Inquiry into franking credit policy being scrutinised

Inquiry to test public response to franking credit policy now under scrutiny.

Inquiry into franking credit policy being scrutinised

The Labor Party’s proposal to rescind the current imputation cash refund system is once again the topic of the day. But in a somewhat bizarre twist, it is the parliamentary inquiry established to test public response to this policy that is now under scrutiny.

The taxpayer-funded inquiry is officially titled An inquiry into the implications of removing refundable franking credits.

It was established by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics in September 2018, purportedly to review the impact(s) of Labor’s proposed changes to franking credits. At the time the committee chair, MP Tim Wilson stated:

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

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

In itself, such an inquiry is highly unusual as parliamentary inquiries have rarely been used to interrogate opposition parties’ proposals. Some would argue that they never should be. And although the term ‘retiree tax’ has been used as shorthand for this reversal, it is not a tax, but a reversal of a cash payment.

Fast forward to February 2019 and many meetings have been held, allowing interested parties or those who feel they may be affected by these changes, to share their views.

But it appears that this taxpayer-funded inquiry has not been following the parliamentary rules in at least three different ways.

According to Katherine Murphy at The Guardian, it seems that, as chair of the parliamentary committee, Mr Wilson has drafted proforma submissions to this inquiry, which he will later assess, while wearing the chairman’s hat, as evidence. During hearings, membership forms for the Liberal Party have been distributed. And a distant relative of Mr Wilson, who is leading the charge opposing the policy, has been allowed to coordinate his group’s protests with sittings of the inquiry. As Ms Murphy opines, at the very least this is an egregious breaking of parliamentary conventions for political gain and reinforces the public perception that politicians cannot be trusted.

In another update, Fairfax journalist, Eryk Bagshaw, claims that the Coalition has used this inquiry to fundraise for the Liberal Party, with Liberal MP Jason Falinski offering access to committee chair Tim Wilson in exchange for a donation to the party. Furthermore, in the electorate of Goldstein, voters were invited to a meeting with Mr Wilson at $220 per head. 

At the time of writing, Labor’s Shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, was calling for Tim Wilson to stand down from the inquiry, while Treasurer Josh Frydenburg stated on ABC Radio National that Tim Wilson had adhered to the rules.

It seems the election campaign has definitely begun.

What say you? Is this inquiry a sham? A political witch-hunt? Or is it a legitimate use of taxpayers' money to shed light on an important possible change to retirement income?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    cupoftea
    8th Feb 2019
    10:33am
    I would not expect any thing different from an LNP member
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    12:06pm
    I expect nothing different from Labor. Went the heat gets too much they go to desperate extremes.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    1:26pm
    Yes, OG. For once I agree with you. This inquiry has put them under the microscope and clearly they don't like that it is revealing how sloppy and ill-conceived their policy is.
    Adrianus
    8th Feb 2019
    4:44pm
    Labor thought they could slip this tax grab in under the radar.
    Rae
    8th Feb 2019
    4:48pm
    I think they forgot to do the homework and under estimated the number of people holding franked shares who would be affected. They thought it would just be a few rich people.
    Unfortunately picking on smallish minority groups seems to be the policy of both Parties.
    TREBOR
    8th Feb 2019
    7:08pm
    Has anyone seen the full policy statement?
    Captain
    8th Feb 2019
    8:01pm
    Trebor, the full policy has not been released.
    MICK
    8th Feb 2019
    9:30pm
    cupoftea: what has come out is as fake as the Liberal Party itself. First Wilson is related to the so called revolt group. Second is the wealthy vested interests driving this debate and the links to the current government.
    I suspect this issue has some way to go and that Shorten will be forced to make amendments AS HE SHOULD. I personally have no objection to Labor bring this in as long as low income retirees are not put to the sword. Shorten has several options. He can put a threshold in place after which the credits reduce to zero or he can top up low retiree incomes up to pension level.

    What Shorten has to fess up to is if he intends to savage self funded retirees who are NOT wealthy or high income earners or if he wants a fair Australia. Anything else may be seen as jealousy towards those who have funded their own retirements and have amassed a few assets to do this. Given how most retirees came by these it is clearly not fair to ignore the sacrifices people made to get to that slightly better place in life.

    Shorten may want to give this some thought as he may well lose the unlosable election. Boomers are not exactly a small group and from what I have read on this website a number are going to vote with their feet. Stupid politics Bill. Stop looking in the mirror and end this madness!
    Rae
    9th Feb 2019
    7:47am
    MICK boomers are not the only ones who buy into funds or shares instead of lotto and lottery and horse races or footy match score competitions. It's just that shares are more consistent payers. All those I see at the local club or newsagent lining up for that regular flutter could have had a portfolio of shares if they had chosen that instead of putting the money onto pure chance.
    Younger people seem to prefer buying investments rather than gambling to try to win.
    I'd like to see the demographic breakdowns for this Investment we boomers are supposedly doing.
    If Labor get this wrong then yes they will lose.
    Something bad may be coming as it appears both Parties are bent on losing the next election. Neither seem to be making sound decisions or taking experienced advice. I did read the Credlin gutted the Senior Advisory Service so that could be the problem.
    Rae
    9th Feb 2019
    7:47am
    MICK boomers are not the only ones who buy into funds or shares instead of lotto and lottery and horse races or footy match score competitions. It's just that shares are more consistent payers. All those I see at the local club or newsagent lining up for that regular flutter could have had a portfolio of shares if they had chosen that instead of putting the money onto pure chance.
    Younger people seem to prefer buying investments rather than gambling to try to win.
    I'd like to see the demographic breakdowns for this Investment we boomers are supposedly doing.
    If Labor get this wrong then yes they will lose.
    Something bad may be coming as it appears both Parties are bent on losing the next election. Neither seem to be making sound decisions or taking experienced advice. I did read the Credlin gutted the Senior Advisory Service so that could be the problem.
    Rae
    9th Feb 2019
    7:47am
    MICK boomers are not the only ones who buy into funds or shares instead of lotto and lottery and horse races or footy match score competitions. It's just that shares are more consistent payers. All those I see at the local club or newsagent lining up for that regular flutter could have had a portfolio of shares if they had chosen that instead of putting the money onto pure chance.
    Younger people seem to prefer buying investments rather than gambling to try to win.
    I'd like to see the demographic breakdowns for this Investment we boomers are supposedly doing.
    If Labor get this wrong then yes they will lose.
    Something bad may be coming as it appears both Parties are bent on losing the next election. Neither seem to be making sound decisions or taking experienced advice. I did read the Credlin gutted the Senior Advisory Service so that could be the problem.
    Rae
    9th Feb 2019
    7:47am
    MICK boomers are not the only ones who buy into funds or shares instead of lotto and lottery and horse races or footy match score competitions. It's just that shares are more consistent payers. All those I see at the local club or newsagent lining up for that regular flutter could have had a portfolio of shares if they had chosen that instead of putting the money onto pure chance.
    Younger people seem to prefer buying investments rather than gambling to try to win.
    I'd like to see the demographic breakdowns for this Investment we boomers are supposedly doing.
    If Labor get this wrong then yes they will lose.
    Something bad may be coming as it appears both Parties are bent on losing the next election. Neither seem to be making sound decisions or taking experienced advice. I did read the Credlin gutted the Senior Advisory Service so that could be the problem.
    Rae
    9th Feb 2019
    7:47am
    MICK boomers are not the only ones who buy into funds or shares instead of lotto and lottery and horse races or footy match score competitions. It's just that shares are more consistent payers. All those I see at the local club or newsagent lining up for that regular flutter could have had a portfolio of shares if they had chosen that instead of putting the money onto pure chance.
    Younger people seem to prefer buying investments rather than gambling to try to win.
    I'd like to see the demographic breakdowns for this Investment we boomers are supposedly doing.
    If Labor get this wrong then yes they will lose.
    Something bad may be coming as it appears both Parties are bent on losing the next election. Neither seem to be making sound decisions or taking experienced advice. I did read the Credlin gutted the Senior Advisory Service so that could be the problem.
    Rae
    9th Feb 2019
    7:47am
    MICK boomers are not the only ones who buy into funds or shares instead of lotto and lottery and horse races or footy match score competitions. It's just that shares are more consistent payers. All those I see at the local club or newsagent lining up for that regular flutter could have had a portfolio of shares if they had chosen that instead of putting the money onto pure chance.
    Younger people seem to prefer buying investments rather than gambling to try to win.
    I'd like to see the demographic breakdowns for this Investment we boomers are supposedly doing.
    If Labor get this wrong then yes they will lose.
    Something bad may be coming as it appears both Parties are bent on losing the next election. Neither seem to be making sound decisions or taking experienced advice. I did read the Credlin gutted the Senior Advisory Service so that could be the problem.
    srs21
    8th Feb 2019
    10:35am
    Of course it’s a scam. There suppose to be no other country doing the franking scam, only us. It was put in place in the Hawke/Keating govt, to stop businesses and wealthy from paying double tax, temporarily,but Costello changed the rules.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    12:05pm
    So it's OK to give back $34 billion to high income earners and take $6 billion form low income earners.

    I agree Labor's policy is a scam and a very unfair one that will hurt the vulnerable. It's nothing but elder abuse on a grand scale.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    1:35pm
    It's NOT a scam, srs21. Clearly you have no idea how it works, much less any understanding of the huge economic benefits. Leading economists credit the policy with reducing the impact of the GFC, such that Australia was less badly affected than any other country. Sometimes, it's good to be different.

    Now as to your rubbish claim of a scam ---- you think low income earners should pay 30% more tax than is due on their income if, and only if, they (1) invest in good Australian companies to drive economic growth; and (2) support themselves in retirement and don't demand handouts from the taxpayer or earn a low income?

    How is it a 'scam' to refund overpaid tax? Is it a scam if a worker or businessman pays too much PAYE or PAYG tax and claims a refund of the overpayment? Is it a 'scam' if the bank mistakenly takes withholding tax from your interest payment and you claim it back?

    Joe, Tom and Jack both have shares in ANZ Bank. ANZ bank pays them both a dividend, but it takes 30% of that dividend and sends it to the ATO before paying them. Now, Labor claims that somehow Joe, who earns $200,000 a year salary, and Tom, who has $6 million in super, paid 30% of their dividend in tax and entitled to a reduction of their income tax accordingly, but Jack, who is retired with just $750,000 invested and an income of $37,000 a year to support himself and his wife, should forfeit the 30% tax taken from his dividend - effectively paying 30% tax on a legally non-taxable income. The fact that that reduces his income to less than $30,000 a year and he therefore decides to spend $100,000 on home renovations and claim a part OAP - costing the nation more - is of no concern to the Labor Party or their misled supporters. They can't think past swallowing the lies their favoured politicians tell hook, line and sinker.

    Yes, Costello changed the rules - TO MAKE THEM RIGHT AND FAIR to low income earners.
    Alexii
    8th Feb 2019
    4:41pm
    You are quite correct in your argument, Old Genuine Rainey. One can also add the case of the person (such as my wife), too young to get a pension and earning a less than taxable income. Her savings have been taken out of term deposits that were earning almost nothing and put into shares in companies that have franked dividends. Now the ALP want her and people like her, to NOT get that franking credit paid to her, the tax that was paid by the company on her behalf. Yet another shareholder the same company has huge holdings, earns way above a taxable income and will get paid that franking credit by means of reducing that person's tax bill. There is certainly no logic and no equity in that, is there. Yet some people are saying that people who do not have a taxable income are not entitled to those franking credits. It's downright appalling and a gross discrimination against people on low incomes. But of course such people don't count in the eye of either major party, do they.
    Rae
    8th Feb 2019
    4:55pm
    They certainly don't Alexii. Both Parties colluded to change Centrelink eligibility to groups of people based on false assumptions recently. It seems to be becoming a bad habit.
    The people affected did as asked or compelled and then had promises revoked quite unfairly and with no recourse in some cases. Disadvantaged by legislation which had always been something Australian Governments had tried to avoid. I fear there is no honour left amongst politicians. Perhaps the odd one can see past propaganda and try for fairness. Those honest ones really have no power though do they?
    MICK
    8th Feb 2019
    9:34pm
    OG - your normal nonsense. Your LNP government introduced tax cuts for the wealthy, not Labor. I hope Shorten introduces a bill to kill off these tax cuts as they are blatant right wing handouts to those who do not need them at a time when average Australians are at breaking point. If you don't accept that then wait until interest rates go up 2%. No more belt tightening possible and there'll be a heap of keys left on the kitchen table and banks asking for bail ins (money stolen from depositor accounts). Coming!
    Retired
    8th Feb 2019
    10:10pm
    OnlyGeniuneR is wrong in his assertation dividends are taxed. They are not. Dividends are paid out of net earnings ie after company tax has been paid. Imputation offsets that part of the company tax paid against personal income so it is not paid twice BUT tax is still paid by the company. Franking credit is a payment to those who have structured their incomes to pay no tax and is a $5bn transfer to them of company tax paid. Why should this group get a $5bn subsidy rather than many other equally worthwhile groups in the community?
    For retirees genuinely in need it might be better put into increased pensions. This would be much fairer.
    arbee
    8th Feb 2019
    11:05pm
    Only a very few left wing supporters agree with shortens big tax grab from retirees. Whats with you Mick, didn't you invest in secure companies and therefore don't get any tax imputation credits. Or maybe are you just on a secure government pension that is automatically increased every year.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    1:17pm
    Retired, explain to me how a tax from dividends is not tax and not to be refunded to someone with no taxable income, but is tax and to be credited to someone with ample other income to live off and not in need of a tax refund?

    And why should pensioners get taxpayer-funded handouts but the self-supporting - many of whom live on less than the pension - get nothing and lose 30% of their dividend income?

    Why aren't you screaming that Shorten and his mates who claim $34 billion in tax credits - for tax taken from dividends and paid to the ATO EXACTLY the same as the tax taken from my dividends - should give up their ''largesse''.

    Sorry, you are DEAD WRONG MATE. You are subscribing to a hypocritical lie designed to benefit the rich - because all the bloody wealthy keep their benefit under Shorten's filthy policy. Well of course! Wouldn't want Shorty, Bowen or their rich mates paying more, would we? Just bash the struggling self-funded retirees who are saving the nation tens of thousand a year and tell huge lies to turn the pensioners, who live on taxpayer money, against them. Labor stole the pension I worked my guts out and paid tax for 40+ years to earn, and now they want to steal my savings as well.

    No doubt you live off the taxpayer, Retired? Like so many other GREEDY SELFISH pensioners who share the Communist view that what is theirs is theirs and what is mine is theirs also.
    The Care Bear.
    11th Feb 2019
    8:23am
    Retired, you really need to research a topic before posting gibberish. Perhaps get your carer to explain Imputation Credits.
    Old Geezer
    11th Feb 2019
    4:29pm
    Retired my dividend statement tells me how exactly much tax I have paid on that dividend. If you have franked credits you have paid tax as that is the only way you can get franked dividends. Stop peddling that Labor rubbish as it make you look like a fool.
    ardnher
    14th Feb 2019
    5:26pm
    personally not affected by changes to franked dividends as I do pay tax every year.

    however, I think it is unfair that shareholders in a company who pay tax through their shares should have their cash refunds taken away because they personally do not pay tax.

    dont vote for shorten!
    Not a Bludger
    8th Feb 2019
    10:42am
    As a self funded retiree this is absolutely a legitimate use of taxpayers money and well done to Tim Wilson.
    And, just look at all the leftie journos and pollies crawling out of the woodwork to say otherwise - condoning a most discriminatory outrage against both current and future retirees.
    In particular, future retirees who already have their retirement plans in place will be very hard hit.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    2:47pm
    Not a Bludger most leftie journos and pensioners don't know what a franking credit is and think they are missing out somehow
    Rae
    8th Feb 2019
    3:05pm
    Not as hard hit as retirees locked into annuities when the LNP changed all the rules. No changing anything for them nor getting their money back to start again.
    At least you can sell down shares or rebalance allocations or just splurge and then get a part pension and concession cards.

    I must admit it is pretty stupid to hit a lot of the same people twice. Obviously nobody else has any money they can get hold of. The Country is up to it in debt and none of this nonsense is a good idea with a recession looking likely.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    3:42pm
    Christmas 2020 is going to be a bad one for everyone.
    Rae
    8th Feb 2019
    4:56pm
    Yes OG it certainly is. It will be a real shock to those who haven't seen a recession or a real banking crisis.
    Deborah advocating for an Australian as head of state
    8th Feb 2019
    11:05am
    The question put above 'is the enquiry a sham' , yes on the basis of the reports given by Karen Murphy on Eryk Bagshaw. The credits are not a tax but a reversal of a cash payout and its original intent was changed. Therefore it needs to be redone. However there is a difficulty for those who have developed their retirement financial plan on its basis. I hope that this is taken into account if and when there are changes. I also hope that sef-funded retirees havent solely relied on this strategy and had the good sense to have diversity in their portfolios.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    12:07pm
    So it's OK to give back $34 billion to high income earners and take $6 billion form low income earners.

    Shame on you.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    1:41pm
    Deborah, you have obviously swallowed the Labor Party's BS.

    The ARE a refund of tax paid that wasn't owed. Study the system a little before you make silly claims. Jack, Joe and Tom all have shares in ANZ and all receive the same dividend. ANZ correctly deducts 30% of the dividend and sends to the ATO.

    According to you, and Labor Party politicians, Jack (who earns $200,000 a year) and Joe (who has $6 million in super) should be recognized as having paid that tax and credited accordingly - reducing their tax bill. But Tom, who has only $750,000 invested but total assets of just over the pension threshold, should have to forfeit the 30% tax taken from his income. How was his payment NOT tax, if Jack and Joe's WAS tax. That makes no sense at all!

    Labor is lying to push a sloppy, ill-conceived and very harmful policy. Even the OECD has condemned it as dangerous and harmful policy.

    Thank goodness the opposition to it is apparently worrying Labor. They need to drop this rubbish and take a more responsible approach to addressing the budget deficit and finding money for schools and health. They are being LAZY. There are plenty of better options.
    Not a Bludger
    8th Feb 2019
    8:51pm
    Jeez, Deborah - not only do you not understand Shorten + thug union mates hitting self funded retireees (everybody else including companies, super funds etc get the full benefit of franking credits to reduce their tax liability and get a refund if credits exceed tax liability) as a narrow group - how much discrimination and denial of equity would you prefer - and your Murphy and Bagshaw are just plain wrong, but that is how they try to earn a quid, is it not.
    Ted
    8th Feb 2019
    11:19am
    It is disgraceful. Using taxpayer funded committee to offer a platform to disgruntled taxpayers to criticise an opposition policy. Then seek to sign up people to Liberal Party and fund raise. As it is reported too that there are no witnesses just a town hall meting for people to express opinions this is a disgraceful misuse of public funds. An ethical government would close this committee down.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    12:08pm
    Well they are taxpayers.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    1:43pm
    An ethical politician wouldn't tell the blatant lies Shorten and Bowen have told to win support for a very bad policy.
    ghoti
    8th Feb 2019
    2:52pm
    OnlyGenuineRainey writes: "An ethical politician wouldn't tell the blatant lies Shorten and Bowen have told …" Can you tell me what some of those lies are?
    Ta.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    3:17pm
    Just have a read of Labor's website as the lies fly out everywhere to greet you.
    ghoti
    8th Feb 2019
    3:35pm
    I know I'm a silly old duffer, OG, but I looked at the website and I can't tell what's a lie and what isn't. Can you please tell me some of the lies?
    Thanks.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    5:06pm
    Well, it's a lie to say Labor's FC policy targets people with more than $2.4 million, because it hits hardest at those with just over the assets test limit and struggling on low incomes.

    It's a blatant lie to say the Franking Credit cash refund is 'a scam' or 'a rort', because it's a perfectly legitimate and fair refund of overpaid tax - and Labor admits that high income earners and the wealthy should get a credit for the tax taken from their dividends, but then says low income earners should be overtaxed unfairly.

    Oh, and they lie about how much their FC policy can save, because they are using 3-year-old outdated data and major reforms in the past two years have changed the landscape dramatically.

    Given their arrogant refusal to discuss their FC policy I think they lie about it being aimed at economic benefit. I think it's 100% political. They hate self-sufficiency. They want to control, and to do that they need to get more people reliant on welfare. Self-funded retirees threaten their plan to dominate.

    That's just a couple of a myriad of lies, ghoti. Labor is renowned for them. But I sympathize with you, because unfortunately for this nation, they are quite good liars and a lot of folk believe them.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    5:09pm
    Oh, and there was the lie that some folk are getting tens of millions in cash FC refunds and paying no tax. NOBODY gets a refund unless they paid tax that wasn't payable. The ATO is NEVER going to give money to someone who didn't pay them more than was due. And to get mega-millions in FC refunds, one would have to have mega-millions invested in shares. If anyone that rich is declaring no taxable income, then investigation and remedy is needed. Cancelling franking credits for struggling retirees on low incomes is NOT a valid solution.
    Dave R
    8th Feb 2019
    11:21am
    Of course this is another LNP scam use of taxpayer money for their own benefit. Both major parties do things like this but this time the LNP has been caught red handed.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    12:08pm
    So it's OK to give back $34 billion to high income earners and take $6 billion form low income earners.

    Shame on you.
    Paddington
    8th Feb 2019
    12:24pm
    OG, you are repeating yourself!
    LNP would be proud of you arguing their wrongs but you are probably paid though!
    Logic goes out the window with you when you defend something that is so obviously biased and not innocent by an involved participant.
    There are many retirees who are happy to forego this money preferring it to go to their grandchildren and great grandchildren’s education.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    12:27pm
    So it's OK to give back $34 billion to high income earners and take $6 billion form low income earners.

    Shame on you.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    2:52pm
    Why don't you forgo some of your ridiculously high pension Paddington for your grandkids education etc. I know you are on a full pension and have a low I Q , but surely you don't believe what the Labor party takes will go to education, it is going straight to union coffers.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    5:16pm
    For once, Paddington, I agree with Robbo. Give up some of your damn pension. It's free money, handed to you by battling taxpayers who you want to steal from. And it must be damned generous, because apparently Misty can afford to spend $20,000 on vet bills for animals over 18 months. That's about as much I'll have to live on for a year if Labor gets its selfish way.

    Fund education with YOUR money instead of stealing from people who don't get the handouts you enjoy. I'll forego income when all those who spend more freely give up THEIR taxpayer-funded handouts and live on the piddling income you selfish Labor-supporters demand I should be reduced to.

    I save the government about $50K a year. I'm dam well ENTITLED to fair taxation.
    TREBOR
    9th Feb 2019
    12:45pm
    Pension is bought and paid for - no comments on people's intelligence please - such comments make you look stupid.

    Try answering the question instead.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    1:07pm
    Pension is bought and paid for, Trebor? I paid for BOTH pension AND my savings, but Labor has stolen my pension, and now it wants to steal my savings as well, and Paddington supports that theft. If he's not lacking intelligence, then he's an accessory to theft - which is criminal. I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt.
    Sundays
    9th Feb 2019
    9:59pm
    Bought and paid for Trebor and no one should have to justify their entitlement!
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2019
    9:55am
    And SFRs bought and paid for it to, but not only are they denied, selfish Labor supporters want them ripped off with unfair taxes as well and left with less than most pensioners enjoy. But of course selfish Labor supporters choose to ASSUME that SFRs are all wealthy and pensioners are all poor - to justify their Robin-Hood-in reverse greedy grab. Always wanting someone else's money taken to give them more. No respect for others and not the slightest bit of interest in anyone else's welfare, much less in fairness.
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2019
    9:55am
    And SFRs bought and paid for it to, but not only are they denied, selfish Labor supporters want them ripped off with unfair taxes as well and left with less than most pensioners enjoy. But of course selfish Labor supporters choose to ASSUME that SFRs are all wealthy and pensioners are all poor - to justify their Robin-Hood-in reverse greedy grab. Always wanting someone else's money taken to give them more. No respect for others and not the slightest bit of interest in anyone else's welfare, much less in fairness.
    Deborah advocating for an Australian as head of state
    8th Feb 2019
    11:24am
    Dave R all political parties look to leverage where ever they can. But not all political parties use a parliamentary committee paid for by taxes to do so. This is not standard practice and it hasnt been done ethically. That is the issue here.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    1:19pm
    Not all political parties threaten the harm Labor is threatening, and tell the lies they are telling to try to justify their evil. Somebody had to expose them. I notice they didn't arc up until it started to hurt them badly. They are running scared, and so they should be.
    auldtic
    8th Feb 2019
    11:29am
    This inquiry is obviously a scam. I sincerely hope that in the near future more ethical practices can be re introduced to the political discourse in Australia
    Captain
    8th Feb 2019
    3:40pm
    Not likely with the idiots we currently have in Parliament.
    LJ
    8th Feb 2019
    11:40am
    Labor setting its attack dogs onto Wilson does not alter the fact that Labor will regret its unfair retirement (and negative gearing) tax policies.

    Labor has already spent in promises the $billions it anticipated from the new taxes. Shorten and Bowen have told the affected public to suck it up.

