by the time were both 55 & most gratefully could then spend much of my husband's on his "bucket list." I would've happily re-mortgaged our home to do it during his approx 3mths of annual "recoveries/remissions" but sadly not needed as he died just prior to fulfilling his last wish. Yes, I get a full OAP however there's only a 5-figure sum left of his Super after all above + many home repairs/appliance replacements et al necessary re my now 50yo home since husband passed away 9yrs ago. I'm lucky to have my sons/their wives & especially love indulging my 6 grandkids on b/days & Christmas....would happily do the Bendigo Bank "Homesafe" stuff if needed, rather than stop buying my family decent Celebratory presents. Also gratefully have 11 long-standing wonderful friends with whom I happily share "days out" for lunch etc now that only needed for "babysitting" once or twice a wk....will only be during school hols nerxt yr as youngest will be @ school. So all u who think I'm wealthy, think again. 5 of my GFs are also widowed & in the same place financially as am I.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    3rd Nov 2018
    8:20am
    ANNOUNCEMENT FROM LEADER OF UNIDENTIFIED POLITICAL PARTY: "If elected we propose, to impose a 30% tax on all pension income. Pensions are costing the nation $160 billion each year, and rising fast. We simply can't afford that any more. And some pensioners have multi-million dollar houses or are pretending to be separated when they are not, or have given away millions to offspring. Some pensioners have high incomes by combining part pension and private income. It is not right that they should not be taxed. We can't identify them, but we can fix the problem by taxing ALL pension income at 30%. That will raise over $50 billion that we can spend on hospitals, schools, roads, etc.

    We understand that some pensioners are struggling and will be hurt by this, and it's probably unfair to them, but there's not many of them and they most likely don't vote for us anyway, so that's okay."

    I'll bet pensioners would be furious if SFRs didn't support THEIR protest if this was done. But selfish pensioners are cheering the exact same unfair attack on self-supporting battlers.
    *Loloften*
    11th Nov 2018
    5:53am
    What "Political Party" OGR? Can't make statements like that w/out naming it.
    Peking
    3rd Nov 2018
    9:28am
    I resent the wording of this Flash Poll which starts with a biased assumption:
    “Do you think maintaining this tax loophole is fair?”
    It sets out to bias the result, with the “tax loophole” label, as if it sits with the meanest swindling and corruption activities revealed in the Commissions into financial affairs.
    Not good enough.
    Rae
    3rd Nov 2018
    9:57am
    There are thousands of pages of tax rules and there will be a way out of this. Good accountants will find it.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    3rd Nov 2018
    11:33am
    Agree Peking. It is NOT a tax loophole, and it's prejudicial and damaging to describe it as such.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    3rd Nov 2018
    2:43pm
    Good accountants have already found the loopholes for the wealthy in this proposed policy.
    StorminNormin
    3rd Nov 2018
    10:58am
    Self funded retirees who have saved their money, which they have already paid income tax on, over their working life, buy fully franked shares to help fund their retirement. They are not a burden on the Australian taxpayer as most self funded retirees do not receive an aged pension because of the deeming rules. If a labour government does away with the franking credit concessions, they no doubt will direct the money into the Aged Pension, which is welfare. Any payment received from the Australian Taxpayer is welfare in my view. Again, self funded retirees who have saved for their retirement over their working life are being penalised because they want to live a more comfortable life in retirement than what the Aged Pension can provide. The Aged Pension is the biggest drain on the countries budget. When ScoMo was Treasuer, he advised that the Aged Pension was costing the Australian Taxpayer $50 plus billion a year. This staggering figure is un-sustainable and the Government, whether Liberal or Labour need to do something about reigning it in. Punishing self funded retirees is not the answer.
    *Loloften*
    11th Nov 2018
    6:02am
    The OAP is now an enormous strain on our Govn'mt's budget.....but only b/c they hadn't planned for it. We all know that the "Baby-Boomers" are possibly the largest % population increase in Aus' history & they didn't get Super 'til middle-aged, then only 2%. Why didn't our "smart" Pollies know it/budget for it?
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    3rd Nov 2018
    12:41pm
    It would be really helpful if people would STOP claiming the ALP policy is something it isn't, or ranting about a mythical policy or a never-ever-proposed change to the policy and address what the ALP is ACTUALLY PROPOSING TO DO.