    Old people don't vote Labor they believe, echoing Julia Gillard's contemptuous referral to the aged when she was PM and Shorten and Bowen were her ministers. Where Shorten and Labor have such hubris now, how will the old fare if Labor gets in with a large majority and promises to the Greens to keep?
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    12:03pm
    Gee Labor must be hurting to go to such desperate measures.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    2:38pm
    Labor has zero integrity
    TREBOR
    9th Feb 2019
    12:46pm
    Desperate measures - I'd say that shoe was on the other foot... using taxpayer funds to travel about spruiking your party line is pretty desperate.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    1:20pm
    No complaints from Labor until it started to hurt, Trebor. But yes, Wilson is scared - and rightly so. All intelligent Australians are very scared of the harm Labor will do if it gets this policy across the line.
    ardnher
    22nd Feb 2019
    4:34pm
    labor does not know how to budget and handle money...we have seen that in the past. easier to tax people.
    we all know Labor like to spend, spend, spend. watch the defit increase even more if they get in.
    jwp
    8th Feb 2019
    12:06pm
    Quoting from the Guardian and the fairfax journo s is the first mistake.secondly why can not the govt ask its voters what they want and how a piece of legislation will affect them . Should be more of it !
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    12:10pm
    Shame on anyone who votes for that policy as it is nothing but elder abuse.
    fred
    10th Feb 2019
    2:55pm
    yes jwp Kaye should also take some quotes from others e.g. Peta Credlin and co and have a more balance view in her article Note also Choices CEO is in favour of labor proposed policy to remove franking credits btw while they are at it , Labor should review the assets test on government funded aged pensions , like why are couples allowed to have over half million dollars ( $848,000 ) assets and still receive a part government pension with all the tax free concessions as well or a couple who owns their house with additional $387,500 assets for a full government pension of $35,916 more than often all tax free . Why do taxpayers fund these pensions when couples can keep between $387,500 and $848,000 and they call foul when self funded retirees want to keep their tax exempt retiree incomes and refunds of imputation credits already deducted from their super fund or personal dividends ?
    fred
    10th Feb 2019
    2:56pm
    yes jwp Kaye should also take some quotes from others e.g. Peta Credlin and co and have a more balance view in her article Note also Choices CEO is in favour of labor proposed policy to remove franking credits btw while they are at it , Labor should review the assets test on government funded aged pensions , like why are couples allowed to have over half million dollars ( $848,000 ) assets and still receive a part government pension with all the tax free concessions as well or a couple who owns their house with additional $387,500 assets for a full government pension of $35,916 more than often all tax free . Why do taxpayers fund these pensions when couples can keep between $387,500 and $848,000 and they call foul when self funded retirees want to keep their tax exempt retiree incomes and refunds of imputation credits already deducted from their super fund or personal dividends ?
    Anonymous
    10th Feb 2019
    8:11pm
    Absolutely right fred.
    If labor wanted to be really fair and HONEST about their impacts on retirees, they should level the playing field and reduce the asset threshold to have the same impact as the franking credit loss to a modest self funded retiree affected by this insane labor policy
    Nerk
    8th Feb 2019
    12:06pm
    If I loose franking credits I'll be eligible for the pension.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    12:10pm
    So will 500,000 others.
    Batara
    8th Feb 2019
    12:40pm
    Well sue the crooked adviser who set the rort up for you. You should have recognised it was a scam at the time.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    12:44pm
    So it is OK that I earn $100,000 and pay no tax under Labor's proposal but someone earning $20,000 loses 30% of their low income. So I take my family on a luxury cruise and they have a lot less to spend on groceries each week.


    That is how you so called "rort" works!
    Captain
    8th Feb 2019
    3:44pm
    Nero, you may be eligible for the pension, but 2it the proposed Labor policy you will never receive the Dividend Imputation Credits return.
    Captain
    8th Feb 2019
    4:09pm
    Sorry, that should be Nerk and "with the proposed". Darn auto word check.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    5:23pm
    Batara, you are a blind fool. No 'crooked advisor' set up any rort for anyone. Tax is taken from dividends. If it isn't due and payable because the recipient is a low income earner, it should be refunded. What kind of self-serving idiot says the poor should be taxed unfairly and the rich given a credit for the exact same tax deduction?

    The current law is right and fair. If some are taking advantage of it unfairly by manipulating their income to appear to have less than they earn, that's an issue for the ATO and perhaps a change in law to make tax avoidance harder. It's is NOT a reason to demolish the incomes of struggling low-income earners who responsibly invested in growing Australian companies.

    Do you want hundreds of thousands to lose their jobs because investing in Aussie businesses is no longer feasible for any but the rich? Clearly you WANT a massive recession and pain and suffering for the poor - because it's the neediest who will hurt most when Labor's stupid policy demolishes the economy.
    Lookfar
    10th Feb 2019
    10:46pm
    Nerk, and will probably be better off.
    libsareliars
    8th Feb 2019
    12:24pm
    Should Tim Wilson resign _ YES! Talk about corrupt.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    5:32pm
    Then most of the Labor Party need to resign, because they are corrupt thieving liars. Tim Wilson is trying to protect people who the Labor Party plans to rob blind. He's standing up for what is right.
    Paddington
    8th Feb 2019
    7:35pm
    OGR, do you know who Wilson is?
    the_Albert
    9th Feb 2019
    12:31am
    OGR, do you know the difference between procedure and substance? The question here is whether Tim Wilson is in breach of parliamentary rules and conventions when he uses a standing committee for party political purposes. Of course he is. The fact that in your opinion his substantive position is desirable has nothing to do with it.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    1:05pm
    No, the_Albert, he IS NOT. Labor have lied. He has no vested interest and is only very distantly related to Geoff Wilson, who also has no vested interest. '

    Yes, Paddington, I know who Wilson is, and he is doing this country a service. We NEED the truth of Labor's evil plans exposed. If the inquiry was revealing that Labor was doing a good thing, they wouldn't be screaming and spreading dishonest accusations. They can't stand the heat, so they have to resort to false accusations. Sad really! A competent politician would be listening intently to the feedback on his policy and taking notes, not stubbornly insisting it will not be changed no matter what. All Shorten is doing is confirming he is not qualified for the job he seeks.
    Lookfar
    10th Feb 2019
    4:07pm
    Hi Libs are liars, here an interesting comment,
    February 1 at 11:09 AM ·
    SHARE THE FACTS: New numbers out today show gross debt has hit another new record of $540.8 billion under the divided, dysfunctional and chaotic Liberals.
    Lookfar
    11th Feb 2019
    10:02am
    Basically it seems he set up an enquiry but it wasn't an enquiry just blatant politicking, it seemed to be under parliamentary priviledge but isn/t, the word for Tim Wilson is depraved.
    That he seems to be on the same side as certain opinion holders does not justify his actions, - it more reflects badly on those opinion holders' ability to look objectively at an argument.
    It is called Trumpism in America, it is jingoistic, not nationalistic. and indeed it has done enormous damage in America, and of course Morrisin is a bit tarred with the same brush.
    He will do anything to keep his mouth on the teat, his behavious has to be seen as the last gasp of an incompetent.
    Some more info on the Franking tax issue.
    https://theconversation.com/words-that-matter-whats-a-franking-credit-whats-dividend-imputation-and-whats-retiree-tax-111423?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20February%2011%202019%20-%201232411349&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20February%2011%202019%20-%201232411349+CID_ce0f0cff2563b169079c9e66571c52f4&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=cheat%20sheet
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2019
    10:57am
    And the debt will skyrocket further if Labor have their way, because their policies are going to drive a massive recession.
    This debate is NOT about which party is better. It's about a POLICY that IS WRONG. If everyone stopped focusing on politics and recognized that focus on a POLICY and urging Labor to review their approach based on FACT (which is what the inquiry is all about) could potentially ensure Labor DOES win the election but DOESN'T cause the harm a flawed policy threatens.
    Why is Labor so determined to STOP the exposure of FACT? Responsible politicians would support the inquiry and welcome its findings so that they can review their policy and ensure it is right, or make appropriate amendments where needed to address the problems. Labor's attitude to the inquiry proves then incompetent and unsuited for government and Labor supporters here are evidencing that they are self-interested and have no concern for what is good for the nation, much less any respect for others who may suffer unfairly as a result of a flaw in a policy that COULD be amended if people stopped being so bull-headed and relying on flawed assumptions and PAID ATTENTION TO THE FACTS THE INQUIRY IS EXPOSING.
    andromeda143
    8th Feb 2019
    12:28pm
    Since we are being so free and easy with rules and conventions, perhaps there should be a taxpayer funded enquiry into why pensioners who travel overseas for more than six weeks are reclassified as no longer pensioners by Centrelink and have their concession cards cancelled, even though they are still receiving pension payments.
    Oh, and while we are going with it, how about an enquiry into what effect the government's policy (or lack of one) on climate change is having on our childrens' futures and on our energy costs.
    Come to think of it why don't we have parliament investigate the effect of all political promises on us and then we can vote on them knowledgeably at the coming election.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    12:31pm
    If you can afford to travel overseas for more than six weeks you should be collecting the pension.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    12:32pm
    Climate change used to be called global warning and its nothing but a con on the masses so the wealthy will making a killing out of it.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    12:30pm
    So most of you think it is OK hat I earn $100,000 and pay no tax under Labor's proposal but someone earning $20,000 loses 30% of their low income. So I take my family on a luxury cruise and they have a lot less to spend on groceries each week.

    If you think that is fair then shame on you as it's elder abuse.
    Batara
    8th Feb 2019
    12:44pm
    OG no one earning $20,000 would lose 30% of their income. That is a lie and you know it. Your posts on this page are despicable
    You show yourself to be greedy, self-centred and anti-social. Blind Freddy himself could see that getting a refund from the ATO when you are not paying tax is ridiculous.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    1:00pm
    I know lots of people who earn $20,000 and will lose 30% of that low income. I fear for those people many who lost their pension and now will lose 30% of their ow income as they tried to earn more income to survive without the pension.

    I earn $100,000 and pay no tax but I get all my franking credits back so it is a lie that those who pay no tax should not get their franking credits back.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    1:47pm
    WRONG Batara. OG is absolutely correct. There will be people with incomes of $20,000 who will lose 30% of their income. There will a vast number with incomes lower than the OAP who will lose 30% of their income. The high income earners won't lose a cent, and neither will wealthy SFRs.

    And yes, OG is right that those who lost their pension in the assets test change - having their incomes slashed by up to $12000 a year - will lose up to that much again if Labor gets their policy through the Senate.

    It's BAD policy, because it doesn't hurt the well off - only struggling self-funded retirees who are saving the government tens of thousands every year and DESERVE fair taxation.

    You are showing yourself to be greedy, self-centered and anti-social by demanding that people be denied a refund OF TAX THEY DID PAY BUT DIDN'T OWE. Get you facts right. NOBODY GETS A REFUND WITHOUT FIRST PAYING THE TAX. NOBODY!
    GeorgeM
    8th Feb 2019
    3:09pm
    OG, you didn't call it elder abuse when the Assets Test changes hit hundreds of thousands of retirees severely as well as affected the retirement plans of many tens of thousands pre-retirees who were already committed to their plans. You supported the elder abuse then.
    Why is a similar attack by the Labor party not to your liking - Labor & Liberal are part of the same Tag Team, and you should be treating both's attacks the same - unless you are paid by the Libs. Also, too many self-centred posts from you here not adding much to the discussion.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    3:19pm
    Yes I supported it and still do.

    However I don't support Labor's policy because quite simply it rewards the rich and hurts the poor.

    There is a big difference.
    KSS
    8th Feb 2019
    3:22pm
    Batara, you just don't seem to understand how this will work. The franking credits are tax the company pays on the shareholders' behalf before paying the balance to the shareholder as dividends. Thus means when the shareholder receives their payment, tax has already been paid.

    Now when that shareholder holds a paying job, when they do their tax return they declare the dividend income ans deduct the tax already paid on it from their tax liability. This means they reduce their tax liability because they have already paid some of it (the company paid it directly to ATO much like income tax on salary). If you owe more tax you pay it. If you have paid too much you receive a tax refund.

    Now the problem with Mr Shorten's policy is that if your income on your tax return is lower than the taxable threshold, you will not receive a refund of the tax already paid on your dividends, even though you are not eligible to pay any tax at all.currently this is paid to you by the tax office as a cash return.

    The upshot is that people who pay income tax or indeed any tax on assets will still be able to claim their franking credits as a tax offset or refund. People who do not pay any tax will not be able to claim those same franking credits so will lose that cash payment from the tax office.

    And most of those people are people who rely on that credit refund for their living costs ie pensioners who managed to buy a few shares.

    Mr Shorten has even acknowledged this fact but supported Mr Bowen's conjecture "you can vote for someone else". Well that is clear and good advice wouldn't you say if your income will be reduced as a result of this policy tax on pensioners?
    GeorgeM
    8th Feb 2019
    3:37pm
    So, OG, you have just confirmed you supported and continue to support elder abuse! You have no credibility as a result!
    Labor's policy doesn't affect the poor - only those wealthier than the pensioners! You are really confused, clearly your self-interest blinds you totally.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    3:40pm
    So you too super elder abuse then.
    GeorgeM
    8th Feb 2019
    3:49pm
    You are confused, how did I support elder abuse? I didn't support either policy change - I know you say my post below also.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    6:18pm
    GeorgeM, if you support Labor's FC policy, you support elder abuse. It DOES NOT affect the wealthier. It cripples poor self-funded retirees. It exempts pensioners, even if they own a $4 million house. Most of those it will impact are much poorer than any part pensioner. Do you claim a couple with a $400,000 house, $900,000 in total assessable assets, and an income of just $35000 a year and no pension or concessions is 'wealthy' compared to a pensioner with couple with a $1 million house, $500,000 in assets, and a generous part pension plus all benefits and concessions? Does the latter couple NEED their franking credits and the former not?

    No, you are wrong on this point GeorgeM. It is you, not OG, supporting elder abuse. And BTW. the flow-on impact from Labor's policy WILL hurt pensioners badly, and all working Australians also.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    6:31pm
    I do agree, though, that OG supported elder abuse by supporting the assets test change. That certainly was elder abuse, and every bit as wrong as Labor's evil. It's just unfortunate that Labor is hitting the same people who suffered most due to the LNP's cruelty.
    Paddington
    8th Feb 2019
    7:39pm
    Who owns a $4m home and is on apension?
    GeorgeM
    8th Feb 2019
    9:23pm
    OGR, you are getting blinded by your hate of the Labor FC policy to attack anyone other than the Liberal trolls. When did I ever say I support that policy and how did you dare to suggest I support elder abuse (if I support that policy, when I never did that anyway)?
    Certainly your next comment is right - OG has and continues to support elder abuse with his support for the assets test change. The main point of my post here was to point that out, as OG is a hypocrite to claim to be against elder abuse while he continues to support that nasty change.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    9:25pm
    Met a couple a few months back who own a $3 million apartment on the Gold Coast and collect the full OAP. They told me that every time they run out of money they downsize and had done it a few times already. They were thinking it was time they did it again as they had found a luxury cruise they liked. I didn't like to ask what the cost of their first dwelling was but guessing it must have been more than $5 million.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    9:43pm
    GeorgeM that policy that changed the assets test was clearly set out and you were given at least 18 months warning.

    Labor's franking credit policy is full of lies and has many people believing something it clearly isn't. Hence we have a parliamentary committee trying to sort it all out and let people know who it really affects. That is very sloppy policy and has people left in limbo not knowing who or how they will really be affected.
    GeorgeM
    8th Feb 2019
    11:50pm
    No, the assets test change was legislated in late Sep 2015 and came into effect in Jan 2017, only 15 months later, not 18 months, with NO Grandfathering. That is grossly unfair and inadequate time to change any plans, e.g. changes to Pension Age had 10 years lead time. The Assets Test change was also a Broken Promise of Abbott "No Change to Pensions" just before his 2013 election - the worst deceit in recent memory of Retirees.
    No one who doesn't support elder abuse should ever support such a bastardly attack by the Liberal party, and they need to pay for it NOW.

    If Labor's policy is bad, let the people vote against them - they even suggested that! No need to waste taxpayer's money on a parliamentary enquiry on the Opposition's policy - that is the job of the PBO, and this enquiry clearly looks like a politically driven stunt.

    As I stated in another post below, Bowen is working hard to make Labor lose with such policies - so why should Lib supporters complain? He is on your side!
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    1:27pm
    GerogeM, the extent of harm Labor threatens, the general ignorance of the population on the topic, and the massive lies Labor is telling to take advantage of that ignorance made an inquiry necessary. We simply can't take the risk of letting ill-informed people vote a party into power and implement a policy this dangerous without a proper investigation of the risks it implies and exposure of the facts.

    'Bowen is working hard to make Labor lose, but they are still way in the lead at this point, and the level of misinformation circulating is terrifying to those who understand what Labor is planning to do.

    I can't forgive the LNP's treachery either, but if it comes down to a two horse race, what do we do? We simply CANNOT let Labor do far worse - with their first target being those who the LNP already damaged so badly.

    I don't think this inquiry is a politically-driven stunt at all. I think it's a wise act of caution to ensure that Labor isn't given a free hand to do massive harm without the people being first properly alerted to the truth.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    1:27pm
    GerogeM, the extent of harm Labor threatens, the general ignorance of the population on the topic, and the massive lies Labor is telling to take advantage of that ignorance made an inquiry necessary. We simply can't take the risk of letting ill-informed people vote a party into power and implement a policy this dangerous without a proper investigation of the risks it implies and exposure of the facts.

    'Bowen is working hard to make Labor lose, but they are still way in the lead at this point, and the level of misinformation circulating is terrifying to those who understand what Labor is planning to do.

    I can't forgive the LNP's treachery either, but if it comes down to a two horse race, what do we do? We simply CANNOT let Labor do far worse - with their first target being those who the LNP already damaged so badly.

    I don't think this inquiry is a politically-driven stunt at all. I think it's a wise act of caution to ensure that Labor isn't given a free hand to do massive harm without the people being first properly alerted to the truth.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    4:47pm
    And BTW. Georgem - Labor introduced means testing in the first place, and in case you didn't know, they conspired with the Greens to get the assets threshold change legislation passed, and confirmed they would not change it. They simply wanted it to LOOK like they opposed the change.

    OG, the assets test change WAS evil, because those hurt had very limited or no options to get around the change, no matter how much notice they had. And it was PATENTLY WRONG, because the average return rate is only 5% and after taking into account cash needs and non-returning personal and household effects and car, a couple just over the new threshold is lucky to have $750K to invest, which generates an income of less than the OAP when the concessions and benefits are counted - and way less than the income of part pensioners with a few hundred thousands in assets. It's simply WRONG to put people in the position of being worse off for having saved. Every retiree who saved should be better off than if they hadn't, otherwise there is a strong incentive to spend down or manipulate to go on the pension. It's this WRONGFUL assets test that is to blame for your friends having a $3 million apartment and getting a full pension. But honest folk with a $400,000 house are suffering for doing the right thing. There is simply NO justification for that. It IS elder abuse. It IS wrong. And it IS against the national interest. And it IS disgraceful that a clear election promise was blatantly broken, with no evidence of conscience or integrity.
    Sundays
    10th Feb 2019
    9:39am
    KSS, pensioners are exempt from Labor’s policy. I did volunteer tax help for over 10 years, and pensioners aren’t receiving much by way of Franking Credits. A small refund to pay a few bills. I agree with Labor here. What you have to remember though is that low taxable income does not always equate with low income. Income from Superannuation is tax free once you’re over 60 and is not included in a tax return.
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2019
    10:01am
    Yes, even wealthy pensioners are exempt, but SFRs are crucified permanently no matter how poor and no matter how poor they might become. And some are disgusting enough to endorse that unfairness. Socialist SCUM!

    What BS, Sundays. Lots of pensioners are getting substantial credits. And if low taxable income isn't low income, fix the TAX. Don't attack those ON LOW INCOMES - which is what Labor is doing. They have exempted anyone with a substantial declared income and retirees with a large asset base.

    Income from super is well documented and the ATO knows who gets what because super funds must submit audit reports declaring all member balances and drawings. The lies being told to justify Labor's wrong are just disgusting. Decent people respect others and demand fairness for all - NOT STINKING FAVOURITISM FOR ONE GROUP AND STUFF THE REST.
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2019
    10:01am
    Yes, even wealthy pensioners are exempt, but SFRs are crucified permanently no matter how poor and no matter how poor they might become. And some are disgusting enough to endorse that unfairness. Socialist SCUM!

    What BS, Sundays. Lots of pensioners are getting substantial credits. And if low taxable income isn't low income, fix the TAX. Don't attack those ON LOW INCOMES - which is what Labor is doing. They have exempted anyone with a substantial declared income and retirees with a large asset base.

    Income from super is well documented and the ATO knows who gets what because super funds must submit audit reports declaring all member balances and drawings. The lies being told to justify Labor's wrong are just disgusting. Decent people respect others and demand fairness for all - NOT STINKING FAVOURITISM FOR ONE GROUP AND STUFF THE REST.
    Jess M
    8th Feb 2019
    12:32pm
    Imagine if we set up an enquiry into every PROPOSED policy.

    A democracy means the people will vote for the policies they believe in.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    12:34pm
    Shame on you if you believe in this policy.
    Dongers
    8th Feb 2019
    12:51pm
    Keep up the good work OLD Geezer
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    7:16pm
    Imagine if we allowed the population to vote with a total misconception about a policy, due to 3-year-old out-of-date and irrelevant figures being quoted and blatant lies being told by the proposing party.

    The inquiry was motivated by valid concerns that the vast majority of people were being totally misled about what the policy implies and its likely consequences.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    7:16pm
    Imagine if we allowed the population to vote with a total misconception about a policy, due to 3-year-old out-of-date and irrelevant figures being quoted and blatant lies being told by the proposing party.

    The inquiry was motivated by valid concerns that the vast majority of people were being totally misled about what the policy implies and its likely consequences.
    Dongers
    8th Feb 2019
    12:50pm
    Tim Wilson is doing a community service on behalf of Seniors - well done to him!!!
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    12:54pm
    Exactly.

    Labor must be getting very scared as evidenced by the all desperate measures they are going to do to stop the truth being told. Looks like their lies are coming back to haunt them to me.
    Kaye Fallick
    8th Feb 2019
    1:42pm
    Hi Old Geezer, your original comments are appreciated - but not when cutting and pasting the same remark - it does not add anything extra to the discussion. Do you mind observing the spirit of debate on our site and not flooding all comments with the same observation? Many thanks, Kaye
    ghoti
    8th Feb 2019
    3:20pm
    So, Dongers, "Tim Wilson is doing a community service on behalf of Seniors"? That's like applauding Barnaby Joyce for breaking the law by giving extra water allocations to his big farming mates, at the expense of environmental flows, and saying "Well, at least it's going to irrigators."
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    6:27pm
    No, Ghoti. What Tim Wilson is doing is protecting people who Labor want to steal from, taxing them unfairly on income that by law is not taxable. Nothing like Barnaby Joyce at all. Nobody is giving unfair benefit to the people Labor is attacking. Labor is taking fair benefit away from people, based on blatant LIES that they didn't pay tax. If they didn't pay tax, the ATO would not be giving them ANYTHING back. They get franking credit refunds because they were taxed on income on which they were not legally liable to pay tax.

    Labor's lie is that they don't pay tax. They most certainly DO. And they are morally, ethically and currently legally entitled to a refund. Labor wants to keep crediting the rich and says THEIR tax is tax, but he claims if you are poor the money paid in tax is NOT tax. Next these idiots will be saying PAYE taken from wages of redheads isn't tax but if your hair is brown it is! Would be no more illogical and no more dishonest, but I'll guarantee THAT would be widely opposed!
    Priscilla
    8th Feb 2019
    12:56pm
    Tax had already been paid and the franking credits are there so people are not taxed TWICE!
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    1:06pm
    I can hear people screaming all the way to the moon and back if they taxed interest at 30% and didn't give it back because people didn't pay tax.

    It is just a stroke of the pen for this to happen too if the getting their franking credit policy through.
    Retired
    8th Feb 2019
    11:00pm
    You are absolutely correct Priscilla.
    OGR and OG simply do not understand that there is no taxation of dividends. Dividends are paid out of retained earnings ie after company tax and other expenses have been deducted. Imputation means that for those paying tax there is an offset BUT the company tax is still paid. With franking credits the company tax is transferred directly to those who have structured their incomes to pay no tax. It is a subsidy to them. How is that fair?
    Why should one group get a $5bn subsidy and not other equally deserving groups?
    Ethan’s it could even be used to increase pensions for those who genuinely need financial assistance.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    12:59pm
    Retired, please explain how 30% deduction from Bill Shorten's dividend, sent to the ATO, is TAX and he should pay less income tax by claiming a credit for it, but the exact same 30% deduction from my dividend income, sent to the ATO just like his, is NOT tax and not refundable?

    Franking Credits are NOT a 'subsidy'. They are a proper refund of overpaid tax. If low income earners aren't entitled to their refund, then high income earners should not be entitled to a credit. You can't have one rule for the rich and another for the poor and call it 'fair'. You say why should one group get a $5bn subsidy and not others? Why should one group pay 30% tax on their income and others with higher incomes get them tax free? Why should some people get a pension AND franking credits, while some people get NOTHING, just because they worked and saved to be self-sufficient?

    Nobody is getting a $5 bn 'subsidy'. They are getting back tax that was taken from their income that wasn't payable. Exactly like PAYE and PAYG taxpayers get back refunds if they paid too much.

    Increase pensions!!! OMG!! The bloody pensioners are already getting far more than the poor buggers you want to rob. Bugger off you greedy unfair creep and let us enjoy the pittance of income we are able to generate from our hard-won savings. Pensioners are the ones getting the 'subsidy'. Shareholders are just getting back tax taken that wasn't owed, making up income (hopefully, for most) to a moderately liveable standard.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    1:00pm
    Retired, please explain how 30% deduction from Bill Shorten's dividend, sent to the ATO, is TAX and he should pay less income tax by claiming a credit for it, but the exact same 30% deduction from my dividend income, sent to the ATO just like his, is NOT tax and not refundable?