    I am certain most people agree on what SHOULD be done. I am sure most agree that the CLAIMED intent (fraudulently claimed - sadly) is valid.

    The issue is what they are ACTUALLY PROPOSING TO DO, which is to keep indulging the wealthy, look after pensioners (no matter how well off) and screw the self-funded retirees whose willingness to sacrifice is saving the nation over $1 million over the course of their retirement.

    What they are ACTUALLY proposing is to hand out generously to the haves, give some retirees TRIPLE benefits (including the wealthy manipulators) and tax self-funded retirees, who are already contributing tens of thousands annually to the public purse, at an UNFAIR 30% RATE. That's the proposal. So stop ranting about what you would like the proposal to be or what you want to pretend it is or what lying politicians want gullible fools to believe it is AND ADDRESS THE ISSUE.

    It's an UNFAIR change that will hurt the economy. The current policy is not and never was a ''loophole''. It is a fair and equitable arrangement that ensures people pay tax at the correct rate based on their taxable income. If some are fudging figures to claim a taxable income of less than they actually have, FIX THAT. That has NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH FRANKING CREDIT REFUNDS. When the problem is fixed, there will be no refund. But the honest will still retain the income they need and are properly entitled to under a fair system. Hanging 500,000 innocents isn't going to fix a problem with a handful of guilties.
    *Loloften*
    11th Nov 2018
    6:08am
    Think ALP may only impose a small tax on self-funded retirees, only if earnings are well above OAP, definitely would not be @ 30%.
    fred
    3rd Nov 2018
    2:30pm
    Agree entirely with Adrianus and Jim and OnlyGenuineRainey who have broad and thorough knowledge of how Dividend imputation Credits work and the impact it will have on low income and Self Managed Retirees TREBOR , MICK and Misty are clueless on the subject and follow the left/socialist ideological line . They would want to take your house as well like true communists Misty
    Misty
    5th Nov 2018
    11:13am
    What rot fred, spoken like a true Liberal.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    5th Nov 2018
    1:02pm
    Spoken like an intelligent thinker, you mean Misty. Rather than a half-wit who swallows the biggest lies every told and selfishly claims entitlement to a gift of $1 million or more to fund retirement, while demanding those pay their way are robbed and cheated.
    Adrianus
    5th Nov 2018
    9:05pm
    Well said fred. Take no notice of Misty. The unions were good to her many years ago and she owes them. Sold her ability to analyse facts.
    JohnLM
    3rd Nov 2018
    10:10pm
    It appears ‘Your Life Choices’ is some sort of Labour/Greens front intended to mislead seniors on political issues and for spreading misinformation [while covering by also discussing health and other issues]

    Flash Poll: Time for this tax loophole to go?

    This is a poll so worded as to be either deliberately misleading or displaying complete ignorance on the part of the proposers

    ALP policy is NOT ‘closing a tax loophole’

    It is stealing tax rebates from the elderly [and others] to which they are entitled by virtue of having company tax collected from/for/on their behalf

    Imputation credits are the same a PAYE tax collected from employees and it is a fundamental principle of tax regimes that over collection of tax in excess of one’s tax obligation is refundable to the taxpayer.
    There is no more justification to confiscate refunds for tax paid than refusing tax refunds fo other taxpayers such as PAYE workers and employees.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    4th Nov 2018
    6:16am
    I think it's time the Australian people demanded Chris Bowen NAME all individuals who are involved with superannuation funds that are allegedly getting $2.5 million in cash franking credit refunds and instigate an ATO investigation into how that is happening. Who are the people who are holding $160 billion worth of shares in a tax free pension fund illegally, Mr Bowen. The people of Australia deserve to know. And why are you wiping out the lifestyle of people who save the nation $1 million or more by self-funding their retirement from LESS (and generally substantially less!) than $1.6 million to apparently get at a few individuals who you say have such a massive shareholding that they get some $80 million in dividends annually. Come on Mr Bowen. Who are these people? And why can't you address their apparent rort without crippling struggling self-funded retirees who have modest assets and are doing what's good for the country.