    Franking Credits are NOT a 'subsidy'. They are a proper refund of overpaid tax. If low income earners aren't entitled to their refund, then high income earners should not be entitled to a credit. You can't have one rule for the rich and another for the poor and call it 'fair'. You say why should one group get a $5bn subsidy and not others? Why should one group pay 30% tax on their income and others with higher incomes get them tax free? Why should some people get a pension AND franking credits, while some people get NOTHING, just because they worked and saved to be self-sufficient?

    Nobody is getting a $5 bn 'subsidy'. They are getting back tax that was taken from their income that wasn't payable. Exactly like PAYE and PAYG taxpayers get back refunds if they paid too much.

    Increase pensions!!! OMG!! The bloody pensioners are already getting far more than the poor buggers you want to rob. Bugger off you greedy unfair creep and let us enjoy the pittance of income we are able to generate from our hard-won savings. Pensioners are the ones getting the 'subsidy'. Shareholders are just getting back tax taken that wasn't owed, making up income (hopefully, for most) to a moderately liveable standard.
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2019
    10:22am
    No explanation, Retired? No, because you've got it wrong.
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2019
    10:23am
    No explanation, Retired? No, because you've got it wrong. No subsidy. Just FAIR TAX, and Labor wants to make it UNFAIR to struggling SFRs and rip them off with 30% tax more than they should have to pay on their LOW incomes, while continuing the benefit to the wealthy.
    Lookfar
    15th Feb 2019
    11:49am
    Priscilla, here is my reply to OGR fyi.

    Hi OGR, I have read almost all your posts, and they all contain slander and abuse, so using a very good old rule, that if, in an argunent, you start using insults, - let alone abuse, - you have run out of truth, whatever you say has to be regarded as dodgy. Now, an earlier poster maintained that very few companies first take tax out of the dividends they pay, they normally just pay the lot, and to me that makes more sense, easy peasy. no wasting money on an accountant to do that extra work, and easy for the shareholder as well.
    So why does a company take out the tax and pay it themself, of course, stands out like dog's whatsis, - so they can claim that payment off their tax, win win, they don't actually pay the tax, and get to keep more of their profits.
    So the tax department doesn't get the tax, ie the Australian people don't get their tax, - Again, and the the OGR's in the system get to be paid money out of the general Australian income.
    It should just take the Tax Office doing a couple of successful prosecutions on companies involved in that fraud, and fining them severely, cancelling their right to trade or a jail sentence or two and there will be no more Franking credits to confuse the ATO, and Mr Shorten can let go of a complicated situation that only benefits the Accountants and their old mates the banks.
    That way, any pensioner or part pensioner will recieve the full money from his share earnings, and everything is then between the share owner, (including OGR) the tax department, and God.
    So OGR, you have done good by stirring the pot, also by discrediting your evidence so I was able to more objectively look at other evidence, I will inform the Tax dept and Mr Shorten of the lapse in logic behind the almost unforgivable fuss, and hopefully all will be well for all.
    Anonymous
    15th Feb 2019
    6:29pm
    Lookfar, I'm sorry to have to say it, but you are talking utter rubbish. I got a dividend statement today that showed a taxable income of $457.14, but I only received a payment of only $320. Where is the rest? The company says it was paid to the ATO. The ATO says it was paid to the ATO. In fact, the franking credit system has been the driver for companies to actually PAY THEIR TAX, because their shareholders can then claim it back.

    Now, if the company didn't pay tax, then the ATO has to take that up with the company - NOT ROB ME OF THE BALANCE OF MY DIVIDEND OWING TO ME, AS STATED ON THE DIVIDEND STATEMENT.

    Any information you give Mr Shorten will be as PATENTLY WRONG as the nonsense he is spruiking.

    I agree it would be useful for shareholders if companies stopped paying tax and paid the shareholder 100% dividend instead, but it would NOT be good for the nation. You are dreaming when you say the company didn't pay the tax. Where is your proof? You have none, because it's total rubbish to say that banks and Telstra document a payment of tax that was never made. The ATO would have acted long before now if that were the case.

    I am NOT PAID ONE CENT out if general government income - unlike the pensioners who are screaming support for a policy that steals my EARNED income, while they live on TRIPLE HANDOUTS.

    I think it's the people supporting THEFT OF MY LIVELIHOOD who are abusive. Words do no harm, but stealing the income someone relies on to pay their food bill and keep a roof over their head - THAT IS ABUSE!
    Anonymous
    15th Feb 2019
    6:29pm
    Lookfar, I'm sorry to have to say it, but you are talking utter rubbish. I got a dividend statement today that showed a taxable income of $457.14, but I only received a payment of only $320. Where is the rest? The company says it was paid to the ATO. The ATO says it was paid to the ATO. In fact, the franking credit system has been the driver for companies to actually PAY THEIR TAX, because their shareholders can then claim it back.

    Now, if the company didn't pay tax, then the ATO has to take that up with the company - NOT ROB ME OF THE BALANCE OF MY DIVIDEND OWING TO ME, AS STATED ON THE DIVIDEND STATEMENT.

    Any information you give Mr Shorten will be as PATENTLY WRONG as the nonsense he is spruiking.

    I agree it would be useful for shareholders if companies stopped paying tax and paid the shareholder 100% dividend instead, but it would NOT be good for the nation. You are dreaming when you say the company didn't pay the tax. Where is your proof? You have none, because it's total rubbish to say that banks and Telstra document a payment of tax that was never made. The ATO would have acted long before now if that were the case.

    I am NOT PAID ONE CENT out if general government income - unlike the pensioners who are screaming support for a policy that steals my EARNED income, while they live on TRIPLE HANDOUTS.

    I think it's the people supporting THEFT OF MY LIVELIHOOD who are abusive. Words do no harm, but stealing the income someone relies on to pay their food bill and keep a roof over their head - THAT IS ABUSE!
    Susanb
    8th Feb 2019
    1:07pm
    Total sham. Shame on NLP. And for those who keep referring to this as a tax, do some more reading
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    1:10pm
    Sounds like you have been reading the lies on Labor's website to me.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    1:53pm
    You need to do more reading, Susanb. When 30% of a dividend due to someone is taken and sent to the ATO, THAT IS TAX. Labor says it's ONLY tax if the dividend was due to someone who has a substantial taxable income or well over $1.6 million in super. The wealthy should be deemed to have been taxed and credited accordingly, but if it's taken from a poorer persons income, and they happen to be a self-funded retiree, it's somehow not tax and not refundable? That's just stupid!

    Next these idiots will be saying if you have red hair your PAYE deductions aren't tax.

    Wake up to the facts. Labor is lying and stealing and will harm the country by doing so.
    ghoti
    8th Feb 2019
    3:23pm
    OG and OGR: I still don't know what Labor's lies are. Can you please tell me what they are?
    Thanks.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    6:36pm
    Read the comments here, ghoti. They are spelled out again and again and again.
    That retirees who live on dividends and receive franking credits are getting cash back without paying tax is the biggest lie. They are getting back the tax that was taken from their income but was not owed. Exactly as they should. That same tax taken from the guy earning $200,000 a year is classed as tax and credited against his tax bill. How the hell can it be tax for him and not for the struggling poor retiree? That is a blatant lie, and one anyone with an ounce of logic should see through immediately!
    Lookfar
    17th Feb 2019
    9:07am
    Susanb, I doubt that anything these people would read could change their minds, OG has already suggested that what you read is 'labours lies' - money lies behind all their statements / asseveratons, OGR has defined anybodies questioning his scam as 'Abuse',- he has worked out a nice little scheme where the ATO pays for his retirement and exposing it is Abuse? someone who is caught raping is Abused by the witness? - Cameras with images of criminals robbing a bank are not evidence but Abuse? - this is taking language faking to a unbelievable level, a level nobody with any intelligence would accept
    Lookfar
    17th Feb 2019
    10:09am
    Susanb, I doubt that anything these people would read could change their minds, OG has already suggested that what you read is 'labours lies' - money lies behind all their statements / asseveratons, OGR has defined anybodies questioning his scam as 'Abuse',- he has worked out a nice little scheme where with the deliberate connivance of the company he has invested in the ATO pays for his retirement and exposing it is Abuse? someone who is caught raping is Abused by the witness? - Cameras with images of criminals robbing a bank are not evidence but Abuse? - this is taking language faking to a unbelievable level, a level nobody with any intelligence would accept.
    Mondo
    8th Feb 2019
    1:11pm
    There's a simple solution, vote independent and let an independent cross bench free of political ideology and dogma decide in the best interest of the country. The Banking RC, inaction on climate change and retiree policies prove that neither major party cares about anything beyond self and party donor interest.
    To use tax payers' money to gain party members and contributions is verging on corruption and Wilson should be sanctioned.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    1:14pm
    All the current cross bench are against this policy. Tim Wilson is doing a great job and I expect nothing less form a polly. The truth needs to exposed so the government is also doing a great job by allowing it to be exposed.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    1:55pm
    I agree. In this instance, we need the truth. I hope Tim Wilson is following the rules, but certainly someone needs to highlight the dangers of Labor's bad policy and counter the lies they are telling.

    Yes, vote independent if there is an independent running in your electorate. Sadly, some people won't have a choice. The two party system is destroying this country, and both parties are too powerful and too corrupt for the national good.
    Lookfar
    17th Feb 2019
    11:16am
    Another simple solution is to read the lies of Donald Trump, - gob smacking to use an american word, - it is quite subtle, you could amost wonder if you were crazy, such a disconnect between reality and what the president of the united states says, but just draw back a moment and you can easily see the hoax.
    On YLC, there is little evidence of the 256 Trolls implanted from the Russians in Australia, but quite a lot of evidence that the thousands of Koch Bros trolls are very active in any discussion group that does not require proof of nationality, residence etc, - sadly that may be the future.
    Of course every thing is denied, but from what i have observed, Koch Bros, (they would be working under a different name) pay for Frequency, - the more their 'employees' post, the more they get, the more 'results' they get (not sure what is meant by 'results' - maybe people replying?) anything that decreases the respect of the site, - (eg I suspect abuse, sly innuedos, character assassination etc), and finally, a very restrictive rule book on what has to be said for each issue, - Hey, sounds like a bureaucrat, - or a computer...
    Anyone else has any info on YLC trolls, - I would guess, OG, Adrianus, Bob Menzies, Lothario, and reluctantly, possibly OGR. and quite a few more that have been discredited.
    I doubt that either the liberal or labour party have paid trolls, - far too likely to be caught out, but the .01%, they whom own the media, the coal and oil mines, the means of production, distribution and exchange, - and of course most politicians, etc. Yes, they pay whatever it takes, they have unlimited resources, - and no morals, - back to justify my first line.
    =
    " My sister forwarded me an email that had gone viral after a Quora commenter asked the question ”Why Do British People NOT Like Trump?”. Normally I would not share viral posts, but after having read the response from a writer named Nate White, (who I am unable to identify) I decided that it needs to be seen in it’s entirety. It is a tart, witty and acidic indictment of Traitor Don. So many zingers I lost count.

    I was able to find a html version of the comment and response here.

    “A few things spring to mind…

    Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.

    For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.

    So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

    Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever.

    I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.

    But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

    Trump is a troll.
    And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

    And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

    There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.

    Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.

    Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.

    And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.

    rump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.

    He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.

    He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.
    And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.

    That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.

    There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.

    So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think

    ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’

    is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:

    Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.

    You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

    This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.

    After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form;

    He is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit.
    His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.

    God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.

    He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.
    In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.

    And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:

    ‘My God… what… have… I… created? ”
    floss
    8th Feb 2019
    1:22pm
    Get off your computer O.G and do some charity work help a neighbor plant a tree rejoin the human race you poor old guy.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    1:58pm
    Where do you think I have been for the last few weeks. Down in Tassie fighting fires.
    Andy
    8th Feb 2019
    1:34pm
    the most important thing this is going to be used for election funding, so there is no doubt it is a scam and should be put in the bin until after the elections
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    1:56pm
    It's NOT a scam, Andy. Labor is scamming. Their lies MUST be exposed.

    8th Feb 2019
    2:02pm
    A question for all who think franking credit refunds should be stopped:

    Many Australian companies take 30% of EVERY shareholder's dividend and send it to the ATO. That's fine. Tax is a necessary feature of our economy.

    According to Labor, however, that is tax that should be credited against tax payable
    - by anyone who either earns enough other income to be liable to pay tax (including very high income earners)

    - by anyone with substantially more than $1.6 million in super, and thus paying some tax on their superannuation income

    It is NOT tax, but should be refunded anyway to any pensioner, no matter if they own a $4 million house

    BUT it is NOT tax and therefore NOT refundable to any self-funded retiree who has less than $1.6 million in assets.

    How the hell can it be tax when paid by a wealthy person but the exact same payment to the exact same body under the exact same conditions is not tax when paid by a poorer person?

    Of course it is tax and it is therefore refundable to anyone who isn't liable to pay tax! And Labor is stealing and lying. End of story. There is no other logical interpretation. You can't call something tax when paid by Joe and the exact same payment not tax when paid by Fred.
    Captain
    8th Feb 2019
    3:58pm
    OGR, could this policy be referred to the Human Rights Commission as it discriminates against a minority of the retired (SFR's) by not giving them their refund but giving the refund to the majority of retired (pensioners). Not to mention that Industry Fund members and those with more than $1.6M will also receive the refund.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    4:55pm
    This policy is also constitutionally wrong under section 51.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_51(xxxi)_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia

    "the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws"

    Labor is acquiring one's franking credits without just terms.
    Rae
    8th Feb 2019
    5:05pm
    What about laws that turn 48% non concessional amounts into 10% for benefits eligibility?

    I find that quite strange too. They set up a system based on concessional savings and non concessional savings and then just decide to change the amount to reflect what they wanted rather than what was fact.

    After that trusting them is not an option.

    Some people have correct non concessional amounts acknowledges while others don't simply because they were in a union.

    And nobody batted an eye. Including the ALP who should have known better.

    I'm completely convinced neither Party has any idea of what they are doing or of the consequences.

    It's putting me right off investing in Australia at all.
    Sundays
    10th Feb 2019
    9:44am
    Rae that was a travesty of justice but because it affected those with a Defined Benefit Pension (excluding Military purely for political reasons) they were fair game
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2019
    10:24am
    Yes, it was a gross travesty. But how can anyone who agrees that was wrong justify Labor's attack on struggling SFRs, Sunday? Socialism at its absolute worst!

    8th Feb 2019
    2:41pm
    Labors franking credits policy is a scam
    Scamming modest self funded retirees of their retirement income
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    2:59pm
    Correct Lothario how about this as most pensioners will vote Labor if self funded retirees are to be defranked why not reduce the pension by say a $150.00 a week to make up for it.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    3:16pm
    Why not put a 30% with holding tax on their interest income and not give it back.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    5:28pm
    I think a non-refundable 30% tax on pensions would enable a lot of saving to be redirected to education and health. Seems all the pensioners are in favour of redirecting someone's money to education and health. Why shouldn't it be theirs? Many have far more than Shorten's targeted SFRs if the truth is exposed.
    Rae
    9th Feb 2019
    8:03am
    Rainey that will come. Or a land tax on the home and increased GST. Don't worry. Once they come for one group they always come for the next, then the next and then they come for you. It's classical fascist( conservative) policy and Labor is using it.

    You have to wonder why both Parties want to lose the next election. They must have really "f....d" the economy up.
    Rae
    9th Feb 2019
    8:03am
    Rainey that will come. Or a land tax on the home and increased GST. Don't worry. Once they come for one group they always come for the next, then the next and then they come for you. It's classical fascist( conservative) policy and Labor is using it.

    You have to wonder why both Parties want to lose the next election. They must have really "f....d" the economy up.
    Rae
    9th Feb 2019
    8:03am
    Rainey that will come. Or a land tax on the home and increased GST. Don't worry. Once they come for one group they always come for the next, then the next and then they come for you. It's classical fascist( conservative) policy and Labor is using it.

    You have to wonder why both Parties want to lose the next election. They must have really "f....d" the economy up.
    Rae
    9th Feb 2019
    8:03am
    Rainey that will come. Or a land tax on the home and increased GST. Don't worry. Once they come for one group they always come for the next, then the next and then they come for you. It's classical fascist( conservative) policy and Labor is using it.

    You have to wonder why both Parties want to lose the next election. They must have really "f....d" the economy up.
    Royth
    8th Feb 2019
    2:57pm
    Refund of Franking Credits is WRONG. This s done because tax has already been paid by the Company. We taxpayers have already paid tax on our normal income. Should this not also be refunded as tax has already been paid similar to the Franked Credits system ?
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    3:00pm
    So it's OK to give back $34 billion to high income earners and take $6 billion form low income earners.

    Shame on you.
    Anonymous
    17th Feb 2019
    7:30am
    Royth, you DO get a refund if you have paid more than is due on your income. Your situation is EXACTLY the same as the current franking credit system. If you pay too much, you get the excess back. Precisely how the system SHOULD work.

    Shorten isn't threatening to stop workers getting a tax refund if they pay too much. Why should people who fund their retirement by investing in shares not get a refund if they are taxed too much?
    Anonymous
    17th Feb 2019
    7:30am
    Royth, you DO get a refund if you have paid more than is due on your income. Your situation is EXACTLY the same as the current franking credit system. If you pay too much, you get the excess back. Precisely how the system SHOULD work.

    Shorten isn't threatening to stop workers getting a tax refund if they pay too much. Why should people who fund their retirement by investing in shares not get a refund if they are taxed too much?
    GeorgeM
    8th Feb 2019
    3:00pm
    A parliamentary enquiry, at taxpayer expense, to assess a proposed policy of the Opposition? Are we now going to have parliamentary enquiries now to assess ALL policy proposals by all parties - all with Members of the enquiry getting extra payments at taxpayer expense. Seems like a complete NEW RORT invented by the Liberal party to get more income for themselves.

    How about passing on all policy proposals to the Parliamentary Budget Office to get their assessment of impacts on people instead? Maybe much cheaper and non-political? I thought that is what the PBO were set up to do?

    Apart from the above, amid all the Labor vs Liberal comments above, a key point is not being raised by anyone - if Labor thinks Franking Credits should not be refunded, then why not stop it for everyone including not allowing it to be set off against other tax payable? That would actually hit the big end of town! Doesn't Labor (Chris Bowen in particular) not want to touch the big end of town? Is it because it would also affect Labor MPs themselves and their mates? Isn't that a conflict of interest, thus corruption - making policies which protect themselves?
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    3:04pm
    I agree there are $40 billion franking credit currently given back. Labor wants to give back $34 billion to high income earners but keep $6 billion belonging to low income earners. Why not just take 10% of the franking credits that it wants to give back to high income earners and actually get more money than it's proposed policy will get? Yes it will get more as people will rearrange their affairs not to pay it or sell down assets and go on the pension.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    3:05pm
    I then will pay tax on my $100,000 but those on $20,000 will keep all their income.
    GeorgeM
    8th Feb 2019
    3:15pm
    Chris Bowen is a dope as there can be many solutions - one as you mentioned, also could simply put a cap on how much FCs are allowed (e.g. say $20K), based on how much they want to collect.

    Too hard for Bowen - I believe he made Rudd (with the Malaysia Immigration solution) and Shorten (with his refusal to reverse the Asset Test changes) lose 2 elections, and he is hell-bent on making Labor lose again! I think he is scared of actually becoming a Minister, and having to deliver results!
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    3:27pm
    The best solution is to scrap that no tax after 60 on super as it only helps the rich pay less tax on their super. One lady told me the other day that taking her franking credits was a small price to pay for what she saves by paying no tax on super after 60. Many of our retired pollies pay considerably less tax by having no tax payable on super after 60 than they would if they paid tax on all income. The no tax on super after 60 is the problem Labor needs to solve not the sloppy franking credit policy.
    GeorgeM
    8th Feb 2019
    3:44pm
    I disagree - no tax on super is a good policy and must not be touched. Morrison already put a cap of $1.6 Million, which if anything may be a little high, but changes to super must stop right now. Just because you don't have much super you are saying that - once again your pure self-interest is showing.

    They can look for more revenue elsewhere, e.g. make the Large companies and the rich pay a Minimum Tax of 20% and 30% respectively, after allowing only very limited local expenses as deductions. Too many of them paying Nil or Negligible taxes who should be paying a lot more. Leave Retirees alone!
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    6:26pm
    Obviously you don't understand how super is taxed then with those comments. Most people would get a 15% or 30% rebate and that is more than enough to pay their tax. They only people where it's not enough are the high income earners with lots of tax free super.

    Retired pollie and the wealthy just wouldn't let that happen.
    GeorgeM
    8th Feb 2019
    9:28pm
    I know the subject quite well, OG. You are trying to divert the issue - Govt needs to look elsewhere, such as Minimum Tax, to get more revenue as people are getting away with murder there (figuratively) in evading taxes, and stop targeting Retirees income.
    Paddington
    10th Feb 2019
    11:23am
    OG et al
    This has nothing to do with you, therefore, you are merely electioneering on behalf of the present government.
    Don’t counter argue that you care because you don’t, proven over and over by your comments.
    Why is Australia the only country in the world doing franking credits?
    There maybe some genuine cases but you are not in that bunch.
    How much is LNP paying you and a few of your mates on here who jump on every bandwagon to drum up votes for Abbott and his mates???
    Find a worthy cause like the environment and Adani to bash Labor!
    Paddington
    10th Feb 2019
    11:23am
    OG et al
    This has nothing to do with you, therefore, you are merely electioneering on behalf of the present government.
    Don’t counter argue that you care because you don’t, proven over and over by your comments.
    Why is Australia the only country in the world doing franking credits?
    There maybe some genuine cases but you are not in that bunch.
    How much is LNP paying you and a few of your mates on here who jump on every bandwagon to drum up votes for Abbott and his mates???
    Find a worthy cause like the environment and Adani to bash Labor!
    Paddington
    10th Feb 2019
    11:23am
    OG et al
    This has nothing to do with you, therefore, you are merely electioneering on behalf of the present government.
    Don’t counter argue that you care because you don’t, proven over and over by your comments.
    Why is Australia the only country in the world doing franking credits?
    There maybe some genuine cases but you are not in that bunch.
    How much is LNP paying you and a few of your mates on here who jump on every bandwagon to drum up votes for Abbott and his mates???
    Find a worthy cause like the environment and Adani to bash Labor!
    Paddington
    10th Feb 2019
    11:24am
    OG et al
    This has nothing to do with you, therefore, you are merely electioneering on behalf of the present government.
    Don’t counter argue that you care because you don’t, proven over and over by your comments.
    Why is Australia the only country in the world doing franking credits?
    There maybe some genuine cases but you are not in that bunch.
    How much is LNP paying you and a few of your mates on here who jump on every bandwagon to drum up votes for Abbott and his mates???
    Find a worthy cause like the environment and Adani to bash Labor!
    Anonymous
    10th Feb 2019
    11:28am
    No one is electioneering for the LNP
    Merely pointing out a disastrous labor policy that will send hundreds of thousands of retirees plans up the creek
    Countries that moved away from refunding excess credits did so by providing other tax co cessions and rebates AND DONT FORGET EVEN THEOR SELF FUNDED RETIREES GET THE PENSION
    If you are unable to think logically and compare like for like , best you don’t comment at all and stop acussing others of electioneering
    You are supporting a shit policy and you’re the one electioneering for a useless party that will rob is all blind
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2019
    10:31am
    Paddington:

    (1) Why are we the only country in the world doing franking credits? Because the entire tax system in other nations is totally different. Why are we the only country means testing pensions? If we were not doing that, Labor's unfair threat wouldn't be such an issue. SFRs would have some secure income, like pensioners do. Also, economists say our unique franking credit policy resulted in Australia suffering far less than other nations in the GFC.

    (2) If what other countries do is reason to change the policy, then change it - DON'T favour high income earners, high asset holders and pensioners and screw battlers on low incomes. That's not what Labor claims to stand for and any Labor supporter endorsing it is a gross hypocrite.

    OG has as much right to speak on the topic as anyone else. He is defending what is RIGHT . Labor supporters think it's okay to electioneer, even though doing so is elder abuse and bullying - which I note most Labor supporters CLAIM to object to.
    LarryFine
    8th Feb 2019
    3:15pm
    Wether you are Labour or Liberal a policy that changes the rules to increase your contribution to Government coffers is a tax grab.
    Anything that only targets individuals and SMSF but leaves retail and union based Superannuation Funds alone is nothing but unjust and unfair.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    3:23pm
    Exactly right.
    ardnher
    8th Feb 2019
    7:15pm
    how else are Labor going to fund their big spending once they get into power.?? they have made all these commitments now but dont have the money to pay for them.
    The Care Bear.
    13th Feb 2019
    5:22pm
    I just got an email from Labor asking me to donate at least $5 to their fighting fund.
    That's how desperate and delusional they are.
    The Black Fox
    8th Feb 2019
    3:17pm
    The author makes some very valid points. Firstly the establishment of a parliamentary inquiry into an opposition’s pre-election proposal is highly suspect in itself. Secondly the Chairperson Tim Wilson’s statement that removing refundable franking credits “amounts to a tax on the savings of retirees” is incorrect “it is not a tax but a reversal of a cash payment”. Thirdly, Tim Wilson’s alleged handling of this inquiry has all the hallmarks of an abuse of power. Finally Josh Frydenburg’s declaration that Tim Wilson has adhered to the rules is very hard to swallow.
    Whatever we may think of the ALP’s proposed franking credit policy, the behaviour of the LNP in this matter and over the last few years is deplorable. It seems that, in their desperation to hang on to power, they have lost all sense of integrity. The LNP gives a good impression of being morally bankrupt.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    3:22pm
    Wrong it is tax prepaid like PAYE and PAYG and should be refunded if a person pays too much tax. It is tax overpaid.

    Tim Wilson is doing what I would expect of any polly.

    Good on the LNP for exposing the truth behind the Labor lies.


    Shame on you for supporting Labor's lies.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    5:25pm
    Well, Labor is abusing the rights of the people. Refusing to even consider the problems their proposal presents and the wrongs of it is about as morally bankrupt as you can get. These are people who are supposed to REPRESENT the wishes of the people - NOT ARROGANTLY SHOUT THAT THEY WILL NEVER LISTEN AND WILL STUBBORNLY PERSIST IN WRONG DOING NO MATTER HOW HARMFUL. Whether Tim Wilson is doing everything right or not, we need him to defend RIGHT.
    Lookfar
    15th Feb 2019
    4:20pm
    Hi Black fox. what do you think about the points I make here?
    Hi OGR, I have read almost all your posts, and they all contain slander and abuse, so using a very good old rule, that if, in an argunent, you start using insults, - let alone abuse, - you have run out of truth, whatever you say has to be regarded as dodgy. Now, an earlier poster maintained that very few companies first take tax out of the dividends they pay, they normally just pay the lot, and to me that makes more sense, easy peasy. no wasting money on an accountant to do that extra work, and easy for the shareholder as well.
    So why does a company take out the tax and pay it themself, of course, stands out like dog's whatsis, - so they can claim that payment off their tax, win win, they don't actually pay the tax, and get to keep more of their profits.
    So the tax department doesn't get the tax, ie the Australian people don't get their tax, - Again, and the the OGR's in the system get to be paid money out of the general Australian income.
    It should just take the Tax Office doing a couple of successful prosecutions on companies involved in that fraud, and fining them severely, cancelling their right to trade or a jail sentence or two and there will be no more Franking credits to confuse the ATO, and Mr Shorten can let go of a complicated situation that only benefits the Accountants and their old mates the banks.
    That way, any pensioner or part pensioner will recieve the full money from his share earnings, and everything is then between the share owner, (including OGR) the tax department, and God.
    So OGR, you have done good by stirring the pot, also by discrediting your evidence so I was able to more objectively look at other evidence, I will inform the Tax dept and Mr Shorten of the lapse in logic behind the almost unforgivable fuss, and hopefully all will be well for all.
    mike
    8th Feb 2019
    3:20pm
    retirees can no longer trust any politician. Hockey started the attack on retirees with the changes to the assets test smashing the retirement plans of the working middle class that worked and saved.However he said they would still retain the Pensioner concession card. This turned out to be a lie. He called disabled rorters whilst he himself was rorting the travel allowance. He raised petrol tax saying the poor didnt have cars. Turnbull said he would reinstate the PCC to all those who lost it due to Hockeys changes. Tjis was also a lie. Only a select few got it reinstated. No wonder hundreds of thousands of retirees are flocking to small parties and independents. However,many of these small party preferences will go to Labour and the Greens, thus ensuring a Labour victory. Now Shorten has said he doesnt care about the retirees and doesnt need their vote. His changes to the franking credit rebates wont hirt the wealthy as they have accountants to work different stratagies, it will hurt the battlers, the low income retirees, the working middle class, all those who worked and saved for the last 17 years under then both Liberal and Labour guidlines. No wonder retirees , the battlers, the working middle class dont trust the government. Shorten will now finish what Hockey and Turnbull started, smashing the low income retirees, the working middle class, God Shorten is a Bastard.And anyone who votes for him.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    3:22pm
    Off topic.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    5:18pm
    Maybe, OG, but he's absolutely correct.
    Old Man
    8th Feb 2019
    3:42pm
    This is a topic designed to polarise opinions depending on how one votes. What is overlooked is the retirees who set up their SMSF under the rules in place at the time. Now a politician wants to change the rules and that should be the topic. Any government enquiry is by its very nature a political stunt and this enquiry is no different. There are members from both sides of politics there so, in theory, it's balanced.
    DogLover
    8th Feb 2019
    3:59pm
    OG, how do you earn $100,000 per year and pay no tax? Sounds a bit dodgy. John Howard changed the rules on franking credits and other incentives to make voters stay with the Liberal Party. But then there was lots of extra money for him to be over generous with and now we are paying for his wasteful stupidity. If retirees earn enough from franking credits to maintain a comfortable lifestyle they are certainly in the affluent and enviable position.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    6:11pm
    DogLover, you are obviously also misled by Labor's lies. OG earns $100,000 and pays no tax because he's retired, and the retiree tax concessions are very generous - perhaps too much so. But killing Franking Credits isn't a solution. Address the tax concessions, as OG has suggested. Address the tax avoidance that is allowing people to claim franking credit refunds that they don't need.

    Those who Labor is attacking DO need their franking credits. Here's why. With say $900,000, a married couple gets no pension. Now, maybe $100,000 of that is in non-returning personal and household items and car. They will need to retain liquid cash to live on. $50K would be conservative. That leaves them with $750,000 to invest. The average return on investment is 5%. If they put their money in the bank, they get maybe 2% if they are lucky and have to try to live on $15000 a year or rapidly drain their savings, in which case they would go on the pension and cost the nation a lot more.

    If they put their money into shares - which is the most popular investment vehicle because it's the easiest and safest for investors who are not financial wizards - they will probably net 5 - 7% INCLUDING franking credits. But franking credits might make up 30% of that. So perhaps they get $37500 a year - not actually any more than the OAP when concessions and benefits are counted. And they might pay a few thousand of that in management fees. Now Shorten wants to take the franking credit refund away.

    Currently, their $37500 (assuming for the moment it's all in fully franked shares - though that's unlikely in reality) might be comprised of $26250 received dividends and $11250 franking credit refunds. Now what has happened here is that the company that they invested in took $11250 out of the $37500 it owed this shareholder and sent it to the ATO and then sent the rest to the shareholder.

    Bill Shorten would have you believe that $11250 taken from their income and sent to the ATO is not tax. But if they had an income of $100,000 from wages on top of their dividend, then he'd say it IS tax and should be credited against their tax bill. See how inconsistent and dishonest his claim is?

    So, saying that if the deduction from dividends due to a retiree with no income is not tax, Shorten says they shouldn't get a refund. So he says that although their income SHOULD be $37500 - not enough to pay tax on as a retiree, and only barely as much as the pension with benefits - the ATO should keep that $11250 tax paid from their dividend and they should have to live on the $26,500 a year that's left - way less than the pension for a couple and not enough for most couple's needs.

    Yes, they can drain their savings to compensate. If you went without a lot of luxuries and worked two jobs to save $100,000, would you agree that you should have to give 100% of it to the ATO to give to people who didn't go without those luxuries. And anyway, if they drain their savings, they then cost the government much more in pension payments - but miserly unfair Shorten says they STILL won't get their franking credits even though other pensioners do.

    So, NO, DogLover, these retirees are NOT in an enviable position at all, and are NOT able to maintain a comfortable lifestyle without the fair taxation they have earned by saving enough to not cost the nation tens of thousands annually in pension payments.

    Shorten is selling the politics of envy, trying to fool people into believing as you do - lying about the wealth of those he is attacking. And Howard didn't change the rules to make voters stay with the Liberal Party. He changed the rules because they were patently unfair to lower income earners - most of whom probably voted Labor and would not change their vote just because of a fairer tax policy. But Shorten is trying to buy votes with lies and a policy that imposes grossly UNFAIR taxes on those who can least afford them.
    Paddington
    10th Feb 2019
    11:31am
    OG, no wonder you love Abbott and Co, you pay zero tax !!!
    LNP are for the wealthy therefore a good choice for you.
    But, not so, for the poor or struggling.
    Adani is a better arguing platform for you to bash Labor.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    5:03pm
    Paddington, CAN YOU ACTUALLY READ? I despise Abbot and Co., and I contribute around $50K a year to the federal budget by not drawing a pension, and live on LESS than pensioners enjoy, with ZERO concessions and benefits.

    How much tax do you pay? Oh, that's right. Entitled pensioner - paid tax all your life and your kids pay tax. WELL GUESS WHAT GREEDY? SO DID I AND SO DO MY KIDS. Only unlike you, I get screwed over and denied ANYTHING and now you Labor thieves want to steal what little I am able to generate for myself with overtaxing.

    Just how much do you GREEDY SELFISH BASTARDS WANT TO TAKE? Will you be content when I have nothing left and need the OAP, of will you endorse Labor's policy that denies me fairness even then?

    Nasty, greedy selfish socialist bludgers is the only fair description. I used to respect pensioners. You paint them as a group to be despised for their greed.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    5:03pm
    Paddington, CAN YOU ACTUALLY READ? I despise Abbot and Co., and I contribute around $50K a year to the federal budget by not drawing a pension, and live on LESS than pensioners enjoy, with ZERO concessions and benefits.

    How much tax do you pay? Oh, that's right. Entitled pensioner - paid tax all your life and your kids pay tax. WELL GUESS WHAT GREEDY? SO DID I AND SO DO MY KIDS. Only unlike you, I get screwed over and denied ANYTHING and now you Labor thieves want to steal what little I am able to generate for myself with overtaxing.

    Just how much do you GREEDY SELFISH BASTARDS WANT TO TAKE? Will you be content when I have nothing left and need the OAP, of will you endorse Labor's policy that denies me fairness even then?

    Nasty, greedy selfish socialist bludgers is the only fair description. I used to respect pensioners. You paint them as a group to be despised for their greed.
    DaveL
    8th Feb 2019
    4:04pm
    This is a simple calculation to show what's proposed by Labor.
    Someone earning $100,000 in Cash Dividends fully franked.
    Cash component $100,000
    Franking Credits 42,850
    Taxable Income $142,850

    Tax Assessible on incom $43,208
    less Franking Crs 42,850
    TAX PAYABLE $358

    NET INCOME $99,642

    Earning $25,000 Franked Dividends

    Cash Dividends Rec'd $25,000
    Franling Credits Due 10,700
    TAXABLE INCOME $35,700

    Tax Assessible on income $ 3,235
    less Franking Credits 10,700

    TAX PAYABLE NIL

    NET INCOME if credits not refunded $25,000.
    This person loses $7,375 of their franking credits.

    This is simplistic example to illustrate that those on low Taxable Income will miss out.

    As a minimum Labor should do away with the Seniors Tax Offset for equity purposes. High income earners come out way in front with this policy, as intended by the Hawke government.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    5:07pm
    I don't think they would be entitled to a Seniors tax offset with that sort of income anyway.

    You example just shows that anyone earning that much and above doesn't lose a cent under Labor's policy.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    5:11pm
    Does it astonish you, OG, how some folk here continue to deny the unfairness of this policy despite such abundant evidence that it won't hurt the well off, but is squarely targeted at battlers with low incomes?
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    5:21pm
    It certainly does until I see all the lies on Labo'rs website jump out at me like flies.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    5:23pm
    What astounds me even more is that people can't comprehend Labor is giving back $34 billion to high income earners and only keeping $6 billion from low income earners. Surely if they read it well they will get the message loud and clear.
    Rae
    8th Feb 2019
    5:25pm
    Worse Rainey it is going to hurt Main Street pretty hard if it is passed. It is entirely the wrong thing to do at an appallingly bad time as well. People have taken this option because the RBA held rates too low for too long and retirees and other low income earners are chasing what little returns available. It has the possibility of being a real disaster of a policy.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    5:38pm
    I agree, Rae. And I keep warning those who favour it that the needy will hurt most when the sh... hits the fan (which it will!). Ultimately, my savings will stand me in good stead even though Shorten is attacking my income, and my ability to live frugally will get me through tough times. But those who rely on pensions are likely to feel real pain when the recession hits, and seems Labor voters are living in la la land thinking it won't happen.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    5:40pm
    Yes, OG, it is mindboggling, isn't it, that they can't see that taking $6 billion from battlers while giving $34 billion to the wealthy is NOT consistent with Labor's claimed policy, and no Labor voters should approve such wrong. But as you say, Labor manages to lie quite believably. It takes intelligence and careful thought to decipher the truth. Much easier for the gullible to just swallow the BS and regurgitate it here.
    Alexii
    8th Feb 2019
    4:42pm
    Old Genuine Rainey is quite correct in his reply in another part here. One can also add the case of the person (such as my wife), too young to get a pension and earning a less than taxable income. Her savings have been taken out of term deposits that were earning almost nothing and put into shares in companies that have franked dividends. Now the ALP want her and people like her, to NOT get that franking credit paid to her, the tax that was paid by the company on her behalf. Yet another shareholder the same company has huge holdings, earns way above a taxable income and will get paid that franking credit by means of reducing that person's tax bill. There is certainly no logic and no equity in that, is there. Yet some people are saying that people who do not have a taxable income are not entitled to those franking credits. It's downright appalling and a gross discrimination against people on low incomes. But of course such people don't count in the eye of either major party, do they.
    Adrianus
    8th Feb 2019
    4:53pm
    If a taxpayer pays too much tax to the ATO, are they entitled to a refund? Or should the ATO hang onto it and tell us that possession is 9 tenths of the law.
    Didn't we just finish telling the banks that their similar behaviour was unacceptable?
    So what has changed in the last 24 hours?
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    5:00pm
    What changed Adrianus, is selfish people who don't benefit from franking credits, but have nice comfortable incomes from other sources, are quite content to see others robbed, as long as it's by their precious pollie mates who they've deceived themselves into thinking are on their side and will look after them. Ha ha! I know who will have the last laugh!
    Alexii
    8th Feb 2019
    5:05pm
    What has changed is not the ATO but the attitude of the ALP who wants to tell the ATO to keep our money even though we are entitled to it. It's strange how they (both major parties) like to demonise self-funded or partly self-funded retirees and low income earners. many self and partly self-funded retirees fall into the category of low income earners because they earn so little from their invested savings, and likewise many low income earners may have some savings invested in shares (and why shouldn't they) and yet the ALP wants to deny them their money too.
    Rae
    8th Feb 2019
    5:19pm
    Yes Rainey and a lot of aged pensioners are unaware that pensions can and are cut in countries in financial troubles. Too much of recent legislation smacks of incompetence, poor advice, division, corruption and politicians unaware of the implications of legislation they are proposing and passing. If it does go pear shaped it's going to be one Hell of a recession.
    And the young won't see it coming and won't know what hit them.

    Already the LNP have stripped billions out of discretionary spending from low income workers and retirees and now the ALP are threatening to make it worse by taking billions more from Australians who spend in their communities. Why? To give it to foreign companies and foreign investors. It makes no sense.

    Why would you want to collapse Australia's asset prices and currency.?
    Lookfar
    8th Feb 2019
    5:30pm
    Looking at the arguments back and orward, I find something not right in the way that a well off person can claim no income, but a poorer person can not, is this just because the rich person can afford a tax accountant skilled in defining everything in the rich person's life as business expenses? - after all, that is what the big rich companies do, so pay no tax.
    Then I look at the protagonists, I tend to respect OGR, but the fact that he is in the same mindless camp as OG and Loth, makes me wonder it he got it wrong. - so back to my question, is there something wrong in how people define their income as zero, when they are obviously wealthy? Maybe that is the real issue we should strongly focus on? - Sure it would open a big can of worms, but maybe at the end we would get the mega-rich paying tax also, - as they should.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    5:33pm
    You are totally misinformed
    Companies cannot pay franked dividends if they have paid no tax
    The amount of franking credits can not exceed tax paid
    And for the individual the franking credits refund is usually due to them having a lower marginal tax rate than 30%
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    5:34pm
    Yes, Lookfar, that is EXACTLY the issue. And Labor's laziness means that instead of focusing on that issue, they are grabbing at the quick and easy WRONG approach of robbing the less well off. But of course they are rich, so they would not want to address the rorts of the wealthy, would they?

    The tax system is flawed. The superannuation system is flawed. The pension system is flawed. The Franking Credit policy, as it exists, is 100% correct and right. It gives back overpaid tax, as it should. If it is being abused by tax cheats or people who manipulate unreasonably to claim less taxable income than they receive, that's an entirely different issue. You don't throw out the baby because the bath water is dirty!
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    5:44pm
    BTW. Lookfar, thank you for your hesitant vote of confidence. I assure you I don't agree with most of Lothario's comments, not OG's. If you had read my past posts you'd know I argued aggressively with OG on nearly every point he made. I am certainly NOT in their camp. I don't support the LNP. I detest them. But Lothario and OG are right on the Franking Credits issue. Nobody who understands the facts could disagree with them on that particular issue. The mindless are those who support Labor's very ill-conceived, lazy and harmful policy.
    Golfer
    8th Feb 2019
    6:20pm
    Bull Shitten is headed for the Lodge. We will soon find out about many more mindless, I'll-conceived, lazy and harmful policies if their lying wins the day.
    Golfer
    8th Feb 2019
    6:20pm
    Bull Shitten is headed for the Lodge. We will soon find out about many more mindless, I'll-conceived, lazy and harmful policies if their lying wins the day.
    Rae
    9th Feb 2019
    8:10am
    The Italian Tax office had a great time a few years back. They stopped luxury cars and boats and took the details of the drivers. They then audited those people to explain how there were millions in assets owned by those with very low taxable incomes. It was a very successful campaign.
    How does a less that $18 000 a year earner afford a multi million dollar home, apartment on the Gold Coast, a maserati or two and a luxury cruiser?
    Rae
    9th Feb 2019
    8:10am
    The Italian Tax office had a great time a few years back. They stopped luxury cars and boats and took the details of the drivers. They then audited those people to explain how there were millions in assets owned by those with very low taxable incomes. It was a very successful campaign.
    How does a less that $18 000 a year earner afford a multi million dollar home, apartment on the Gold Coast, a maserati or two and a luxury cruiser?
    Rae
    9th Feb 2019
    8:10am
    The Italian Tax office had a great time a few years back. They stopped luxury cars and boats and took the details of the drivers. They then audited those people to explain how there were millions in assets owned by those with very low taxable incomes. It was a very successful campaign.
    How does a less that $18 000 a year earner afford a multi million dollar home, apartment on the Gold Coast, a maserati or two and a luxury cruiser?
    Rae
    9th Feb 2019
    8:10am
    The Italian Tax office had a great time a few years back. They stopped luxury cars and boats and took the details of the drivers. They then audited those people to explain how there were millions in assets owned by those with very low taxable incomes. It was a very successful campaign.
    How does a less that $18 000 a year earner afford a multi million dollar home, apartment on the Gold Coast, a maserati or two and a luxury cruiser?
    Rae
    9th Feb 2019
    8:10am
    The Italian Tax office had a great time a few years back. They stopped luxury cars and boats and took the details of the drivers. They then audited those people to explain how there were millions in assets owned by those with very low taxable incomes. It was a very successful campaign.
    How does a less that $18 000 a year earner afford a multi million dollar home, apartment on the Gold Coast, a maserati or two and a luxury cruiser?
    Rae
    9th Feb 2019
    8:10am
    The Italian Tax office had a great time a few years back. They stopped luxury cars and boats and took the details of the drivers. They then audited those people to explain how there were millions in assets owned by those with very low taxable incomes. It was a very successful campaign.
    How does a less that $18 000 a year earner afford a multi million dollar home, apartment on the Gold Coast, a maserati or two and a luxury cruiser?
    Hoohoo
    19th Feb 2019
    5:37pm
    Lookfar & OGR, now we are talking about the real issue here - that some very wealthy people appear to be paying no tax. THESE are the people Labor's new policy is trying to target & who knows, there might be a whole bloody lot of them out there?

    But Labor is assuming that everyone in this category is scamming the system, with their clever accountants creating an income level that qualifies them for a part pension. This is definitely not the case for OGR & more like her.

    My sister was like you, OGR, absolutely determined to never have to go to Centrelink asking for a pension. She was just about to retire when the GFC hit & she lost A WHOLE LOT of $$$. By the time she sold her business & was planning to set her retirement plan in motion, she realised it was simply not worth trying to stay off a tiny part-pension because of the HCC health care card (& its perks). Her husband has been quite severely disabled from an accident from the time her youngest child was a toddler. At least he got a worker's comp payout. She worked really hard all her adult life, was the main bread-winner for her large family & in the end decided she deserved a holiday or two, spent up big & is now retired in a very nice village. She is wealthy, no argument there, but does she need a part-pension? No. Does she need the HCC? Yes. Does she deserve franking credit refunds? I don't know.

    I think this demonstrates how the system is wrong. Very wealthy people shouldn't be encouraged to seek a part pension. I hope both major parties look into it thoroughly for a year & promise to come to a bi-partisan agreement then. They simply have to get it right & stop playing politics with it. Why not give everyone over 67 a Health Care Card?

    Meanwhile, under Labor's new policy, the filthy rich will continue to get their franking credit refunds. So to be fair, I reckon they should stop these refunds to everyone. Pay double tax like the rest of us do every day of the week. Start cracking down on loopholes for the very wealthy to avoid paying tax.
    Anonymous
    19th Feb 2019
    5:43pm
    Hoohooo - your use of the word filthy with rich is uncalled for .
    It shows a hateful sick mentality

    You don't see posters here use such derogatory terms on the not well off do you ?
    Anonymous
    19th Feb 2019
    5:43pm
    Hoohooo - your use of the word filthy with rich is uncalled for .
    It shows a hateful sick mentality

    You don't see posters here use such derogatory terms on the not well off do you ?
    Curious
    8th Feb 2019
    6:17pm
    When it comes to protect our retirement fund, we can get a bit emotional and stress, understanding the tax rules, which may be changed under a different government. Emotion and stress can give us all a different picture what is actually happening. Let look at some facts and figures to substantiate our basis for the debate.

    What do we mean when we say one of our Australians is wealthy or rick? How much do we have in cash and assets in order to be called a millionaire? According to News.com.au, : -

    "According to a study by comparison site Finder, it’s $5.3 million. That’s the amount of savings those surveyed thought, on average, qualified an Australian as being “rich”.

    It represents more than seven times the national average household wealth, which is $740,000 — although for most this is tied up in assets such as property, rather than cash on hand."

    “For the average Australian earning a $79,721 salary and saving half their net income, it would take 60 years and 5 months to have $5.3 million saved in the bank.”

    If news.com.au is correct, some of our retirees should be there as multi-millionaires or at least some are half way there. Judging the responses in this site so far, a majority of the retirees are not regarded officially wealthy or rich. That includes me. Why this doesn't surprise me?

    Although I am a self-funded retiree, definitely not qualified for OGP, by-no-means I am wealthy or rich. I used to have shares but had to sell them for down-size. Since retirement, I find that I am not poor enough to claim a OGP but not rich enough to have a financial freedom, for which I worked so hard all my life. I feel very offended when other people classify me as rich or wealthy. This is because through my savings and investment I still pay tax in my retirement. Even my superannuation fund is paying 30% tax on its investment income.For these reasons, I have to be frugal and to carefully budget my expenditure. Many sacrifices had to made to fund my medical bills and help out others in the family. As you all know, without a working income, life can be hard. No doubt this reflects many of our retirees and pensioners. We are all in the same boat, but a matter of degrees.

    Through our experiences, we know there aren't enough investment vehicles in the western world markets. The blue shares in the market are limited and their volatility is a constant worry for any retirees, who just want a financial free retirement. For those retirees, who want to take their initiatives to plan their retirement with the existing tax rules to finance their last stage of their life, to be accused of "wealthy" or "rich" can be so hurtful, if not offensive. I know different individual retirees have different circumstances. Please don't stereo-type them as a bunch of greedy old persons.

    According to a certain quarter, a person earning $180,000.00 p.a or over. is considered rich. Just image, 45% goes to tax. To send a child to school can cost up to $30,000.00 p.a. as a maximum or $15,000.00 p.a as a minimum. If the child is a grown-up university student, you may to budget this expenditure up to $40,000.00 p.a. On top of these are housing, clothing, transport, insurance, electricity, water and council rates. Would you think this person is "rich".

    In our tax system, we are all doing alright but we are not definitely rich by all means. Based on some statistics available in 2018 as follows: -

    Total employed: - 12,5010,000

    Average full-time wages is $81,843.00
    Average wage for all workers is $62,128.00
    Median wage for all worker$55,063.00
    Median ta-file's income is $44,527.00

    Anyone, who earns $18,200.00, does not pay tax. Anyone earns $20,000.00 pays $342 tax, not $20,000.00 x 30% = $6,000.00. The whole principle of the franking credit is based on how much your investment has earned and how much you have to pay tax on this earning according to the tax rate. If your investment earning is lower than tax rate limit of $18,200.00, the franking credit should return to the investor, who happens to a retiree. I can't see what is wrong with this principle, as the retiree has acted properly and complied with the tax rate requirement.

    Additionally, I have retired since 2002, 17 years ago. The salary I earned was $62,000.00 p.a., which is equivalent to today's average wage for all workers. If I could save and build up to $3 million of assets and cash based on this $62,000.00 annual salary, I would be over the moon. By no means I am rich. The change of tax regime to minimise our investment returns through franking credit, negative gearing, and capital gain tax is almost accusing our retirees not giving a fair share to the nation's economy and developing an inter-generation war, as we retirees have been accused of never have so good.