    This is a public challenge. NAME JUST ONE OF THESE PEOPLE YOU CLAIM ARE BREAKING THE LAW TO RIP OFF TAXPAYERS AND PROVE THAT THEY ARE RECEIVING $80 million in dividends fully franked to a tax-free superannuation account.

    The Australian people deserve to be told the truth.
    mr.auspicious
    4th Nov 2018
    3:24pm
    Of course the electorate deserves to be apprised of the salient facts - but I wouldn't hold
    my breath waiting for any meaningful response.

    You only have to look at the track record of Shorten and Bowen when Labor last
    governed.
    Bowen was Minister for Immigration and conceded he could not ( or would not ) stem
    the sudden surge of illicit immigration. Of course a change of government sorted the
    problem.

    " Prime Minister in waiting " Shorten is no friend of the SMSF sector. SMSF structures
    currently represent a viable alternative to industry super funds which as we are
    aware, make substantial financial contributions to Labor. As Superannuation minister,
    Shorten attempted to introduce measures designed to add further unnecessary red
    tape to the smsf sector. These initiatives ultimately were shelved.

    However what did proceed was active participation in deals which adversely
    impacted on union members' award conditions. Shorten's influence frequently facilitated
    a win - win result for company management and the unions. The bosses
    acquiesced while Shorten and the relevant union committed their members to
    industry agreements that offered inferior conditions of pay and conditions overall. Many
    of these rorts were subsequently overturned or are in the process of being overturned.
    However it would be naïve to believe the situation could not be reversed with a stroke
    of a pen with a change in government.

    Of course this paints Shorten as cynical and self serving - a hypocritical back room
    manipulator who is incapable of leading our country with foresight and courage..........
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    4th Nov 2018
    6:36am
    And for those conned into thinking that the statement ''50% goes to funds with more than $2.4 million'' suggests 50% goes to wealthy people - think again! Bowen really is a con artist and a fraud with these statements.

    SMSFs can have 4 members. Most have at least 2 and many have 3 or 4. Let's assume the lower figure. That would mean the members had $1.2 million each. They can't legally have more than $l.6 million in retirement funds anyway, and if they do they pay tax on the balance so they keep their credits.

    So clearly, Bowen is saying 50% of the benefit goes to people with $1.2 million OR LESS. If there are 4 in the fund, they have an average of only $600,000 each - barely enough to even be self-funded! And he's saying 50% DON'T have as much as $2.4 million, so he's openly admitting that 50% of those he's attacking have less than $1.2 million invested. At the national average of 5% return (Treasury figures), that gives them an income of just $60,000 a year, and if they derived that income from a source other than invested assets they would qualify for a pension. Now these are the RICHEST of those he claims to be attacking. So the other 50% he's attacking have way less than that. As the article says, many have less income than a pensioner.

    Bowen's claims are utter BS. On the one hand he's claiming to attack the wealthy, and on the other he's freely admitting that he's attacking people with very modest means and potentially low incomes.

    He lied initially, and apparently he's now changing his story but phrasing it to confuse and blindside the gullible. Sadly, there are way too many gullible in this country.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    4th Nov 2018
    8:33pm
    SMSFs can now have 6 members so you can have 4 members contributing so that their contributions tax is paid by the franking credits of the fund. Result is those in pension phase keep their franking credits and pay no tax.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    5th Nov 2018
    7:00am
    Which makes the proposed policy even more STUPID and DISCRIMINATORY, and unlikely to yield much in the way of savings - but certainly likely to disadvantage many very unfairly.

    Higher income earners still get the benefit. Rich people in funds with higher income earners still in accumulation mode still get the benefit. Rich people with fund balances substantially over $2.4 million still get the benefit. Pensioners with multi-million dollar houses or taking expensive cruises to keep their assets down still get the benefit.

    The ONLY loses are the struggling less wealthy HONEST self-funded retirees who can't manipulate to take unfair advantage of STUPID and PATENTLY UNFAIR tax policies.
    Lothario
    4th Nov 2018
    4:13pm
    Yes this is an amateurish biased attempt at a poll

    Loaded questions and ridiculous options
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    5th Nov 2018
    7:33am
    The opponents of this STUPID and UNFAIR policy (that has nothing whatever to do with any ''loophole'' - because there isn't any 'loophole') will have the last laugh if Shorten gets his way. Yes, a lot of people will suffer, but ultimately it's the most disadvantaged who will suffer most.