    To push the retirees any further, they all may have to apply for OGP. Then what is the government policy to cope with that? Knowing the history of failure in past attempts to replace OGP with adequate superannuation, do you think changes of tax rules effecting our retirees' investment return is the answer? I do look forward to an answer. I hope this process of inquiry will get to the bottom of cause and effect for these policy.
    Alexii
    8th Feb 2019
    6:56pm
    Well written, Curious. I'm in much the same boat as you - lifetime of hard work, retired on about the same wage level as you (wonder if we were in the same work), I do get a part pension, albeit quite small. My wife, too young for a pension and earning only a very low income, has small investments where with the ALP she'll be robbed of the franking credits and so will I with mine. Like you we live very frugally. Yes, we are comfortable, but a dinner at a restaurant is a rare occasion and even one at the local service club is probably only a couple of times a year. We don't buy coffees in cafes as they are too expensive although we lash out on a $1 coffee at 711 or an 80c coffee at Shell when travelling. Wee save by taking our lunch with us or occasionally indulge with a one foot Subway between us.

    Now of course our government and now the ALP think that people such as we are wealthy and the ALP wants to rob us of even our franking credits that are rightfully ours.

    What a country we have become!
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    9:34pm
    Curiouss you can earn just under $21000 before you pay any tax as there is a low income rebate as well.
    Curious
    8th Feb 2019
    10:02pm
    Thanks, OG.

    It is the principle, which is important. The amount is secondary.
    Golfer
    8th Feb 2019
    6:20pm
    Did someone say Chris Bowen is a dope?
    Well, I congratulate you for your accurate assessment. Unfortunately for our country he will likely be our next Treasurer. It gets worse actually; his boss Bull Shitten will be our country's Prime Minister. What an absolute tragedy that will be.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    6:31pm
    Not a Greek one either.
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    6:36pm
    As you know, we believe the plan to remove full tax refunds on dividend income is both unfair and flawed and as we approach the election, the issue is heating up. From the time the policy was announced on 13 March 2018, we have clearly and consistently argued that it would negatively impact the Australian economy and disproportionally affect modest retirees and low-income earners.

    Self-funded retirees come from all walks of life and have varying degrees of wealth, they are united by the fact that they are a national asset. They will only exist if Australia treats them with respect and provides fair, consistent and reliable rules that allow them to plan their retirement during their working lives. The dividend imputation system has not fundamentally changed for 18 years; moving the goal posts on people who are already retired and in many cases cannot return to work is simply not right.

    Under this policy, it is modest retirees and low-income earners who will be disproportionately impacted. For example, individuals will be more incentivised to invest in non-Australian companies, and companies will be more inclined to invest overseas or to increase their levels of tax-deductible debt. Australian individuals will lose income and the Australian Government will lose tax revenue. Whatever is saved will be taken primarily from individuals with modest incomes and assets. These people have few options to deal with their loss of full tax refunds – thousands of our 80,000 shareholders have attested to this by sharing their stories with us. One of their solutions suggested is to spend their assets to qualify for government support, which would further offset the savings that have been used to justify this regressive and retrospective policy.

    It is on these grounds that we oppose this policy. In our petition of more than 30,000 signatures, we have called on all sides of politics to guarantee no change to the current dividend imputation system. Unfortunately, the issue is political and that comes with considerable noise. For example, the following facts have been misrepresented:
    Wilson Asset Management and the listed investment companies we manage have nothing to lose from this policy over and above the broader impacts the economy and financial markets. On the contrary, listed investment companies can convert into trust structures to offset a reduction in the benefit of fully franked dividends to underlying shareholders.
    I first met Tim Wilson MP during March 2018 at the Nexus Australian Youth Summit in Melbourne. It was there that we discovered that we are distant relatives. My father’s father’s father was his father’s father’s father’s father. I am currently unaware if I am related to Labor MP Josh Wilson, who is also on the Standing Committee on Economics.
    Wilson Asset Management did not fund www.stoptheretirementtax.com. I personally contributed to the website in the appropriate way, along with a number of other concerned individuals.
    Tim Wilson MP is one of 80,000 shareholders in our listed investment companies; he is not a shareholder in the investment manager, Wilson Asset Management.
    Our shareholders’ data is safe and has not been shared.
    We have only communicated with our shareholders and signatories of our petition.
    Our investor call on 25 September 2018 was open to the public. Our intentions to march on the inquiry hearing were reported on by the Australian Financial Review the following day. Shortly after the call, we published the recording on our website and emailed it to our shareholders and contacts, including journalists. We also shared photographs of the march on the Sydney inquiry hearing and the event was covered by major media outlets at the time.
    With almost four decades of experience in analysing financial markets and investor behaviour, I am confident that changes by Australian companies and wealthy individuals will erode the forecast savings of $55.7 billion. We have campaigned against this policy because we believe it is wrong and that it will negatively impact many of our 80,000 shareholders and the broader economy. I would like to personally thank you for your support. We have been overwhelmed by your kind words and we remain resolute in our opposition to this policy.

    If you have any questions, please call me on (02) 9247 6755 or email info@wilsonassetmanagement.com.au.
    Kind regards,

    Geoff Wilson AO
    Chairman & Chief Investment Officer
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    6:39pm
    Email from Geoff Wilson.

    Sounds to me like Tim Wilson is in the clear and has little to worry about so can continue his good work.

    I wonder what Labor will do next as it heats up even further for them.

    Just bite the bullet and scrap it Labor begore the bullet get you.
    Lookfar
    8th Feb 2019
    6:56pm
    Hi OGR, thank you for re-affirming my faith in you, and I can understand why you bring the issue to the table again and again, - it needs to be looked at, it will possibly harm poor people more than rich, Shorten has to learn to listen to the people, - Tony Abbott could not, so he had to go, also Rudd the second time, we have to realise these politicians are no wiser than anyone else, stricken with the same human failings as the rest of us, - and therefore no more exempt from the consequences of foolishness than the rest of us. -
    And, knowing that, not allowing them to pull any wool over our eyes.
    In respect to Bill Shorten, on his comment justifying his support for the Adani megadisaster, - that We are not responsible for our coal when we sell it overseas, - not with-standing that when it is burnt, by whoever wherever, within a few months we will have it in our own atmosphere, strengthening bushfires and flooding and drought, - basic cause and effect I would say, but that it also sounds like a weapons smuggler, delivering a load of high tech rifles and missiles and rockets to some small country, the which is usually then almost destroyed and enormous suffering and loss of human rights as well, - subsequently almost destroyed. "they didn't have to buy them" "someone else would have sold them those weapons," - etc, so immoral.
    No, Labour has a better policy on Global Warming, whereas the Libs are positively idiotic,
    so we vote for labour as the best of two evils, so our grandchildren will live a bit longer and hopefully have a possibility to survive therefrom, but we don't like either of them.
    I find that my ideas on how to move Australia towards a Renewable energy future, the which I have sent to just about anybody I can ever think of, are now starting to appear all over the place, - ideas have a life of their own, so any ideas from you, about what to do to expunge that business expense scam, that you wish to share, I will very happily expand them worldwide, or if you prefer confidentially, you have my email?
    Wake up Shorten, we Australians require much more of our politicians than mindless cliches, we may not vote for the gibbering scrabbling Sco Mo, but we want you to shape up Now.
    wouldbe retiree apprentice
    8th Feb 2019
    7:43pm
    It amazes me that something so simple as withholding 30% company earnings as tax, to be included in the calculation of an individuals tax obligation, can be considered a "cost" to the government. Every shareholder will pay tax according to their obligations to the ATO and current legislation in place. Some people will earn >$200,000 including the dividends from their shares, and the FC's will be credited to the tax they need to pay because it has been paid as part of the company tax. Similarly, some people, such as self refunded retirees, will have Little other TAXABLE earnings, and therefore, the 30% paid as company tax should be credited to their tax account. As it happens with some of these retirees, they do NOT EARN sufficient to have any tax obligation, so then any tax paid by companies on their behalf needs to be returned to them...as part of each individuals tax obligation... FC's are NOT a government handout...but part of tax calculation on each individuals obligation.. Now looking at something FAR MORE COMPLEX, but presented as a SIMPLE SOLUTION, is climate change and it's sole cause, CO2.... If only it was SO simple !!!! but it AIN'T !!.. Lookfar may be convinced that the elephant in the room is CO2, but it's becoming more and more apparent that climate change/global warming/ rising sea levels, etc being cause by CO2 is nothing but a HOAX and SCAM, designed to ensure continued funding and also to redistribute wealth from the supposedly rich nations to the 3rd world....and at a huge cost to established society... Suggest a little research could find some insight into this hoax.. I too, have children and grandchildren, and hope that they will inherit a better world than I did, but if this climate change/etc/etc hoax continues, I fear for their world... Rather than building the 3rd world up...it can only tear the civilized world down...
    TREBOR
    8th Feb 2019
    7:08pm
    It's par for the course to go around and whip up opposition to the opposition's idea before an election. This one is tailor-made for such an activity, and a little bit of information and disinformation and mis-information spread around during discussion will create a hostile crowd.

    I doubt it will affect much, but the LNP is desperate and this one is, superficially, an easy shoot.
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2019
    10:36am
    The LNP is desperate for very good reason, Trebor. It will do horrendous damage to the economy if this is passed. World-leading economists credit our franking credit policy for getting us through the GFC is far better shape than any other nation. Taking $6 billion from folk who have lower incomes and not substantial assets will wreck the economy. If it isn't made up by people reverting to the OAP - cancelling all expected benefit - it will result in massive job loss and REDUCED income tax and GST revenue. You simply cannot take $6 billion out of the pockets of battlers who already have too little to live on and not cause major problems.

    Why aren't they taking the $34 billion from the well off instead. That might actually make some sense.
    Paddington
    8th Feb 2019
    7:53pm
    The pension is $690 a week for a couple. Are any SFRs living on less than this?
    It is more for a single pensioner but harder with one income and verydifficult for those who rent.
    Just wondering....
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    12:36pm
    YES YES YES YES YES, Paddington. Many SFRs are living on less. In particular, thousands of married SFRs are living on way less than the married pension of around $34,000 + concessions and benefits.

    I am an SFR and my partner and I live on about $16,000 each with no concessions or benefits. If Shorten has his selfish way, that will be reduced by around $6,000 a year each.

    Now, of course we can supplement that with savings, but then we don't have those savings. We didn't go without to hand all our savings to the taxpayer while those who didn't save live on a higher income without touching any reserves or assets. People who saved are ENTITLED to a higher standard of living than those who didn't.
    Paddington
    9th Feb 2019
    9:40pm
    Why aren’t you able to get a part pension? From what you are describing it sounds like that would be possible.
    Maybe see Centrelink to achieve that?
    We know people who manage to do that by doing home improvements or updating their car thus reducing their money.
    If it is your assets then look at that.
    Paddington
    9th Feb 2019
    9:41pm
    Why aren’t you able to get a part pension? From what you are describing it sounds like that would be possible.
    Maybe see Centrelink to achieve that?
    We know people who manage to do that by doing home improvements or updating their car thus reducing their money.
    If it is your assets then look at that.
    Paddington
    9th Feb 2019
    9:42pm
    Why aren’t you able to get a part pension? From what you are describing it sounds like that would be possible.
    Maybe see Centrelink to achieve that?
    We know people who manage to do that by doing home improvements or updating their car thus reducing their money.
    If it is your assets then look at that.
    Sundays
    10th Feb 2019
    12:35am
    Paddington. OGR s stories are full of holes. One minute she has a self managed super fund with $900,000 in pension phase. Here she would have to draw down 5% a year, and pay no tax. Then she is self funded but it’s all in shares and the dividends and Franking credits are only worth $34,000 but she doesn’t qualify for a part pension? Is that because all her other assets put her over the threshhold and she doesn’t want to touch them? Can’t have it both ways. Then there is the little job she has and loves? Doesn’t it pay her income. I like the last sentence ‘people who saved are entitled to a higher standard of living than those who didn’t’ which is code for I am entitled to more than a pensioner because they spent all their money and are asking for handouts. Disgusting really especially her comments to and about pensioners. Full pensioners have no capital to fall back on in times of stress, and large unforeseen expenses, not the case for SFR so they have a higher standard of living right there. I’m an SFR, happy to fund my own retirement and happy we have a system in Australia which provides a safety net even though it’s not really eneough.
    Paddington
    10th Feb 2019
    11:42am
    Thank you Sundays.
    I have noticed the discrepancies but he/she keeps bashing away at the franking credits.
    We are full pensioners and we are not ashamed of that like some trying to make us feel unworthy. We raised a big family who have qualifications like PhDs and Masters and they more than cover our pension. We made sure they could all be well educated. We proudly did that on what would now be considered a low income.
    All the people on here have a different story and everyone is equal unless they berate others then they make themselves less.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    5:14pm
    You ASSES are showing your ignorance - or just believing the convenient lies that suit your greedy purposes.

    I DO NOT have $900,000 in super - or anywhere else - and I have NEVER said I do.

    The level of someone's assessable assets for pension purposes has NO RELATIONSHIP to their income or their real wealth.

    Many SRS have a LOWER standard of living than pensioners, and a much lower income.

    Many SFRs have little or no super so the 5% drawing requirement is totally irrelevant.

    SFRs who saved specifically for an anticipated future expense and have to live on their savings are being unfairly denied the right to save for a specific objective. When the event happens, they may well have nothing to fall back on. Meanwhile, most pensioners DO have considerable savings to fall back on and not only don't have to touch them, because they have a secure regular income, but also enjoy huge concessions and benefits that reduce the likelihood that they will incur that future expense (especially if it is health related)

    No, Paddington. We are not all equal. Pensioners are entitled and privileged and SFRs are being abused, defamed, and made a target for every nasty attack and reduction of their income and savings. They are now the most hated species in Australia. Jealousy and greed has destroyed all respect - and lies have denied the reality that many SFRs have far less than the pensioners who will be handed well over $1 million over the course of their retirement.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    5:14pm
    You ASSES are showing your ignorance - or just believing the convenient lies that suit your greedy purposes.

    I DO NOT have $900,000 in super - or anywhere else - and I have NEVER said I do.

    The level of someone's assessable assets for pension purposes has NO RELATIONSHIP to their income or their real wealth.

    Many SRS have a LOWER standard of living than pensioners, and a much lower income.

    Many SFRs have little or no super so the 5% drawing requirement is totally irrelevant.

    SFRs who saved specifically for an anticipated future expense and have to live on their savings are being unfairly denied the right to save for a specific objective. When the event happens, they may well have nothing to fall back on. Meanwhile, most pensioners DO have considerable savings to fall back on and not only don't have to touch them, because they have a secure regular income, but also enjoy huge concessions and benefits that reduce the likelihood that they will incur that future expense (especially if it is health related)

    No, Paddington. We are not all equal. Pensioners are entitled and privileged and SFRs are being abused, defamed, and made a target for every nasty attack and reduction of their income and savings. They are now the most hated species in Australia. Jealousy and greed has destroyed all respect - and lies have denied the reality that many SFRs have far less than the pensioners who will be handed well over $1 million over the course of their retirement.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    5:16pm
    I should add that SFRs are being bullied with blatant lies about them by socialists like Sundays and Labor politicians - as evidenced here.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    5:16pm
    I should add that SFRs are being bullied with blatant lies about them by socialists like Sundays and Labor politicians - as evidenced here.
    Lookfar
    8th Feb 2019
    9:07pm
    Would be retiree apprentice, (a sleeper) I am asking OGR to analyse your argument because what you say about Global Warming casts doubt on your cognitive processes.
    You argue that Global Warming is a hoax, that will destroy the richest countries, - yet if global warming is real, it will, by making most of civilisation unlivable, destroy the richest countries but if not real will hurt no-one.
    This is a bit dodgy in the mind department, perhaps you should look at the money, - what is causing Global Warming? - burning fossil fuels and destroying forests.
    Who benefits from that? The .01% who own the mines and oil wells and the hamburger requiring grazing, - almost everything and control the media and influence most national Governments.
    So they don't want anything to change, - understandably, - but it will destroy the Human Beings inhabitable Earth, the proof is now overwhelming, should not they then stop doing that seemingly suicidal behaviour?
    Well they didn't with Rome and destroyed it, so you need to understand that the super rich are not in touch with reality, they will destroy your children without a murmer, to keep on being so rich and powerfull, - they think, forever.
    You need to ask your self, do the scientists benefit from this "hoax"? - how many rich scientists do you know? What? none? Hello..
    Propaganda from the super rich has to be regarded with the greatest suspicion as Only them benefit from Global Warming, - no-one else.
    You care about your children and grand children? Ask Them, they are going on strike, all over the world.
    Here is one, listen to her, please. https://www.facebook.com/677890983/posts/10156823320800984/
    https://www.facebook.com/100013555095428/videos/544695065992325/UzpfSTY3Nzg5MDk4MzoxMDE1NjgyMzMyMDgwMDk4NA/
    Old Geezer
    8th Feb 2019
    9:19pm
    Yes climate change is real. It is the reason why we are here today.

    What I don't like is that climate change used to be called global warming but they changed it as the earth actually got colder and the movement didn't take off. Now the rich are happy as it's has taken off under climate change. What is happening is that the richest 5% in the world have actually engineered it and stand to make a killing financially out of the extra cost to the other 95%. I have no desire to support climate change to make the rich richer.
    constantine
    8th Feb 2019
    9:56pm
    Even though it may be fair enough, when I saw them announce this a few weeks ago, I thought: 'that's a big political mistake (to announce it like that)'. I am fairly superannuation literate and had trouble understanding it, The average punter and short-spanned voters are going to see it as an attack on oldies. Made themselves a target
    Sundays
    9th Feb 2019
    7:55am
    Yes Tim Winton should be removed as he has a major conflict of interest. No Franking Credits shoul no longer be used as a tax refund. The posts with endless examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford. I went to a seminar a few years ago when an investment adviser was encouraging people to have an smsf purely in Australian shares to get the dividend and the franking credits thereby keeping the capital for your estate. Even then i thought what if the policy changes and why would you have all your eggs in one basket. I talk to a lot of people and the support from all ages including baby boomers is not strong. Most would prefer the Liberals to focus on broader policies. If you have all your super just to get franking credits i suggest you make other plans. Youve had plenty of notice and shouting and dominating the discussion is not going to sway public opinion.
    Sundays
    9th Feb 2019
    8:15am
    Also why is there even a parliamentary inquiry. Was there one when the retirement plans of retirees were ruined with changes to the asset test, deeming rates and deductibles. No it was just announced without warning in the budget and everyone had to cop it. There must be a lot of extremely greedy wealthy people affected this time
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:16am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:16am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:16am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:16am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:16am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:16am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:16am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:16am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    10:17am
    Sundays, I would like to hear your explanation for your concept of, ".....examples of perceived fairness or unfairness dont change the fact that its a largess the country can no longer afford".

    Are you saying, the franking credit refund for those whose taxable income below $18,200.00 should be confiscated by government, otherwise it is a gift from the government? Your concept seems to be in conflict with the concept of the investment market and our tax system, which is, you pay income tax based on what you earned at the tax rate required.

    We believe in and live in a democratic society with a free economy within the tax law and regulations. Your concept of a largess in this franking credit refund is getting very close to the concept of "what is you is mine and what is mine is mine". Have I heard this before in countries behind a iron curtain?
    Sundays
    10th Feb 2019
    10:52am
    Curious, Franking credits represent tax paid at the corporate level which can be used to offset tax paid at the individual level. No problem with this so you don’t pay tax twice. I don’t believe that people drawing tax free income from Super should receive the Franking credits as a tax refund. This is Labor’s policy because they estimate it will save $5 to $6 Billion a year. This largesse to be returned to a few should be spent for the good of us all in my opinion. If you’re a pensioner you are exempt and if you genuinely earn less than $18,200, then yes I agree Labor should look at those cases. However, when I read of people drawing $80,000 tax free from Super who never have to complete a tax return demanding that on top of their tax free status the Franking credits paid should be returned as a cash refund because otherwise they will have to reduce the number of overseas holiday, I wonder why my children are working so hard and paying tax. Read some of the submissions to the Parliamentary Inquiry. A few genuine cases, a lot of entitled rich people. BTW, I am self funded retiree and I may be affected to a small degree
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2019
    11:08am
    Sundays, that makes no sense. If tax taken from Bill Shorten's dividend is 'his tax' and credited accordingly, then tax taken from my dividend is also 'my tax' and should be refunded. You can't categorize a deduction according to taxable income. That says the rich are entitled and the poor are not. It's BS.
    And you are GROSSLY MISINFORMED AND BIGOTED claiming a lot of entitled rich people and a few genuine cases. There are hundreds of thousands of genuine cases. And you are not qualified to determine who is rich and who is not nor who is entitled and who is not. I agree some are affected because they avoid tax. So address that via the tax system. But no, Labor is playing stinking politics persecuting people because they had SFRs and want us all to be controlled. Stop lying to justify evil.

    Tax is tax, no matter whose dividend it is taken from. It it's creditable against a high income earner's tax debt, it's creditable for a low income earner and if that yields a negative tax, they are ENTITLED to the same refund PAYE and PAYE tax payers and people subjected to withholding tax are entitled to. Anything else is patently UNFAIR and economically harmful.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    5:20pm
    Sundays, anyone drawing $80,000 a year from super would likely have a $1.6 million balance and be very close to paying tax. If Labor thinks - as I do - that $80,000 is too much for people to have tax free, lower the TBC, or, better still, make incomes over a specified level taxable. DON'T PERSECUTE SFRS WHO EARN $30,000 A YEAR BECAUSE YOUR SELFISH SOCIALISTS PREFER TO LIE AND PRETEND ALL SFRs ARE WEALTHY.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    5:20pm
    Sundays, anyone drawing $80,000 a year from super would likely have a $1.6 million balance and be very close to paying tax. If Labor thinks - as I do - that $80,000 is too much for people to have tax free, lower the TBC, or, better still, make incomes over a specified level taxable. DON'T PERSECUTE SFRS WHO EARN $30,000 A YEAR BECAUSE YOUR SELFISH SOCIALISTS PREFER TO LIE AND PRETEND ALL SFRs ARE WEALTHY.
    Adrianus
    9th Feb 2019
    9:23am
    In a way I'm pleased Bill Shorten has declared his devotion to higher taxes, and in particular his proposed change to the imputation . Labor is backing themselves into a corner on this one. This policy has had a couple of changes since the original announcement. Indicative of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd nightmare.

    Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen have reminded us all why we kicked them out in 2013.

    Up to a million Australians would be hit by a complex set of superannuation tax changes if Bill Shorten wins government, new Treasury analysis has revealed, with mothers returning from ­maternity leave and the self-­employed among those most ­affected.
    And with all these new taxes, a massive $200B, they will not balance the budget??!!!
    Economic vandals!!!
    JohnLM
    9th Feb 2019
    10:29am
    NO. The referral of the Implications of the Labor's proposal to confiscate the tax refund entitlements of retirees [most of whom are on low incomes [84% below $37K was a very sensible move in a rare moment of sanity by the government
    It is clearly working and shows Labor is concerned as it has decided to ignore the issues raised and instead has decided to attack the Committee Chairman
    John
    JohnLM
    9th Feb 2019
    10:29am
    NO. The referral of the Implications of the Labor's proposal to confiscate the tax refund entitlements of retirees [most of whom are on low incomes [84% below $37K was a very sensible move in a rare moment of sanity by the government
    It is clearly working and shows Labor is concerned as it has decided to ignore the issues raised and instead has decided to attack the Committee Chairman
    John
    JohnLM
    9th Feb 2019
    10:31am
    NO. The referral of the Implications of the Labor's proposal to confiscate the tax refund entitlements of retirees [most of whom are on low incomes [84% below $37K was a very sensible move in a rare moment of sanity by the government
    It is clearly working and shows Labor is concerned as it has decided to ignore the issues raised and instead has decided to attack the Committee Chairman
    John
    ace
    9th Feb 2019
    11:01am
    THE GOVERMENT OR WANABEE ARE ALWAYS TINKERING WITH PENSIONERS & retirees !
    EITHER overhaul the Tax & pension system or stop fiddling ! don't they realise that lots of ordinary people Have a few shares that pay dividends ! so out of touch ! how do they hope to win Votes from disgruntled Lib voters !!just stupid !
    ace
    9th Feb 2019
    11:01am
    THE GOVERMENT OR WANABEE ARE ALWAYS TINKERING WITH PENSIONERS & retirees !
    EITHER overhaul the Tax & pension system or stop fiddling ! don't they realise that lots of ordinary people Have a few shares that pay dividends ! so out of touch ! how do they hope to win Votes from disgruntled Lib voters !!just stupid !
    ace
    9th Feb 2019
    11:02am
    THE GOVERMENT OR WANABEE ARE ALWAYS TINKERING WITH PENSIONERS & retirees !
    EITHER overhaul the Tax & pension system or stop fiddling ! don't they realise that lots of ordinary people Have a few shares that pay dividends ! so out of touch ! how do they hope to win Votes from disgruntled Lib voters !!just stupid !
    ace
    9th Feb 2019
    11:02am
    THE GOVERMENT OR WANABEE ARE ALWAYS TINKERING WITH PENSIONERS & retirees !
    EITHER overhaul the Tax & pension system or stop fiddling ! don't they realise that lots of ordinary people Have a few shares that pay dividends ! so out of touch ! how do they hope to win Votes from disgruntled Lib voters !!just stupid !
    ace
    9th Feb 2019
    11:02am
    THE GOVERMENT OR WANABEE ARE ALWAYS TINKERING WITH PENSIONERS & retirees !
    EITHER overhaul the Tax & pension system or stop fiddling ! don't they realise that lots of ordinary people Have a few shares that pay dividends ! so out of touch ! how do they hope to win Votes from disgruntled Lib voters !!just stupid !
    ace
    9th Feb 2019
    11:02am
    THE GOVERMENT OR WANABEE ARE ALWAYS TINKERING WITH PENSIONERS & retirees !
    EITHER overhaul the Tax & pension system or stop fiddling ! don't they realise that lots of ordinary people Have a few shares that pay dividends ! so out of touch ! how do they hope to win Votes from disgruntled Lib voters !!just stupid !
    ace
    9th Feb 2019
    11:02am
    THE GOVERMENT OR WANABEE ARE ALWAYS TINKERING WITH PENSIONERS & retirees !
    EITHER overhaul the Tax & pension system or stop fiddling ! don't they realise that lots of ordinary people Have a few shares that pay dividends ! so out of touch ! how do they hope to win Votes from disgruntled Lib voters !!just stupid !
    ace
    9th Feb 2019
    11:02am
    THE GOVERMENT OR WANABEE ARE ALWAYS TINKERING WITH PENSIONERS & retirees !
    EITHER overhaul the Tax & pension system or stop fiddling ! don't they realise that lots of ordinary people Have a few shares that pay dividends ! so out of touch ! how do they hope to win Votes from disgruntled Lib voters !!just stupid !
    ace
    9th Feb 2019
    11:03am
    THE GOVERMENT OR WANABEE ARE ALWAYS TINKERING WITH PENSIONERS & retirees !
    EITHER overhaul the Tax & pension system or stop fiddling ! don't they realise that lots of ordinary people Have a few shares that pay dividends ! so out of touch ! how do they hope to win Votes from disgruntled Lib voters !!just stupid !
    ace
    9th Feb 2019
    11:04am
    THE GOVERMENT OR WANABEE ARE ALWAYS TINKERING WITH PENSIONERS & retirees !
    EITHER overhaul the Tax & pension system or stop fiddling ! don't they realise that lots of ordinary people Have a few shares that pay dividends ! so out of touch ! how do they hope to win Votes from disgruntled Lib voters !!just stupid !
    ace
    9th Feb 2019
    11:04am
    THE GOVERMENT OR WANABEE ARE ALWAYS TINKERING WITH PENSIONERS & retirees !
    EITHER overhaul the Tax & pension system or stop fiddling ! don't they realise that lots of ordinary people Have a few shares that pay dividends ! so out of touch ! how do they hope to win Votes from disgruntled Lib voters !!just stupid !
    ace
    9th Feb 2019
    11:04am
    THE GOVERMENT OR WANABEE ARE ALWAYS TINKERING WITH PENSIONERS & retirees !
    EITHER overhaul the Tax & pension system or stop fiddling ! don't they realise that lots of ordinary people Have a few shares that pay dividends ! so out of touch ! how do they hope to win Votes from disgruntled Lib voters !!just stupid !
    ace
    9th Feb 2019
    11:06am
    THE GOVERMENT OR WANABEE ARE ALWAYS TINKERING WITH PENSIONERS & retirees !
    EITHER overhaul the Tax & pension system or stop fiddling ! don't they realise that lots of ordinary people Have a few shares that pay dividends ! so out of touch ! how do they hope to win Votes from disgruntled Lib voters !!just stupid !
    ace
    9th Feb 2019
    11:06am
    THE GOVERMENT OR WANABEE ARE ALWAYS TINKERING WITH PENSIONERS & retirees !
    EITHER overhaul the Tax & pension system or stop fiddling ! don't they realise that lots of ordinary people Have a few shares that pay dividends ! so out of touch ! how do they hope to win Votes from disgruntled Lib voters !!just stupid !
    TREBOR
    9th Feb 2019
    11:13am
    Where there is any possibility of any conflict of interest, the party should not go anywhere near an issue. That said - I think this is a matter where a caution and withdrawal would be sufficient.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    12:30pm
    No conflict of interest, Trebor. Labor is lying. Wilsons are only very distantly related (and only learned of the distant connection recently) and neither benefit directly from franking credits, nor does any investment company they are associated with.

    Withdrawal would serve Labor's evil ends nicely, and do enormous harm to the nation. We need the truth exposed.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    12:30pm
    No conflict of interest, Trebor. Labor is lying. Wilsons are only very distantly related (and only learned of the distant connection recently) and neither benefit directly from franking credits, nor does any investment company they are associated with.

    Withdrawal would serve Labor's evil ends nicely, and do enormous harm to the nation. We need the truth exposed.
    TREBOR
    9th Feb 2019
    11:13am
    Where there is any possibility of any conflict of interest, the party should not go anywhere near an issue. That said - I think this is a matter where a caution and withdrawal would be sufficient.
    4b2
    9th Feb 2019
    11:44am
    I receive franking credits, but I do not receive enough to influence my living standards. If I could afford the investments to receive credits to live on I think I would be a very wealthy man.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    4:33pm
    You must be very wealthy if you don't need your franking credits to live - or else a pensioner with dividend income on top, in which case you would be doing very nicely thankyou. Far better off than the poor strugglers who DO need their franking credit income because they have nothing but their dividends to live on.
    4b2
    9th Feb 2019
    11:44am
    I receive franking credits, but I do not receive enough to influence my living standards. If I could afford the investments to receive credits to live on I think I would be a very wealthy man.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    12:28pm
    Once is enough for a post that is ill-informed and misleading. You must BE wealthy if your franking credits don't influence your living standards. Anybody who can afford to lose 30% of an income source is damned well off.
    4b2
    9th Feb 2019
    11:44am
    I receive franking credits, but I do not receive enough to influence my living standards. If I could afford the investments to receive credits to live on I think I would be a very wealthy man.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    12:26pm
    So $12000 a year wouldn't influence your living standards, 4b2? You must BE a very wealthy man. Plenty of self-funded retirees with just over the asset threshold and incomes around the OAP level get $12000 a year in franking credits. You get more than $12,000 a year franking credits attached to just $30K a year of dividends. At average rates, that requires a holding of only $600,000 in managed funds, trusts or shares that allocated franking credits. A couple with $600,000 and a part pension would probably be more than comfortable. A couple with $850,000 and no pension or benefits might well be struggling, but looking at a loss of over $12000 a year if Labor has its way.

    Sorry, I think you have a weird concept of 'wealthy', or else you don't understand the system and how it impacts those who can't qualify for a pension.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    12:27pm
    So $12000 a year wouldn't influence your living standards, 4b2? You must BE a very wealthy man. Plenty of self-funded retirees with just over the asset threshold and incomes around the OAP level get $12000 a year in franking credits. You get more than $12,000 a year franking credits attached to just $30K a year of dividends. At average rates, that requires a holding of only $600,000 in managed funds, trusts or shares that allocated franking credits. A couple with $600,000 and a part pension would probably be more than comfortable. A couple with $850,000 and no pension or benefits might well be struggling, but looking at a loss of over $12000 a year if Labor has its way.

    Sorry, I think you have a weird concept of 'wealthy', or else you don't understand the system and how it impacts those who can't qualify for a pension.
    TREBOR
    9th Feb 2019
    12:31pm
    Where there is any possibility of any conflict of interest, the party should not go anywhere near an issue. That said - I think this is a matter where a caution and withdrawal would be sufficient.

    9th Feb 2019
    12:48pm
    This website is clearly not working property. All these repeated comments. The tech staff need to fix this!

    Questions for Sundays - since you think people who have no taxable income should nevertheless pay tax, so money can be reallocated to schools and health?

    (1) If the 30% deduction taken from a dividend payment to a low-balance SFR and paid to the ATO and NOT tax, how is the income from a high-income earner (e.g. Labor politician) 'tax' and credited against their tax bill? It's the same percentage taken from the same income source and paid to the same ATO. How can it be different?

    (2) If we can't afford $6 billion in fair tax refunds to low income earners, how can we afford $34 billion in tax credits to the well off? How come Shorten and Bowen aren't sacrificing THEIR dividiend imputation credit? Lots of other countries don't credit DI against tax payable either, and Australian hasn't always. Why one rule for the rich and another for the battlers, when Labor is supposed to support battlers?

    (3) So we can't afford $6 billion to give fair tax refunds to overtaxed low income earners. Fine. Let's give that $6 billion to the tax office. Now, just how much has Labor allowed to cover:
    Higher aged pension costs because some who lose will migrate to the pension much faster
    Lost revenue from investment switching
    AND most significant of all, lost tax due to reduced spending?

    Have you Labor supporters considered how much GST and job creation is driven by people spending that $6 billion? Take that out of the economy and watch the damage bill rise! You lot are saying people can afford to lose up to 30% of their income, and - oh yes - not a problem because it just means less overseas trips and restaurant dinners and... Yes, and a lot less GST revenue and a lot less spending that drives jobs and business profit and tax revenue, which in turn drives more growth and jobs and GST and income tax revenue because all those who work spend more. When thousands lose their jobs, the tax revenue base is eroded, and spending reduces, causing more job loss and more reduced revenue.

    Bottom line - Rae and OG are right to predict a bad recession if Labor has its way. And in recessions, it's the neediest who hurt worst, and health and education are among the first targets for reduced spending.
    Sundays
    11th Feb 2019
    2:27pm
    You don’t really want me to answer these questions. I have explained Q1 to you before. A shareholder has $1000 in dividends. $700 in cash, $300 paid to the ATO as a Franking credit. At tax time the wage earner has to gross up the amount and show $1000 on his tax return. Note, he grosses up his income as well as showing all other income . If he’s paying 30% tax he would owe $300 plus Medicare levy on the $1,000. The Franking credit is then used to reduce his tax payable. Net outcome is the $700 he has already received in dividends. If he is in a higher tax bracket, he would have to pay additional tax. SFR with a self managed fund in pension mode pay no tax. Quite possible to get $80,000 per year tax free when you are over 60. Any amount you receive is never shown on a tax return. Stop saying you are overtaxed. At present the Franking credit is refunded so the SFR keep $1,000. This is how it works. Look it up if you don’t understand taxation. The taxpayer keeps $700 minimum. You think this is fair, I do not.

    Bottom line, you have not invested wisely if Franking credits make up 30% of your income. Financial advisers are already advising SMSF of ways to restructure their affairs. The doom and gloom won’t happen. The rest of your posts are just white noise and becoming boring.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    5:25pm
    You are WRONG, Sundays. 30% tax is taken from my dividend before I receive it. It's also taken from Bill Shorten's, but he says he should get his back as a tax credit, and I should forfeit mine - paying 30% more tax than is fair and 30% more than I would pay if my income came from any other source.
    You are also grossly misinformed about investment. Most viable investments in Australia today carry franking credits. And financial advisers are advising WEALTHY clients how to restructure and telling poorer SFRs THERE IS NO WAY THEY CAN AVOID MASSIVE INCOME LOSS.

    You are becoming boring with your grossly misleading and nasty socialist rants, supporting theft of other people's livelihood and lying about them to justify your selfishness.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    5:25pm
    You are WRONG, Sundays. 30% tax is taken from my dividend before I receive it. It's also taken from Bill Shorten's, but he says he should get his back as a tax credit, and I should forfeit mine - paying 30% more tax than is fair and 30% more than I would pay if my income came from any other source.
    You are also grossly misinformed about investment. Most viable investments in Australia today carry franking credits. And financial advisers are advising WEALTHY clients how to restructure and telling poorer SFRs THERE IS NO WAY THEY CAN AVOID MASSIVE INCOME LOSS.

    You are becoming boring with your grossly misleading and nasty socialist rants, supporting theft of other people's livelihood and lying about them to justify your selfishness.

    9th Feb 2019
    12:48pm
    This website is clearly not working property. All these repeated comments. The tech staff need to fix this!

    Questions for Sundays - since you think people who have no taxable income should nevertheless pay tax, so money can be reallocated to schools and health?

    (1) If the 30% deduction taken from a dividend payment to a low-balance SFR and paid to the ATO and NOT tax, how is the income from a high-income earner (e.g. Labor politician) 'tax' and credited against their tax bill? It's the same percentage taken from the same income source and paid to the same ATO. How can it be different?

    (2) If we can't afford $6 billion in fair tax refunds to low income earners, how can we afford $34 billion in tax credits to the well off? How come Shorten and Bowen aren't sacrificing THEIR dividiend imputation credit? Lots of other countries don't credit DI against tax payable either, and Australian hasn't always. Why one rule for the rich and another for the battlers, when Labor is supposed to support battlers?

    (3) So we can't afford $6 billion to give fair tax refunds to overtaxed low income earners. Fine. Let's give that $6 billion to the tax office. Now, just how much has Labor allowed to cover:
    Higher aged pension costs because some who lose will migrate to the pension much faster
    Lost revenue from investment switching
    AND most significant of all, lost tax due to reduced spending?

    Have you Labor supporters considered how much GST and job creation is driven by people spending that $6 billion? Take that out of the economy and watch the damage bill rise! You lot are saying people can afford to lose up to 30% of their income, and - oh yes - not a problem because it just means less overseas trips and restaurant dinners and... Yes, and a lot less GST revenue and a lot less spending that drives jobs and business profit and tax revenue, which in turn drives more growth and jobs and GST and income tax revenue because all those who work spend more. When thousands lose their jobs, the tax revenue base is eroded, and spending reduces, causing more job loss and more reduced revenue.

    Bottom line - Rae and OG are right to predict a bad recession if Labor has its way. And in recessions, it's the neediest who hurt worst, and health and education are among the first targets for reduced spending.
    TREBOR
    9th Feb 2019
    12:48pm
    Where there is any possibility of any conflict of interest, the party should not go anywhere near an issue. That said - I think this is a matter where a caution and withdrawal would be sufficient.

    Anyone else giving up because the site won't post?
    TREBOR
    9th Feb 2019
    1:12pm
    Where there is any possibility of any conflict of interest, the party should not go anywhere near an issue. That said - I think this is a matter where a caution and withdrawal would be sufficient.

    Anyone else giving up because the site won't post?
    JohnLM
    9th Feb 2019
    1:54pm
    Many good comments but this repetition needs fixing. I did NOT intentionally submit 3 times ; just didn't seem to register first time. Presumably other comments the same -- some cases ten times over!
    Grateful if duplicates could be removed.
    John LM
    annie
    9th Feb 2019
    4:42pm
    I've never read such entitled crap ever. Most pensioners who have a full pension don't own shares. Why should these Self Funded retirees get a tax return for NOT paying any tax what so ever. If you don't physically pay tax you don't get a tax return. The Liberals have taken away families tax benefit A or B, forced single parents onto Newstart but don't you dare take away the free welfare this government hands out to SFR. Good on Labor for trying to claw back welfare paid to the wealthy. Now all we need is the welfare paid to large corporations and mining companies to be removed and this country might once again become the wealthy and fair country it once was. If you can't support yourself on $50,000 plus per year without a hand out then I don't feel sorry for you. Why should the tax payer pay for that holiday you take a couple of times a year. If you want to travel about, budget for you out of your own money
    annie
    9th Feb 2019
    4:42pm
    I've never read such entitled crap ever. Most pensioners who have a full pension don't own shares. Why should these Self Funded retirees get a tax return for NOT paying any tax what so ever. If you don't physically pay tax you don't get a tax return. The Liberals have taken away families tax benefit A or B, forced single parents onto Newstart but don't you dare take away the free welfare this government hands out to SFR. Good on Labor for trying to claw back welfare paid to the wealthy. Now all we need is the welfare paid to large corporations and mining companies to be removed and this country might once again become the wealthy and fair country it once was. If you can't support yourself on $50,000 plus per year without a hand out then I don't feel sorry for you. Why should the tax payer pay for that holiday you take a couple of times a year. If you want to travel about, budget for you out of your own money
    annie
    9th Feb 2019
    4:43pm
    I've never read such entitled crap ever. Most pensioners who have a full pension don't own shares. Why should these Self Funded retirees get a tax return for NOT paying any tax what so ever. If you don't physically pay tax you don't get a tax return. The Liberals have taken away families tax benefit A or B, forced single parents onto Newstart but don't you dare take away the free welfare this government hands out to SFR. Good on Labor for trying to claw back welfare paid to the wealthy. Now all we need is the welfare paid to large corporations and mining companies to be removed and this country might once again become the wealthy and fair country it once was. If you can't support yourself on $50,000 plus per year without a hand out then I don't feel sorry for you. Why should the tax payer pay for that holiday you take a couple of times a year. If you want to travel about, budget for you out of your own money
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    5:30pm
    Greedy pensioner here, Annie. Greedy, selfish, self-serving and patently ILL-INFORMED. These SFRs you are trashing SAVE the nation tens of thousands every year. A married couple probably saves about $50K a year - more than $1 million over the course of their retirement. They PAID FOR THEIR PENSIONS with tax over 40+ years of working life, just like other workers did. But they get NOTHING back, except a refund of tax that THEY DO NOT OWE BECAUSE THEY DON'T EARN ENOUGH TO PAY TAX.

    And now you want to STEAL their livelihood by taxing them 30% on an income that is not taxable, and in many cases is LESS THAN YOURS? How selfish can you get?

    The taxpayer is paying for pensioners to holiday and party. No taxpayer PAYS ONE SINGLE CENT FOR A SELF-FUNDED RETIREE. All they get is what they earn from their own investments. Their franking credit refund is a REFUND of tax paid that was never owed in the first place. It is NOT a handout - unlike the pension, which IS.

    Stop your greed and acknowledge that these folk who worked their guts out to pay their own way in retirement are ENTITLED to their tax free income. It's a lot less than the ENTITLED pensioners are taking - and they are demanding franking credit refunds ON TOP OF THEIR PENSION HANDOUT AND BENEFITS AND CONCESSIONS., Triple benefits for them, and you want SFRs robbed of their hard-earned savings and the often very modest livelihood they earn from them.

    Go thieve from someone else. Try telling Short-on-brains that if the tax taken from my dividend isn't tax, then the tax taken from his isn't either. There's $34 billion in tax credits to be recovered from all those who DON'T need their franking credits to get by, because they have big fat taxable incomes on top of their dividends. Take THEIR money, and leave my income alone.

    Entitled CRAP. Yes, you ARE FULL OF IT.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    5:31pm
    Greedy pensioner here, Annie. Greedy, selfish, self-serving and patently ILL-INFORMED. These SFRs you are trashing SAVE the nation tens of thousands every year. A married couple probably saves about $50K a year - more than $1 million over the course of their retirement. They PAID FOR THEIR PENSIONS with tax over 40+ years of working life, just like other workers did. But they get NOTHING back, except a refund of tax that THEY DO NOT OWE BECAUSE THEY DON'T EARN ENOUGH TO PAY TAX.

    And now you want to STEAL their livelihood by taxing them 30% on an income that is not taxable, and in many cases is LESS THAN YOURS? How selfish can you get?

    The taxpayer is paying for pensioners to holiday and party. No taxpayer PAYS ONE SINGLE CENT FOR A SELF-FUNDED RETIREE. All they get is what they earn from their own investments. Their franking credit refund is a REFUND of tax paid that was never owed in the first place. It is NOT a handout - unlike the pension, which IS.

    Stop your greed and acknowledge that these folk who worked their guts out to pay their own way in retirement are ENTITLED to their tax free income. It's a lot less than the ENTITLED pensioners are taking - and they are demanding franking credit refunds ON TOP OF THEIR PENSION HANDOUT AND BENEFITS AND CONCESSIONS. Triple benefits for them, and you want SFRs robbed of their hard-earned savings and the often very modest livelihood they earn from them.

    Go thieve from someone else. Try telling Short-on-brains that if the tax taken from my dividend isn't tax, then the tax taken from his isn't either. There's $34 billion in tax credits to be recovered from all those who DON'T need their franking credits to get by, because they have big fat taxable incomes on top of their dividends. Take THEIR money, and leave my income alone.

    Entitled CRAP. Yes, you ARE FULL OF IT.
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    7:00pm
    It saddens me to read this debate, LNP vs ALP. There are inequalities on both sides of the argument. We need a tax reform to iron out all these inequalities, not just bandage work on franking credit refund, negative gearing and capital gain tax. We need a balanced contribution of revenue from all quarters of our community for an equitable distribution of our bounty to share. Not wealthy verse poor or vice versa. Please, see a bigger picture rather than a party's ideology and/or political slogans. Our country needs a tax reform to keep pace with our dynamic economy against the rest of the world.
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    7:01pm
    It saddens me to read this debate, LNP vs ALP. There are inequalities on both sides of the argument. We need a tax reform to iron out all these inequalities, not just bandage work on franking credit refund, negative gearing and capital gain tax. We need a balanced contribution of revenue from all quarters of our community for an equitable distribution of our bounty to share. Not wealthy verse poor or vice versa. Please, see a bigger picture rather than a party's ideology and/or political slogans. Our country needs a tax reform to keep pace with our dynamic economy against the rest of the world.
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    7:04pm
    It saddens me to read this debate, LNP vs ALP. There are inequalities on both sides of the argument. We need a tax reform to iron out all these inequalities, not just bandage work on franking credit refund, negative gearing and capital gain tax. We need a balanced contribution of revenue from all quarters of our community for an equitable distribution of our bounty to share. Not wealthy verse poor or vice versa. Please, see a bigger picture rather than a party's ideology and/or political slogans. Our country needs a tax reform to keep pace with our dynamic economy against the rest of the world.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    7:59pm
    Yes, Curious, it is sad the way politicians' lies have turned people against one another. Of course there are inequalities on both sides, and we need a complete reform of the tax and pension system, but it needs to be done respectfully and with fair consideration for the rights of all.

    Setting pensioners against SFRs by lying about the nature of franking credit refunds and ignoring the contribution SFRs make to the economy, and by failing to correctly note that many SFRs are far from wealthy and many pensioners are doing very nicely indeed (and indeed some ARE rich, but have their wealth tied up in the family home!) is not doing society any good at all.

    I admit to getting far too angry when people like Annie make such unfair comments, denigrating people who have worked hard and more than paid their way and are now being dealt with so unfairly. It's hard not to be enraged when pensioners who are enjoying a nice income from the taxpayer seek to unfairly deprive battling SFRs who are not nearly as well off, in reality - and certainly nowhere near as 'privileged' and the likes of Annie seem to assume.

    Ultimately, destroying the benefits of work and saving can only destroy our economy. We need to ensure that those who work hard and save well enjoy fair reward - not constantly make them whipping boys and force them to give up more and more and more to hand to those who, whether by necessity or otherwise, are dependant on the taxpayer. We should be trying to reduce dependency - not increase it by stripping anyone who works of all that they earn and grinding them down.

    Some pensioners may be struggling, and I would certainly support a call for those that are to be given more, but for them to support slashing the incomes of struggling SFRs is just vile and disgusting. They ARE, after all, getting a handout from the taxpayer purse. And SFRs are contributing to the government's ability to pay that fortnightly income.

    Give some credit where it's due! And have the common decency to recognise that those who contribute tens of thousands annually by supporting themselves are ENTITLED to - at the barest minimum - the same living standard as pensioners enjoy, WITHOUT having to drain the savings they sacrificed to achieve. Remember, vast numbers of today's retirees didn't have super - or had very little. Their savings may well be PERSONAL savings, even if they did as many did (and many were strongly advised to do) and put them in to a super fund late in their working lives. If you believe all who have savings are 'lucky', you believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden and money falls from the sky. No wonder you have little if you are that naïve!

    Instead of attacking, why can't we all unite to demand a fair deal for ALL retirees. Pollies must be loving seeing all this division! It plays into their hands beautifully. Just remember, today it's struggling SFRs being attacked. Tomorrow it might be pensioner home owners, or part pensioners with other income, or pensioners getting rent assistance. Or it might be that pensions will actually be reduced. It's happened in other countries.

    Who will speak for you when you are under attack, given that you supported attack on your fellow Australians and wished them harm?
    Curious
    9th Feb 2019
    8:20pm
    OGR, well said and written. All I hope, YLC will send all the written comments of those participated in this debate to politicians of all persuasions, showing them how they divide us and doing nothing to address our plead for help. I hope, they have the strength to pull-up their shocks. Are we asking for a miracle?
    Sundays
    10th Feb 2019
    10:13am
    Curious, yes YLC should distribute OGRs comments, especially the ones full of vitriol like her response to Annie. That would really make them the Retirees site of choice. She seems to forget that we are all entitled to our opinions and everyone will have a different view on a policy. Name calling isn’t going to change those views
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2019
    10:52am
    Annie's post was grossly offensive, Sundays. YLC should distribute your comments also to show how socialists make disgusting false assumptions about other people's circumstances and support wrong based on innuendos that those who object to Labor's wrong are lying. You demonstrate very well the greed and selfishness of Labor supporters, as does Annie with her disgusting 'over-entitled' BS.
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2019
    10:52am
    Annie's post was grossly offensive, Sundays. YLC should distribute your comments also to show how socialists make disgusting false assumptions about other people's circumstances and support wrong based on innuendos that those who object to Labor's wrong are lying. You demonstrate very well the greed and selfishness of Labor supporters, as does Annie with her disgusting 'over-entitled' BS.
    annie
    9th Feb 2019
    5:17pm
    You are all missing the point. This IS NOT A TAX ON PENSIONERS, this is a payment handed to those pensioners who have shares, which they are paid by the company a dividend. This should be enough for them. Read the words. NOT A RETIREMENT TAX, YOU ARE BEING SCAMMED AND LIED TO BY THE LIBERALS. If you can't work it out you shouldn't be incharge of your own money
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    5:40pm
    No, Annie. YOU are being lied to by Labor. This tax IS a retiree tax. It's STEALING from people who have no tax liability because they don't earn much. The rich KEEP their credit. $34 billion in tax credits going to the well off, and Short-on says that's fine, but then turns around and says the SAME tax paid in the SAME way taken from the SAME income is 'not tax' if it's taken from the income of a struggling self-funded retiree with very limited income and no tax liability because they don't earn enough.