    Pensioners are far too busy gloating about being excluded to bother considering what the real aim is - but the real aim is REDUCING and EVENTUALLY ELIMINATING the Aged Pension. Both parties want it gone. Both parties are screaming constantly about the cost. The younger generation is insanely jealous of today's retirees and whinging constantly about how 'unfair' it is that 'lucky baby boomers' had 'a free ride' and they are now having to pay for our retirement. Grattan Institute (dominated by people with strong Labor affiliations) is demanding the OAP be made a loan against deceased estates. Lots of privileged pigs endorsing that idea - even on this forum!)

    But while some retirees are enjoying a comfortable retirement and favoured tax treatment, attacking the needy is just not acceptable to anyone. First, you have to grind the MAJORITY into hardship. Put more folk on a level playing field - all dependant on government, powerless, and with insufficient money to engage in protests of any kind. Then the government can do as it pleases.

    All you unthinking Labor supporters will shake your heads and say Labor is the champion of the underdog. You poor gullible fools! They have USED the underdog brilliantly to win power. How much do ALP politicians get paid? What do they even KNOW about the underdog's life? Didn't see them scream when the LNP used the savings from bashing struggling retirees with the cruel assets test change to benefit people with $300-$500,000 in the bank. Not a word about the LNP NOT giving one cent to the poorest. NOT ONE WORD. Don't see them fighting for reform of an aged pension system they and their allies said was hopelessly flawed and needed a complete overhaul. And now they are knowingly attacking working class battlers for having saved for retirement and KNOWINGLY LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH about who will be hurt by their unfairness. What about that wonderful superannuation policy that LABOR claims will help people retire without a pension. Massive tax breaks for high income earners to load up their accounts. NOTHING for the lower income earners and very little for those in the middle. If Labor cared about the underdog and fairness, they would have fixed that with a tax policy of 15% LESS than YOUR marginal rate and a cash contribution to the fund where that puts the tax at less than $0. But no, they happily let high income earners rort the public purse for billions and whinge about the cost of supporting the less wealthy.

    The ALP is not a charity. It's not a lobby for fairness. They are OPPORTUNISTS. Pure and simple. And this policy is about OPPORTUNITY to change the landscape to a more socialist nation where the less privileged are more equally poor, more equally dependant, and therefore more equally powerless and compliant. It's about stopping battlers who strive achieving comfort and self-sufficiency and elevating their family above the class they were born to, because the rich want to go back to feudal days when they were lords and masters and the rest of the world bowed and scraped.

    Truth is BOTH major parties are colluding to achieve the same goal, and they are playing a game of ''you propose/we'll oppose'' to achieve their united filthy aims. And the poor suckers who can't see it will be the people who suffer most. But a lot of them deserve to suffer. They are so unbelievably greedy and selfish that they think they are ENTITLED to a handout of around $1 million from taxpayers to fund THEIR retirement, yet they support a demand that people who worked harder and lived more frugally, but are struggling to be self-sufficient, get NOTHING. Unbelievable that anyone could be so greedy - and so blinkered!
    Captain
    5th Nov 2018
    8:31am
    OGR, I have to agree with your assessment of both major parties and don't forget the Greens, sniveling self serving scum. They helped the LNP pass the revised Assets Test to the deteriment of over 450,000 over 65's.

    After working for over 45 years each, paying taxes, contributing to the less well off as well as volunteer work, educating three children who all contribute to todays economy, my wife and I receive nothing but disrespect from the political parties.

    And now they want to bash us even more for having the temerity to better ourselves. Well let them try. They will soon find that many of us older people have little time for them and we will fuel the revolution (as we did in the 1960/70's).

    I would have thought all political parties would consider those who sought to save taxpayers the cost of up to $1.0m+ in their retirement would have been lauded rather than crushed.