    How dare you seek to deprive people who worked their guts out for 40 years to earn enough to get by without bludging on the taxpayer. You are not satisfied that they get no pension or benefits or concessions. Now you want them overtaxed 30% of their income as well, while others with more income don't pay anything, and in many cases get nice fat handouts.

    Yes, shareholders are paid a dividend. And it's NOT ENOUGH TO LIVE ON unless they have very large shareholdings. The ATO takes 30% of it PENDING ASSESSMENT OF THEIR TAX LIABILITY. That 30% is credited for those who have a tax liability - correctly. It is refunded to those who don't, because money NOT OWED BUT TAKEN ANYWAY should be refunded, same as PAYE or PAYG tax if too much is paid. Now you want the ATO to steal that 30%. Well I want the ATO to steal 30% of your pension. Why should I pay tax on the income I EARN, while you get a tax free handout?

    I think it's time for a mass revolt by SFRs demanding pensions be stopped, since so many greedy pensioners think they are the ONLY ones entitled to a fair deal, and anyone else should be robbed blind. I hope lots of SFRs spend down and claim pensions and crash the system. Then pensioners might learn not to be so selfish!
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    6:17pm
    Oh, and Annie, pensioners don't lose anything. They get TRIPLE handouts from the taxpayer, while the people you want deprived get NOTHING, but have the money that is rightly theirs stolen. Who is 'ENTITLED".

    Labor is the one lying and scamming. The LNP is (for once!) telling the truth.

    READ MY WORDS. PENSIONS ARE TAX FREE HANDOUTS. FRANKING CREDITS ARE FAIR REFUNDS OF TAX THAT WAS PAID BUT WASN'T DUE. If we can't afford fair taxation for the self-supporting, we can't afford pensions either. We definitely can't afford TRIPLE handouts for those who live off taxpayer handouts while those who worked to be self-supporting are ripped off and plunged into unfair hardship.
    Captain
    9th Feb 2019
    6:41pm
    Annie, read these words. Pensioners who have shares and receive dividend imputation credits will keep those credits whilst retaining their tax free pension. Self Funded Retirees who own shares and receive dividend imputation credits will not receive those credits and still receive no pension. If the SFR eventually does receive a pension they will still not receive their Dividend Imputation credits. If you think that is fair then you are indeed heartless and non-thinking.

    The only people who will not receive their DIC's appear to be SFR's with less than $1.6m in superannuation.

    I spent more than 45 years working in this country, saving what I could and contributing my fair share in taxes. I am, (and many others like me) are saving the country approx $40k in pension and concessions each year. That, in today's money is about $1.2 m over 30 years.

    I think you are the one who should not be in charge of any monies. Thank God you were not my accountant!!!!
    Captain
    9th Feb 2019
    6:47pm
    Annie, read these words. Pensioners who have shares and receive dividend imputation credits will keep those credits whilst retaining their tax free pension. Self Funded Retirees who own shares and receive dividend imputation credits will not receive those credits and still receive no pension. If the SFR eventually does receive a pension they will still not receive their Dividend Imputation credits. If you think that is fair then you are indeed heartless and non-thinking.

    The only people who will not receive their DIC's appear to be SFR's with less than $1.6m in superannuation.

    I spent more than 45 years working in this country, saving what I could and contributing my fair share in taxes. I am, (and many others like me) are saving the country approx $40k in pension and concessions each year. That, in today's money is about $1.2 m over 30 years.

    I think you are the one who should not be in charge of any monies. Thank God you were not my accountant!!!!
    ardnher
    9th Feb 2019
    7:15pm
    SFR'ees should be congratulated for saving the taxpayer money by not taking a pension/concessions.. If all were on the pension there would be less for those who are genuinely in need.

    There is not a bottomless pit of money and there are many (and I know personally) who should not get getting even a "part pension" ..hiding assets is quite common amongst a great many retirees.

    What can be done about it I dont know..probably not much.
    ardnher
    9th Feb 2019
    7:15pm
    SFR'ees should be congratulated for saving the taxpayer money by not taking a pension/concessions.. If all were on the pension there would be less for those who are genuinely in need.

    There is not a bottomless pit of money and there are many (and I know personally) who should not get getting even a "part pension" ..hiding assets is quite common amongst a great many retirees.

    What can be done about it I dont know..probably not much.
    ardnher
    9th Feb 2019
    7:16pm
    SFR'ees should be congratulated for saving the taxpayer money by not taking a pension/concessions.. If all were on the pension there would be less for those who are genuinely in need.

    There is not a bottomless pit of money and there are many (and I know personally) who should not get getting even a "part pension" ..hiding assets is quite common amongst a great many retirees.

    What can be done about it I dont know..probably not much.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    8:04pm
    Ardnher, a lot can be done to reform the system. If we had a universal pension like in other countries, there would be no incentive to manipulate the system unfairly. Then a fair tax system could balance out the inequities in the proper way.

    The problem is the absurdly harsh assets test. When you punish people for saving, you create a nightmare. Of course people will either reduce their saving or manipulate to appear to have less. And making the family home exempt means manipulation is easy. The benefits are huge! Countless thousands of SFRs would be far, far better off with slightly less savings and a part pension. But it's not enough that they honest ones contribute tens of thousands annually to the federal budget. Labor wants to rip them off further with unfair taxes. Well, ultimately many will throw in the towel and go on the pension, and then there will be less to go around and more calls for it to be cut. And pensioners who supported Labor's stinking unfair grab will scream loud and long, but they are asking for it. And will they expect the SFRs they are now so eagerly attacking to come to their aid then?
    ardnher
    14th Feb 2019
    7:04pm
    yes, a universal pension would be great HOWEVER, it is not available so what do we do at the present time to stop all the "rorting" going on??
    Anonymous
    15th Feb 2019
    9:29am
    Well, Labor's solution is to rob people who are NOT rorting and make it impossible to get by being honest, thus forcing us all to join the rorting brigade! Of course they falsely claim we are rorting by claiming a fair refund of tax paid but not owed. Just another of the lies they peddle to support their socialist agenda - which is designed to ultimately return us to a feudal system of filthy rich ruling class and all the rest of us poor servants. Weird thing is that their supporters actually believe the lies they tell and think they are the saviour of the poor. Sad that they can't look at the FACTS and recognize that they are being lied to. But I guess the lies sound nice!
    Anonymous
    15th Feb 2019
    9:29am
    Well, Labor's solution is to rob people who are NOT rorting and make it impossible to get by being honest, thus forcing us all to join the rorting brigade! Of course they falsely claim we are rorting by claiming a fair refund of tax paid but not owed. Just another of the lies they peddle to support their socialist agenda - which is designed to ultimately return us to a feudal system of filthy rich ruling class and all the rest of us poor servants. Weird thing is that their supporters actually believe the lies they tell and think they are the saviour of the poor. Sad that they can't look at the FACTS and recognize that they are being lied to. But I guess the lies sound nice!

    9th Feb 2019
    5:22pm
    Seems some here have no comprehension of company structure or dividend imputation.

    A company IS a group of shareholders. Without them, it does not exist. It is not some ethereal entity in its own right. Shareholders contribute money to fund its operations by buying shares in it. They OWN the company - all of it. They OWN its profit. Any debt or tax liability it has is THEIR LIABILITY (except to the extent that legal protections exist if it goes bankrupt or closes with inadequate reserves to pay its debts).

    Shareholders ELECT directors to manage the company, and one of their tasks is to determine how much profit should be withheld for operating costs and expansion and how much should be distributed back to the company OWNERS. Under law, the company must deduct money from the SHAREHOLDER'S INCOME and pay to the ATO. The ATO then credits that tax to the Shareholder as tax paid, reducing the shareholder's tax liability on their combined income from the dividends plus any other income.

    If the Shareholder has other income, their dividend is added to the other income, total tax liability calculated, and the amount deducted from their dividend credited to reduce the total owed.

    If the Shareholder has little or no other income and their TOTAL income is below the tax threshold, the tax that was taken from their dividend is quite rightly, properly and fairly refunded to them - because to NOT refund it would mean they were being taxed (quite heavily) on an income that isn't taxable. Clearly, that would be wrong morally and ethically - and patently unfair.

    Now, apparently the tax credits to people with ample other income total $34 billion. Shorten isn't touching that money. He says they can keep their credits. But he then says the same deduction from the same dividend sent to the same ATO is 'not tax', for no other reason than that the dividend was paid to a poorer person with no other money to live on. And Labor voters, who claim to champion the cause of battlers, are cheering?????!!!!

    Honestly, it boggles the mind that anyone could fail to see the gross hypocrisy and dishonestly here. $34 billion in credits to the more privileged preserved. $6 billion in cash refunds - that was NEVER the property of the government or ATO to begin with, but was just like PAYE and PAYG tax - held by the ATO for the government's benefit pending assessment of what was properly owed - now to be STOLEN from people who have no tax liability and not enough other income to live on. And worse, it won't be STOLEN from pensioners who have a nice safe income stream and lots of concessions. No - only from those whose hard work and sacrifice SAVES the nation tens of thousands annually and who, in many cases, have far less income than a pensioner.

    How anyone can justify this defies logic. Clearly either they are totally selfish and greedy, or they are simply bamboozled by Labor's blatant lies and unable to comprehend the facts when put before them.
    annie
    9th Feb 2019
    5:36pm
    Most SFR have super which is paid by their employer, not from paying tax. Most over entitled lot I have ever come across. I have no problem with people who rely mostly on a full pension getting any assistance they can but object to anyone who is self funded. You have to be pretty well off not to get the pension so stop crying poor.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    6:05pm
    No, Annie. YOU ARE OVERENTITLED. How dare you assume you are entitled to a pension paid by taxpayers and people who worked their guts out for 40+ years and saved to be self-sufficient in retirement aren't entitled to fair taxation? Who the hell do you think you are making these wild baseless assumptions about where people's money came from. You are so misinformed it's tragic! And greedy!

    Many self-funded worked very hard and went without a great deal. Personally, I got NOTHING from any employer. I worked for minimum wage most of my life. And so did my partner. Both orphans, we had no help or handouts from anyone and no education. But we worked hard and saved well. Now you want us ripped off while you get handouts. Bugger off greedy!

    Yes, I have assets. Assets I worked and sacrificed to own so I could save the bloody government $50K a year to GIVE TO GREEDY PEOPLE LIKE YOU. Get your stinking hands off my savings. I worked for them and THEY ARE MINE. Your jealousy is showing.

    Most pensioners have far higher incomes than we do - and we get $0 concessions and benefits. We pay more for everything. And now, having worked our guts out for 40+ years and getting NOTHING from the taxpayer, you want us ripped off and overtaxed. Bugger off you selfish person. Your assumptions are wrong. You are full of CRAP.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    6:06pm
    No, Annie. YOU ARE OVERENTITLED. How dare you assume you are entitled to a pension paid by taxpayers and people who worked their guts out for 40+ years and saved to be self-sufficient in retirement aren't entitled to fair taxation? Who the hell do you think you are making these wild baseless assumptions about where people's money came from. You are so misinformed it's tragic! And greedy!

    Many self-funded worked very hard and went without a great deal. Personally, I got NOTHING from any employer. I worked for minimum wage most of my life. And so did my partner. Both orphans, we had no help or handouts from anyone and no education. But we worked hard and saved well. Now you want us ripped off while you get handouts. Bugger off greedy!

    Yes, I have assets. Assets I worked and sacrificed to own so I could save the bloody government $50K a year to GIVE TO GREEDY PEOPLE LIKE YOU. Get your stinking hands off my savings. I worked for them and THEY ARE MINE. Your jealousy is showing.

    Most pensioners have far higher incomes than we do - and we get $0 concessions and benefits. We pay more for everything. And now, having worked our guts out for 40+ years and getting NOTHING from the taxpayer, you want us ripped off and overtaxed. Bugger off you selfish person. Your assumptions are wrong. You are full of CRAP.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    6:08pm
    BTW. Annie, in case you are ignorant of the facts, superannuation hasn't been compulsory for very long. Most of those who had super before it became compulsory will be well off enough to KEEP their franking credits. It's only the strugglers who will lose. Tell Short-on to go steal from folk who can afford to pay more and leave the battlers alone.
    Captain
    9th Feb 2019
    6:53pm
    Most people (employees) who have super have it paid by their employer, and I don't think that anyone has their super paid by paying or not paying tax.

    Not crying poor, just want the same rules for all Australians. The Labor policy will put discrimination firmly in Legislation.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    8:13pm
    Captain, compulsory super is a relatively new innovation. Most of us didn't have ANY super until late in working lives. If we have super now, it's from personal savings - NOT employer contributions - in a vast number of cases. And many who are self-funded actually don't have super at all. Personal savings are treated as assets too, and assessed the same way for pension entitlements.

    I don't understand how anyone can be mean enough to think that people who are already donating tens of thousands annually to the public purse by not drawing a pension should be forced to donate more - especially when they have no idea of the real situation of those people. It's extremely arrogant and rude to make assumptions about the source of other people's assets, much less their 'privilege' or 'wealth', when you haven't the faintest idea of the facts.

    Yes, we just want FAIR and non-discriminatory rules, and the respect and acknowledgment we EARN by not imposing on taxpayers to fund our retirement. We don't get the pension our taxes paid for and others enjoy. It's a bit rich to imply we are not entitled to enjoy fair benefit from what we earned and saved either.
    Adrianus
    9th Feb 2019
    5:48pm
    Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen lack the courage to increase taxes on the wealthy. So they do the next best thing. Attack SFRs and call them wealthy. Many of whom are earning less than the OAP.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    6:07pm
    That’s because they both plus their union mates are all multi millionaires
    Will get &200k plus pension whenever the choose to retire AND get ALL their franking credits offset against their tax bills as well
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    6:13pm
    Astonishing, isn't it, how Labor voters are all bluffed into thinking Labor looks after the battling workers, when in fact they are ripping off the working class and lower middle class to feed the extreme greed of the union bosses, Labor pollies, and all their rich mates.

    Not taking dollar one from that $34 billion paid in tax credits to people with plenty of other income. Just lie and bash the battlers who NEED their fair tax refund to get by.
    Sundays
    9th Feb 2019
    8:30pm
    I know I shouldnt poke the bear but OGR you are legally required to withdraw 5% a year from a super fund in pension mode. Using your figures of $900,000 that is $45,000 tax free and it doesnt get included on your tax return (fyi (Curious). How is it possible then that you are 'forced' to live on less than the age pension.
    Sundays
    9th Feb 2019
    8:45pm
    Thats a minimum of 5% aged over 65. You can of course withdraw lump sums any tlme you want
    Sundays
    9th Feb 2019
    9:25pm
    Previously you have said you have a self managed super fund but then i note above you state that you dont pay tax because you dont earn much. If you have an SMSF in pension mode you pay no tax whether you earn $18,000 or $80,000. Apart from the vitriol of many of your posts you seem economical with the truth
    Adrianus
    10th Feb 2019
    10:22am
    "Astonishing, isn't it, how Labor voters are all bluffed into thinking Labor looks after the battling workers, when in fact they are ripping off the working class and lower middle class to feed the extreme greed of the union bosses, Labor pollies, and all their rich mates." - Rainey

    That is so true. Many people thought Labor were on their side when they started compulsory retirement savings back in the 80's. But it didn't take long before the Hawke government slapped a 15% tax on their contributions and another 15% tax on their yield. effectively asking low income earners to pay more tax than they otherwise would. This reduced the retirement savings nest egg to unacceptable levels. They now send cheques to people with low incomes to boost their super savings. This is the Labor ideology. Increase taxes on everyone but the wealthy.
    Adrianus
    10th Feb 2019
    10:25am
    "Astonishing, isn't it, how Labor voters are all bluffed into thinking Labor looks after the battling workers, when in fact they are ripping off the working class and lower middle class to feed the extreme greed of the union bosses, Labor pollies, and all their rich mates." - Rainey

    That is so true. Many people thought Labor were on their side when they started compulsory retirement savings back in the 80's. But it didn't take long before the Hawke government slapped a 15% tax on their contributions and another 15% tax on their yield. effectively asking low income earners to pay more tax than they otherwise would. This reduced the retirement savings nest egg to unacceptable levels. They now send cheques to people with low incomes to boost their super savings. This is the Labor ideology. Increase taxes on everyone but the wealthy.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    7:24pm
    Sundays, please stop publishing LIES. I have NEVER said I have $900,000 in super - or anywhere else for that matter. I DO NOT have $900,000, and even if I did, some of my assessed assets are unsaleable and not returning any income. Maybe if your socialist ratbag mates stopped making wild assumptions to justify bullying and unfairness and paid attention to FACTS for a change, they could devise a policy that is fair, workable, and actually benefits the economy rather than doing serious harm. But for fools who believe in socialism and think different is automatically bad - yet only propose to change a tiny fraction of what is different, for political gain - doing anything constructive would be just too hard!
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    7:24pm
    Sundays, please stop publishing LIES. I have NEVER said I have $900,000 in super - or anywhere else for that matter. I DO NOT have $900,000, and even if I did, some of my assessed assets are unsaleable and not returning any income. Maybe if your socialist ratbag mates stopped making wild assumptions to justify bullying and unfairness and paid attention to FACTS for a change, they could devise a policy that is fair, workable, and actually benefits the economy rather than doing serious harm. But for fools who believe in socialism and think different is automatically bad - yet only propose to change a tiny fraction of what is different, for political gain - doing anything constructive would be just too hard!
    RAY
    9th Feb 2019
    9:48pm
    It's amusing to read some of these comments about the “rich” being greedy. Ok, maybe there’s an element of truth in that. But, what about the greedy baby boomers eh? Very few heard about refundability of excess credits until John Howard and Peter Costello decided to add some icing on the cake for the Baby Boomers and older voters, many who receive the government pension while living in multimillion-dollar homes. Labor claims that most of those hit by the change are wealthy retirees who are not paying their fair share of tax. Scott Morrison says that abolishing refunds of unused imputation credits will mainly hurt low-income earners. So who is pulling the wool?

    Why should asset-rich retirees get away with paying negative tax rates for owning shares, when younger workers lose 30-50 per cent in tax? Most of those affected by Labor’s policy who declare taxable incomes of less than $18,200 a year are far from being low-income earners. They are either part-pensioners, or not receiving any pension at all. When we hear of part-pensioners with a taxable income of less than $18,200 a year being hit by Labor’s plan, ask yourself why they’re only receiving a part-pension in the first place.

    Scott Morrison’s reference to 610,000 “low-income earners” are clearly not the poorest retirees. Few, if any, are maximum-rate pensioners. As single retirees, they must have either an assessable income of more than $27,700 a year or assets exceeding $253,750 (excluding the family home if they’re a homeowner) or $456,750 (if they rent). To be on a part-pension, a retired couple will have an income of between $40,000 and $78,000 a year, and assets of between $380,500 and $1 million.

    The full story is that many part-pensioners are relatively wealthy, especially because the home is excluded from the pension assets test. Half of all pension payments go to those with assets of more than $500,000. Almost 20 per cent of payments go to those with assets of more than $1 million. They’re clearly much better off than the bottom 40 per cent of retirees, who draw a full age pension.

    I am not a Labor person usually, but I can’t in all honesty dispute Shorten’s policy and yes I agree with whoever said “Every dollar of excess franking credits claimed as a cash refund is effectively a dollar less of company tax collected by the government for health and education.”
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    9:51pm
    “Negative tax rates “???
    Another moron who doesn’t understand the principles behind the imputation tax policy
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    9:53pm
    After that ignorant remark do t bother reading the rest of his rant
    It only proves this guy has no clue about anything
    RAY
    9th Feb 2019
    10:05pm
    No one is interested in your ignorant crap, cottonmouth.
    RAY
    9th Feb 2019
    10:08pm
    Folks for the first time in a very long time, I shall be VOTING LABOR
    Morrison is stuffing up the country.
    Golfer
    9th Feb 2019
    11:22pm
    Oh Ray, Why didn't your read the copious comments earlier and throughout this post before rattling your sabre. It has been made clear dozens of times that the Labor proposal is unfair, irresponsible and inaccurate.
    And as for your vulgar attack on Lothario and our PM Labor is welcome to your vote. Bull Shitten is applauding you.
    RAY
    10th Feb 2019
    12:45am
    No reason to read “copious comments”. Unlike you it seems, I am not swayed by the uninformed, so when I “rattle my sabre” you can rest assured, when my sabre leaves its sheath, it is well oiled and sharpened. You may think the Labor proposal is “unfair” but that is your own opinion and you are entitled to it even though it is very blinkered and naïve.

    Vulgar attack on Lothario? Are you for real? No one is more vulgar than Lothario on this entire forum. Where did I attack our PM??? What about your vulgar attack on our Opposition Leader? Why do you feel it necessary to call the man "Bull Shitten.?" Being a mate of Lothario, I daresay, one should not expect any better from you.

    Btw, I suspect I have much more to lose if Shorten’s policy goes ahead, than you may possibly have. But that doesn’t bother me, I am not greedy. I have more than enough. I applaud any leader who is trying to do the best for the country. Vote Labor.
    Adrianus
    11th Feb 2019
    3:54pm
    Dear oh dear Ray??!! What are you on about?? Rattling your sabre?? You need to learn more about Bill Shorten's new taxes and changes to the imputation system. Why are you so down on yourself for being a Labor person as you put it.
    Misty
    12th Feb 2019
    8:39pm
    If people cannot comment on here without getting abusive insulting replies, YLC'S should remove the abusive replies and reprimand the perpertrator, it is perfectly ok to have a difference of opinion, and be allowed to express that opinion, but no one should have to put up with the language being used by some people commenting here.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    7:26pm
    No, they should just have to tolerate a plethora of lies and bullying, making false claims about their income to justify support for a policy that destroys the livelihood of a sector of the population while taking NOTHING from the far more privileged and favoured.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    7:26pm
    No, they should just have to tolerate a plethora of lies and bullying, making false claims about their income to justify support for a policy that destroys the livelihood of a sector of the population while taking NOTHING from the far more privileged and favoured.

    9th Feb 2019
    9:59pm
    Labors franking credits policy is effectively a first bite st eliminating middle class retirees
    Eventually we will have only 2 classs of retirees
    Those on full or part OAP and the rich retirees
    By that time Australia’s pension obligations would be in the tens of billions per year
    Trust labor to send us bankrupt
    RAY
    9th Feb 2019
    10:11pm
    You are an idiot. Must be because you know nothing or because the top story has stopped working. Get some help.
    Lookfar
    10th Feb 2019
    2:14pm
    Lothario, from all your woeful comments to this site you are obviously and blatantly a Neo-Liberal, whether you know it or not, the beliefs of the Neo-liberal sect are the justification of the super rich, - according to the Neo-liberals, rich is smart and rich are therefore justified to have and own and control everybody else, including the middle class.
    The Neo-liberals have gotten much deeper into the economy of America and guess what, the Middle class is a great deal less than it used to be.
    The LNP is totally Neo-liberal, the ALP has a bet each way, so it is not as intent on destroying the Australian "Safety Net" of pensions, health benefits, Public works. etc, and flogging off Australia to the lowest bidder in return for 'jobs for the boys'.
    We need to replace the Liberal Party with an Anti Neo-liberal party, not give any oxygen to that sick and dieing anti middle class shambles currently masquerading as real people.
    Not that i expect you to understand all that for even a microsecond.
    Lookfar
    10th Feb 2019
    2:16pm
    Lothario, from all your woeful comments to this site you are obviously and blatantly a Neo-Liberal, whether you know it or not, the beliefs of the Neo-liberal sect are the justification of the super rich, - according to the Neo-liberals, rich is smart and rich are therefore justified to have and own and control everybody else, including the middle class.
    The Neo-liberals have gotten much deeper into the economy of America and guess what, the Middle class is a great deal less than it used to be.
    The LNP is totally Neo-liberal, the ALP has a bet each way, so it is not as intent on destroying the Australian "Safety Net" of pensions, health benefits, Public works. etc, and flogging off Australia to the lowest bidder in return for 'jobs for the boys'.
    We need to replace the Liberal Party with an Anti Neo-liberal party, not give any oxygen to that sick and dieing anti middle class shambles currently masquerading as real people.
    Not that i expect you to understand all that for even a microsecond.
    Lookfar
    10th Feb 2019
    2:16pm
    Lothario, from all your woeful comments to this site you are obviously and blatantly a Neo-Liberal, whether you know it or not, the beliefs of the Neo-liberal sect are the justification of the super rich, - according to the Neo-liberals, rich is smart and rich are therefore justified to have and own and control everybody else, including the middle class.
    The Neo-liberals have gotten much deeper into the economy of America and guess what, the Middle class is a great deal less than it used to be.
    The LNP is totally Neo-liberal, the ALP has a bet each way, so it is not as intent on destroying the Australian "Safety Net" of pensions, health benefits, Public works. etc, and flogging off Australia to the lowest bidder in return for 'jobs for the boys'.
    We need to replace the Liberal Party with an Anti Neo-liberal party, not give any oxygen to that sick and dieing anti middle class shambles currently masquerading as real people.
    Not that i expect you to understand all that for even a microsecond.
    Adrianus
    11th Feb 2019
    10:12am
    It certainly looks that way Lothario.
    I often wondered why so many ministers in the last labor government visited Russia. It wasn't just to sell uranium. My guess is they loved the political model.
    Adrianus
    11th Feb 2019
    10:12am
    It certainly looks that way Lothario.
    I often wondered why so many ministers in the last labor government visited Russia. It wasn't just to sell uranium. My guess is they loved the political model.
    Lookfar
    10th Feb 2019
    2:38pm
    PS, for everyone, a work-around for the multiple posting is to copy your email when you finish, post it ONCE only, even if it didn't seem to go in, then refresh the site, - you will probably find that you have sucessfully posted, but only if not, you can post again with your copy.
    Misty
    12th Feb 2019
    8:42pm
    Easier then that, after you press post hit the F5 key and the post should go through ok.
    bob menzies
    10th Feb 2019
    4:23pm
    this is just wonderful - Bowen looking weak and ineffectual - YES - I'm affected but this is a winner for liberals and they should play it for all its worth.
    Also let Shorten agree to Phelps doctors bill - watch the boats recommence in March and magically watch labor snatch defeat from the jaws of victory .
    Poetry in motion
    Misty
    12th Feb 2019
    8:46pm
    What do you mean, boats recommence?ythey haven't stopped, just Google how many boats have tried to come since the Coalition took office, you will be surprised. Sending people to America and also already removing children and sick people from Manus and Narue has not started an Amada of boats so why should this bill change anything.
    Misty
    12th Feb 2019
    8:48pm
    Any way bob menzies isn't that what we are paying our Border Force to do, stop the boats?.
    ardnher
    15th Feb 2019
    11:19am
    all the detention centres have been closed down and there is no one in them. However, Morrison is now opening up Christmas Island in "anticipation" of more coming now.
    Hoohoo
    21st Feb 2019
    6:14pm
    Misty, you ask "...has not started an armada of boats SO WHY SHOULD THIS BILL CHANGE ANYTHING?"