    Arrogant cretins who can't distinguish between s**t and clay.
    Rae
    5th Nov 2018
    8:43am
    Unfortunately if you look at the legislation being proposed and passed the LNP and ALP are colluding nicely together. They are coming after savers with liquid funds. It's the last money left standing and there is desperation after so many foolish policies with no consideration of the consequences nor the costs.
    Adrianus
    5th Nov 2018
    9:38am
    I find it rather amusing to see hard line, rusted on Labor supporters, say all parties are the same when their beloved Labor party shows them a lack of regard. Both parties are not the same. Labor want to hit some retirees by partial withdrawal of the imputation system. Labor want to increase Newstart Allowance. While the LNP want to increase the OAP. I don't receive any Social Security payments so I'm not affected either way.
    If the Labor 'franking credit' policy is as above then it is a lot worse than many may think.

    What exactly does this mean??
    "Labor’s plan would be to remove the way by which shareholders can reduce their taxable income. Once the franking credits are removed, those declarable incomes would actually be much higher." ?? When incomes are much higher, more tax is paid and for some less OAP is received.
    My take on this is that they will simply not recognise the franking credits for certain individuals? All others, including large corporations and the banks that they continually lambaste will be eventually dragged down by this, causing a weakened economic outlook. Seems they want to do whatever it takes to stall our growth?
    mr.auspicious
    5th Nov 2018
    10:09am
    I've said this before and at the risk of repeating myself, it should be apparent that this
    country is over governed. Currently there are three levels of government operating
    which is one level too many. State governments are a relic of the horse and buggy
    era and have long passed their use by date. Immediate economic benefits would result
    if state legislatures were dissolved - there would by one agenda for key functions
    such as health, education, transport, energy, policing etcetcetc. These services would
    be delivered to the taxpayer more efficiently as a result, and the resultant savings would
    not only enable the imputation system to be retained in its current form, but also
    facilitate improved social security overall.

    The sticking point with all of this, is the country would require a new constitution.
    It is an item that transcends state and federal squabbles that erupt whenever a state
    believes its relevance is being threatened by the intrusion of federal reforms. It is
    matter that would require bi-partisan political support but in reality it would be easier
    to herd large numbers of domestic animals.
    It appears no Australian political party or politician is ready to undertake these urgent
    reforms. Of course certain political careers would be extinguished but the electorate
    is paying an increasing high price to maintain the current mediocre standard.

    btw - for anyone interested, there is a petition being compiled to protest against the
    proposed changes to current imputation rules - google Wilson Asset Management -
    www.wilsonassetmanagement.com.au. ( for the record, apart from signing this
    petition, I have no other affiliation with this organisation ).
    Adrianus
    5th Nov 2018
    10:26am
    mr.auspicious, I agree with smaller government concept. I would like to see no more than 6 state/territory reps placed by the Federal Government. We have started the process by amalgamating Councils and reducing staff numbers by outsourcing to the private sector, but the state members are coated with Teflon. One of the reasons we make very little progress in Australia that we elect 75 members to govern and another 75 to stop them.
    Old Geezer
    5th Nov 2018
    11:46am
    Labor is about to create a big loop hole for the rich with their non return of franking credits policy.
    Old B.
    6th Nov 2018
    1:44pm
    My wife and I retired with about 500,000 in super which we advised to put it into shares in a self managed fund. We receive about 2200 per month to live on , that's less than the pension. Part of that comes from the franking credits which is effectively a third of our income. We are struggling to pay the bills as it is so things will be grim if they take the credits off us . I guess the answer is to blow all our super and go on the pension . at least our income would increase and the government can keep us.
    Old Geezer
    6th Nov 2018
    1:55pm
    I suggest telling your story here.

    https://nationalseniors.com.au/campaigns/current/franking-credits
    Lothario
    6th Nov 2018
    3:53pm
    The pension asset threshold should be raised to $1.6 million for singles and $2.0 million for couples
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    6th Nov 2018
    4:30pm
    Or the assets test abolished, Lothario. It is currently a ridiculous disincentive to saving and driving the cost of paying pensions much higher than it needs to be. Very STUPID.
    Old Geezer
    6th Nov 2018
    2:11pm
    Franking credit refunds hot topic at high-level summit

    By Chief Advocate Ian Henschke
    Earlier this week I was a panellist at a major retirement summit in Sydney where 130 attendees, mostly self-funded retirees, dissected Labor’s policy that could result in retirement income being slashed through the removal of franking credit refunds.
    NSA Chair Chris Guille, Deputy Chair Ross Glossop, Director Valerie Pratt and National Council Member Robert Frith were also at the event hosted by the Alliance for a Fairer Retirement.
    Speakers included academics, financial planners and economists. Respected Australian National University researcher Associate Professor Geoff Warren outlined his modelling of the policy and showed retirement savings would fall by an average of 8-9 per cent.
    Keynote speaker Assistant Treasurer Stuart Robert said: “The critical point is that more than 45 percent of the 900,000 people (who would be) affected are 65 years or older.”
    Unfortunately, no-one from Labor attended despite repeated invitations. Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen has said he will not revisit this policy before the election, although it has had one major adjustment since being announced - pensioners who own shares won’t lose their franking credits.
    A highlight was the address by veteran journalist and founder of Business Review Weekly, Robert Gottliebsen, who stressed the unfairness of the policy.
    To demonstrate this unfairness, he compared two retirees with the same financial situation and roughly the same investment portfolios. One has shares in an industry super fund and the other doesn’t, and under the Labor policy they will be treated differently. The one with shares in the industry fund will get their franking credits and the one who has shares in their own name or a self-managed fund won’t.
    Mr Gottliebsen said the policy also failed to do what it promised: to raise money from rich people.
    “The rich will still get their franking credits and so will the pensioners. It will be the million-plus people in the middle who will be worse off,” he said.
    Perhaps one of the biggest surprises was Mr Gottliebsen’s prediction that the federal government would go to a half-senate election in May 2019, followed by the House of Representatives election in November. The reason?
    “This franking credit issue needs time to be explained and when understood could be the biggest issue the election is won or lost on because it affects so many voters and their families.”
    Chair of the Parliamentary Inquiry into franking credits, Tim Wilson MP, also spoke and raised the question: “Why bother saving if you are no better off?”. He said we needed comprehensive tax reform and this was lazy policy.
    In all, it was an enlightening and valuable exchange of views and information about this important issue.
    To find out more and how you can be part of our campaign, make a submission or tell your story, click here.

    https://nationalseniors.com.au/news/latest/franking-credit-refunds-hot-topic-at-high-level-summit?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Connect+593%3A+1%2F11%2F18&utm_content=nationalseniors.com.au%2Fnews%2Flatest%2Ffranking-credit-refunds-hot-topic-at-high-level-summit&utm_source=www.vision6.com.au
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    6th Nov 2018
    4:28pm
    Unfortunately, Labor voters are not intelligent enough to consider the FACTS. They just swallow Bowen and Shorten's lies hook, line and sinker.

    Anyone with a BRAIN knows this policy CANNOT hurt anyone who earns enough to pay tax at more than 30%, and the lower your tax rate, the more you suffer unfairly. So it's a tax on struggling retirees, NOT on the wealthy.

    Also, anyone with a brain knows it can't affect people with large superannuation balances, because over $1.6 million you pay tax and claim the credits. Rich people don't keep their wealth in super pension accounts anyway because they have far better tax havens. But this dumb policy proposal ONLY hurts those with smaller superannuation balances. Many who are affected have barely enough to be over the pension threshold and incomes well below the OAP. They will be pushed onto pensions (which ironically will probably mean a huge income increase for them!!!)

    Therefore, this policy can only hurt people with LOW INCOME/MODEST WEALTH and Tax Avoiders. The latter should be dealt with by appropriate means - NOT by demolishing the income of over 400,000 retirees with modest means.

    As for ""They don't pay tax so why should they get a refund?"" Same reason pensioners get a handout to assist their retirement. These people may not pay tax, but they contribute tens of thousands annually to the federal coffers by living off their savings - contributing around $1 million each on average over the course of their retirement. That means they are of as much benefit to the nation as a taxpayer paying $40,000 a year tax - and yet you greedy Labor-voting pensioners support taking a few thousand in franking credits - effectively taxing them 30% on their savings. Unbelievable that leaners could be so greedy. And unbelievable that Shorten and Bowen could be so dishonest and dumb Labor voters can't see through their lies.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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