    What has changed is an irresponsible Prime Minister waving a red flag to people smugglers, pre-empting more boats will arrive. He must open Xmas Island Detention Centre because Border Force WON'T stop the boats?

    What a pack of bloody hypocrites! Playing politics with the tears & misery of people fleeing terror, torture & death. You bastards!

    I saw Iranians on TV today telling the story of their dilemma. "Shall we let ISIS come to our village to enlist our brothers, sons & fathers, to fight for ISIS? And take our daughters, sisters & mothers to be forced to marry ISIS soldiers (sexual slavery in fact)? Or shall we flee?"

    I would flee.
    Is there anyone on this site who would choose otherwise?
    If you choose to flee then you may be accused of being an economic refugee - not a real refugee. Sounds fair, doesn't it?
    bob menzies
    10th Feb 2019
    4:23pm
    this is just wonderful - Bowen looking weak and ineffectual - YES - I'm affected but this is a winner for liberals and they should play it for all its worth.
    Also let Shorten agree to Phelps doctors bill - watch the boats recommence in March and magically watch labor snatch defeat from the jaws of victory .
    Poetry in motion
    bob menzies
    10th Feb 2019
    4:24pm
    this is just wonderful - Bowen looking weak and ineffectual - YES - I'm affected but this is a winner for liberals and they should play it for all its worth.
    Also let Shorten agree to Phelps doctors bill - watch the boats recommence in March and magically watch labor snatch defeat from the jaws of victory .
    Poetry in motion
    bob menzies
    10th Feb 2019
    4:24pm
    this is just wonderful - Bowen looking weak and ineffectual - YES - I'm affected but this is a winner for liberals and they should play it for all its worth.
    Also let Shorten agree to Phelps doctors bill - watch the boats recommence in March and magically watch labor snatch defeat from the jaws of victory .
    Poetry in motion
    bob menzies
    10th Feb 2019
    4:24pm
    this is just wonderful - Bowen looking weak and ineffectual - YES - I'm affected but this is a winner for liberals and they should play it for all its worth.
    Also let Shorten agree to Phelps doctors bill - watch the boats recommence in March and magically watch labor snatch defeat from the jaws of victory .
    Poetry in motion
    bob menzies
    10th Feb 2019
    4:24pm
    this is just wonderful - Bowen looking weak and ineffectual - YES - I'm affected but this is a winner for liberals and they should play it for all its worth.
    Also let Shorten agree to Phelps doctors bill - watch the boats recommence in March and magically watch labor snatch defeat from the jaws of victory .
    Poetry in motion
    bob menzies
    10th Feb 2019
    4:24pm
    this is just wonderful - Bowen looking weak and ineffectual - YES - I'm affected but this is a winner for liberals and they should play it for all its worth.
    Also let Shorten agree to Phelps doctors bill - watch the boats recommence in March and magically watch labor snatch defeat from the jaws of victory .
    Poetry in motion
    bob menzies
    10th Feb 2019
    4:24pm
    this is just wonderful - Bowen looking weak and ineffectual - YES - I'm affected but this is a winner for liberals and they should play it for all its worth.
    Also let Shorten agree to Phelps doctors bill - watch the boats recommence in March and magically watch labor snatch defeat from the jaws of victory .
    Poetry in motion
    bob menzies
    10th Feb 2019
    4:24pm
    this is just wonderful - Bowen looking weak and ineffectual - YES - I'm affected but this is a winner for liberals and they should play it for all its worth.
    Also let Shorten agree to Phelps doctors bill - watch the boats recommence in March and magically watch labor snatch defeat from the jaws of victory .
    Poetry in motion
    bob menzies
    10th Feb 2019
    4:24pm
    this is just wonderful - Bowen looking weak and ineffectual - YES - I'm affected but this is a winner for liberals and they should play it for all its worth.
    Also let Shorten agree to Phelps doctors bill - watch the boats recommence in March and magically watch labor snatch defeat from the jaws of victory .
    Poetry in motion
    bob menzies
    10th Feb 2019
    4:24pm
    this is just wonderful - Bowen looking weak and ineffectual - YES - I'm affected but this is a winner for liberals and they should play it for all its worth.
    Also let Shorten agree to Phelps doctors bill - watch the boats recommence in March and magically watch labor snatch defeat from the jaws of victory .
    Poetry in motion
    Lookfar
    10th Feb 2019
    10:41pm
    Bob, you didn't read what I said, possibly never read what anyone else ever says, but ended up posting your never read anyone else's post 11 times, - methinks you should let go of your never listen obsession, it doesn't help discussion.
    BTW, mine closed in NSW due to Climate danger, possibly could be applied to Adani, also That company will not build his railroad, - good on them for waking up, - you could too Bob, - no perhaps not, - pity.
    Lookfar
    10th Feb 2019
    10:42pm
    Bob, you didn't read what I said, possibly never read what anyone else ever says, but ended up posting your never read anyone else's post 11 times, - methinks you should let go of your never listen obsession, it doesn't help discussion.
    BTW, mine closed in NSW due to Climate danger, possibly could be applied to Adani, also That company will not build his railroad, - good on them for waking up, - you could too Bob, - er, no, perhaps not, - pity.
    Hoohoo
    21st Feb 2019
    6:23pm
    So, bob menzies, are you suggesting that Border Force won't continue to stop the boats?

    Those Liberals of yours are a pack of bloody hypocrites! Playing politics with the tears & misery of people fleeing terror, torture & death. You heartless bastards!

    I saw Iranians on TV today telling the story of their dilemma. "Shall we let ISIS come to our village to enlist our brothers, sons & fathers, to fight for ISIS? And take our daughters, sisters & mothers to be forced to marry ISIS soldiers (sexual slavery in fact)? Or shall we flee?"

    I would flee.
    Is there anyone on this site who would choose otherwise?
    If you choose to flee then you may be accused of being an economic refugee - not a real refugee. Sounds fair, does it bob m?

    This government deserves to be absolutely dumped on its arse. I hope it's the end of the Liberal Party, so when they re-form they'll come back with a heart & soul instead of the heartless bastards that are running the show now. Shame on them.
    Paddington
    10th Feb 2019
    8:10pm
    OGR, if you have $900,000 why are you so destitute? You really need to get help in organising your money so you have enough to live on.
    It does not make sense that you are hardup!
    ABE
    10th Feb 2019
    8:47pm
    Maybe it's the Zimbabwean dollar.
    Sundays
    11th Feb 2019
    7:57am
    Paddington SFR such as myself are happy to use our Super to fund our retirement and the kids can have what’s left including the house.

    Others want to keep the money and just live off the dividends from shares plus the refund of Franking credits. For the wealthy SFR it can be quite a lot of money (and in my opinion a rort).

    For SFR with $900,000 all in Australian shares they are managing just on the dividends because they are relying on the refund of Franking Credits to top up their income. If they don’t get the Franking credits they will have a perceived disaster as their income will be less than the old age pension.

    This is why they are jealous of pensioners who get the same money from the Government. I know, you’re probably thinking why live in enforced poverty and not spend some of the $900K but they seem to prefer the stress
    Misty
    12th Feb 2019
    9:34pm
    You will really cop it from OGR with that comment Sundays.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    8:06pm
    I don't have $900,000, Paddington. that's a lie Sundays is spreading to support nastiness.

    But as a pensioner, YOU have more than a million. The OAP is worth over $1 million to most retirees over their retirement. So you pensioners are far better off than the SFRs you are bashing, defaming and seeking to deprive of their livelihood.

    Obviously Sundays is well off and doesn't need franking credits. That is NOT the situation of hundreds of thousands of SFRs, and financial advisers are telling them that they CANNOT offer any solution to those with limited assets - only the wealthy can rearrange their affairs to avoid loss. Many who will lose thousands already lost over $10,000 in the assets threshold change. Just how much do you greedy pensioners want to steal from people who worked for their retirement?
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    8:06pm
    I don't have $900,000, Paddington. that's a lie Sundays is spreading to support nastiness.

    But as a pensioner, YOU have more than a million. The OAP is worth over $1 million to most retirees over their retirement. So you pensioners are far better off than the SFRs you are bashing, defaming and seeking to deprive of their livelihood.

    Obviously Sundays is well off and doesn't need franking credits. That is NOT the situation of hundreds of thousands of SFRs, and financial advisers are telling them that they CANNOT offer any solution to those with limited assets - only the wealthy can rearrange their affairs to avoid loss. Many who will lose thousands already lost over $10,000 in the assets threshold change. Just how much do you greedy pensioners want to steal from people who worked for their retirement?
    Fready
    10th Feb 2019
    8:43pm
    They all forget that to receive a tax free income people with superannuation have to pay a contributions tax that takes 15% of your lifes savings. This policy is simply class warfare, transferring money from those who saved to those who didn't,.
    Sundays
    10th Feb 2019
    10:19pm
    Come on Fready, when I was paying super 15% was great compared to the 42.5% I was paying on my salary. Super is a very low tax environment which is why salary sacrificing is so popular even for people paying 30% tax. Also, let’s be honest here it advantages those who earned more and were thus able to save more
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    8:43pm
    No wonder you can afford to lose franking credits, Sundays. If you in a 42.5% tax bracket, you are probably among those earning enough not to lose under Labor - or at least wealthy enough not to suffer.

    I paid 15% tax on super when my marginal rate was 0%, and the admin fees were more than the employer contribution - not that I had employer-funded super for long anyway. My savings are MY PERSONAL SAVINGS. I didn't get any tax benefits at all. Nor did many of the others you seek to see robbed of the proceeds of a lifetime of hard work while the elite and favoured pensioners - most of whom were far better off than I ever was - party on TRIPLE TAXPAYER FUNDED BENEFITS.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    8:43pm
    No wonder you can afford to lose franking credits, Sundays. If you in a 42.5% tax bracket, you are probably among those earning enough not to lose under Labor - or at least wealthy enough not to suffer.

    I paid 15% tax on super when my marginal rate was 0%, and the admin fees were more than the employer contribution - not that I had employer-funded super for long anyway. My savings are MY PERSONAL SAVINGS. I didn't get any tax benefits at all. Nor did many of the others you seek to see robbed of the proceeds of a lifetime of hard work while the elite and favoured pensioners - most of whom were far better off than I ever was - party on TRIPLE TAXPAYER FUNDED BENEFITS.
    Lookfar
    11th Feb 2019
    10:04am
    A good explanation of the meaning of Franking tax etc.
    https://theconversation.com/words-that-matter-whats-a-franking-credit-whats-dividend-imputation-and-whats-retiree-tax-111423?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20February%2011%202019%20-%201232411349&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20February%2011%202019%20-%201232411349+CID_ce0f0cff2563b169079c9e66571c52f4&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=cheat%20sheet
    Lookfar
    11th Feb 2019
    10:15am
    So it seeems that people who are genuinely poor will not lose anything, it is only the rather quite rich who have adjusted their taxable income naughtily, who will lose money of any significance, and they can change their investment mix to suit anyway.
    Bit of a storm in a teacup, all told, and doesn't justify any of the bad language and charges of theft, treason, etc that have been over-induged in on this site on the matter.
    Mostly the motive seems just blatantly political.
    Lookfar
    11th Feb 2019
    10:16am
    So it seeems that people who are genuinely poor will not lose anything, it is only the rather quite rich who have adjusted their taxable income naughtily, who will lose money of any significance, and they can change their investment mix to suit anyway.
    Bit of a storm in a teacup, all told, and doesn't justify any of the bad language and charges of theft, treason, etc that have been over-induged in on this site on the matter.
    Mostly the motive seems just blatantly political.
    Lookfar
    11th Feb 2019
    10:16am
    So it seeems that people who are genuinely poor will not lose anything, it is only the rather quite rich who have adjusted their taxable income naughtily, who will lose money of any significance, and they can change their investment mix to suit anyway.
    Bit of a storm in a teacup, all told, and doesn't justify any of the bad language and charges of theft, treason, etc that have been over-induged in on this site on the matter.
    Mostly the motive seems just blatantly political.
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2019
    11:13am
    WRONG WRONG WRONG Lookfar. You are believing socialist lies. Many who are genuinely struggling with lose. The people this attacks are NOT rich. The rich will NOT LOSE. They keep their benefit.

    And yes, the rich CAN adjust their investment mix. The affected battlers cannot.

    It is absolutely NOT a storm in a teacup. And what is disgusting in the extreme is the selfishness shown by those who support destroying other people's lifestyle.

    Yes, LABOR'S motive is political.

    Consider this, Lookfar, since you seem to be more rational than some here. If Labor was being fair and responsible, wouldn't they WANT an inquiry to reveal any problems with their policy so they could fix it, rather than pig-headedly insisting it was right and attacking anyone who points to problems?

    Labor has shown that it is not fit to govern by its attitude to this inquiry. It should be thanking Tim Wilson for providing the opportunity to identify any negatives. And responsible Labor supporters should be telling Labor politicians to pull their heads in and be grateful for a change to review and make sure they are not inadvertently threatening serious harm or unfairness.
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2019
    11:16am
    BTW The Conversation is socialist and totally inconsistent with fact.

    If a deduction from a dividend to a rich man is 'tax' and can be credited against their tax liability, then a deduction from a dividend to a poor man is obviously also 'tax' and must be refunded. Nothing else is fair.

    Those hurt by this are saving the government tens of thousands year by living off their savings. To suggest they should not get a fair tax refund on the dividends they EARN is just disgusting. They paid tax to fund a pension that they don't get. Surely they are entitled to something. How unfair and greedy can anyone be - claiming they should lose not only the pension they paid for but also the income they earn from their own savings? What a disgrace!
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2019
    11:16am
    BTW The Conversation is socialist and totally inconsistent with fact.

    If a deduction from a dividend to a rich man is 'tax' and can be credited against their tax liability, then a deduction from a dividend to a poor man is obviously also 'tax' and must be refunded. Nothing else is fair.

    Those hurt by this are saving the government tens of thousands year by living off their savings. To suggest they should not get a fair tax refund on the dividends they EARN is just disgusting. They paid tax to fund a pension that they don't get. Surely they are entitled to something. How unfair and greedy can anyone be - claiming they should lose not only the pension they paid for but also the income they earn from their own savings? What a disgrace!
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2019
    11:16am
    BTW The Conversation is socialist and totally inconsistent with fact.

    If a deduction from a dividend to a rich man is 'tax' and can be credited against their tax liability, then a deduction from a dividend to a poor man is obviously also 'tax' and must be refunded. Nothing else is fair.

    Those hurt by this are saving the government tens of thousands year by living off their savings. To suggest they should not get a fair tax refund on the dividends they EARN is just disgusting. They paid tax to fund a pension that they don't get. Surely they are entitled to something. How unfair and greedy can anyone be - claiming they should lose not only the pension they paid for but also the income they earn from their own savings? What a disgrace!
    Old Geezer
    11th Feb 2019
    4:40pm
    Oh dearie me what a lot of BS in that document and by posting it you are making a fool of yourself.
    KeWi
    11th Feb 2019
    12:00pm
    There are plenty of forums about the proposed policy change. This article is about the use of the parliamentary inquiry process and what looks like a taxpayer-funded process to bolster Liberal Party membership and the interests of certain investment advisory services. It asks if this is an acceptable use of the long-established, previously somewhat bipartisan process. A lot of the comments seem to indicate a lot of people think 'the end justifies the means' which to me is a sad state of affairs.
    Misty
    12th Feb 2019
    9:40pm
    I did notice whwn ever they televised the Parliamentart Inquiry that the majority of people putting their concerns forward were Accountants and Financial Advisors, not the people who say they will be affected by the changes.
    Anonymous
    15th Feb 2019
    9:35am
    Well, that is likely because financial advisers and accountants are best positioned to understand the shocking implications of Labor's policy - and maybe those affected value their privacy and don't want to have to tell the whole world how poor Labor is going to make them?

    Financial advisers and accountants deal with hundreds of clients and see the wider impact of this disgracefully unfair policy and the huge economic risks it imposes. They know exactly how many of their clients will be forced onto pensions, and they know how difficult - if not impossible - it is for most to rearrange their investments to avoid massive loss.

    Labor is LYING to the gullible who like the sound of 'rip off the wealthy'. You Labor supporters are being conned into acting like cruel, selfish, unfair, greedy creeps. Hopefully that's not really who you are, but you sure are appearing that way.
    Anonymous
    15th Feb 2019
    9:35am
    Well, that is likely because financial advisers and accountants are best positioned to understand the shocking implications of Labor's policy - and maybe those affected value their privacy and don't want to have to tell the whole world how poor Labor is going to make them?

    Financial advisers and accountants deal with hundreds of clients and see the wider impact of this disgracefully unfair policy and the huge economic risks it imposes. They know exactly how many of their clients will be forced onto pensions, and they know how difficult - if not impossible - it is for most to rearrange their investments to avoid massive loss.

    Labor is LYING to the gullible who like the sound of 'rip off the wealthy'. You Labor supporters are being conned into acting like cruel, selfish, unfair, greedy creeps. Hopefully that's not really who you are, but you sure are appearing that way.
    KeWi
    11th Feb 2019
    12:00pm
    There are plenty of forums about the proposed policy change. This article is about the use of the parliamentary inquiry process and what looks like a taxpayer-funded process to bolster Liberal Party membership and the interests of certain investment advisory services. It asks if this is an acceptable use of the long-established, previously somewhat bipartisan process. A lot of the comments seem to indicate a lot of people think 'the end justifies the means' which to me is a sad state of affairs.
    Whiteron
    11th Feb 2019
    12:04pm
    I would like this site to put up a paper from The Australia Institute or for readers to check it out which is freely out there entitled Why the government doesn't want you to understand how Franking Credits work it is explained in plain English and I would say stop a lot of negative comments on the issue because in simple terms it is only going to effect the rich in the long run and I am sure they can afford it. There are more people out there that will benefit from this money than the greedy .
    Reagan
    11th Feb 2019
    1:57pm
    There ya go:

    https://medium.com/@TheAustraliaInstitute/why-the-government-doesnt-want-you-to-understand-how-franking-credits-work-59dfb7178e0c
    Old Geezer
    11th Feb 2019
    4:35pm
    Funny how those 74% of franking credits go tot he top 10% of income earners but Labor wants them to keep them so it doesn't earn a penny from the top 10% of income earners.


    So the front page certainly sets the whole tone for that document. It is full of BS.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    8:32pm
    Australian Institute is run by rampant socialists, OG. The lies they tell are endless and mind-boggling. They will be happy when only the very rich have anything and the rest of us are impoverished slaves.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    8:32pm
    Australian Institute is run by rampant socialists, OG. The lies they tell are endless and mind-boggling. They will be happy when only the very rich have anything and the rest of us are impoverished slaves.
    Lookfar
    11th Feb 2019
    4:55pm
    OGR, it is said that when one runs out of truth, one stoops to naming.
    To call any comments from someone dissenting from your point of view, 'a socialst, socialst lies, socialism, is simply childish.
    Australia is a complex country, made up of many races, socialist and democratic ideas seem to be the most important part of the mix at the moment, I suspect if you get rid of one you will lose the other, so please don't use Socialist as an insult, it is not, and neither are there many pure Socialists about, -= certainly the Converstation is not one, - just because the figures it presents indicate maybe only a couple of million dollars are involved at the interface you consistently descibe with no more detail and that the rabid slothario and old geezer claim to be 5 billion or 34 billion, - with no proof of course, Trolls never give proof, it is not in their Koch Bros hand book.
    Economic theory these days indicates that any money in the public space will enable economic activity, too much activity is subdued by taxation.
    neo-liberals taking our money offshore seriously damages a Government's ability to look after the people and their stewardship of our civilisation and environment, of course a neo-liberal govt does not understand that, because they think they are too clever.
    It is important for everyone to understand that the battle is between the neo-liberals on the one hand, - and if they win they will again destroy all, and the democracy leavened with socialism that is the major Australian 'point of view'. The Neos believe in divide and conquer, even divide destroy and conquer, as long as you conquer, please restrain yourself fom giving in to that sickness, it is an American sickness, and most unbecoming for Australians.
    Lookfar
    11th Feb 2019
    5:16pm
    Ah, OG, you have finally nudged the needle past that crack in your record, - pity the rest of the record doesn't sound that wonderful, but there is no accounting for taste.
    With your next record, even if it doen't make much sense, can you please make it your absolute priority, - No Cracks.
    Ta.
    Old Geezer
    11th Feb 2019
    8:05pm
    ROFL at all that BS.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    8:29pm
    Lookfar, the sickness here is the greed and selfishness of those who live off the taxpayer purse and will get TRIPLE benefits under Labor, yet support depriving those who get NOTHING from the taxpayer of a fair and liveable income THEY EARNED BY THEIR OWN SWEAT AND TOIL.

    It's not 'neo-liberals' causing division, and it's not 'neo-liberals' who will destroy all. It is the socialist thieves who are lying about their policy taking from the wealthy and are in fact robbing the far less advantaged.

    The selfishness and support for unfairness is as unAustralian as any behaviour I've seen in my lifetime. This used to be the land of 'a fair go for all'. Now it's the land of 'steal from the workers and savers to hand out unfairly to pensioners, and pensioners unite to bully, defame, lie and support the theft'. What an utter disgrace! Pensioners are living off the taxpayer, and they begrudge those who are not the income they EARN by saving and investing, and then they LIE to claim it's a 'tax handout', when in fact it was taken from the dividend before the income was paid.

    Shame on all of you! It's hard to believe anyone could be so unAustralian, unfair, selfish and greedy. And it's very hard to believe anyone could be so arrogant and stubborn as to persist in repeating self-serving lies and refuse to examine the facts - let alone give thought to the possibility that some might be suffering unfairly and deserve empathy if not support.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    8:29pm
    Lookfar, the sickness here is the greed and selfishness of those who live off the taxpayer purse and will get TRIPLE benefits under Labor, yet support depriving those who get NOTHING from the taxpayer of a fair and liveable income THEY EARNED BY THEIR OWN SWEAT AND TOIL.

    It's not 'neo-liberals' causing division, and it's not 'neo-liberals' who will destroy all. It is the socialist thieves who are lying about their policy taking from the wealthy and are in fact robbing the far less advantaged.

    The selfishness and support for unfairness is as unAustralian as any behaviour I've seen in my lifetime. This used to be the land of 'a fair go for all'. Now it's the land of 'steal from the workers and savers to hand out unfairly to pensioners, and pensioners unite to bully, defame, lie and support the theft'. What an utter disgrace! Pensioners are living off the taxpayer, and they begrudge those who are not the income they EARN by saving and investing, and then they LIE to claim it's a 'tax handout', when in fact it was taken from the dividend before the income was paid.

    Shame on all of you! It's hard to believe anyone could be so unAustralian, unfair, selfish and greedy. And it's very hard to believe anyone could be so arrogant and stubborn as to persist in repeating self-serving lies and refuse to examine the facts - let alone give thought to the possibility that some might be suffering unfairly and deserve empathy if not support.
    ABE
    11th Feb 2019
    9:49pm
    Great post Ray.

    I have no idea why some of the dodos are trying to scare the pensioners when they know the truth will always come out. First of all:

    Australia is the only country in the world which provides a refund for corporate tax paid to shareholders if they don't pay income tax. No other country does that, if I am wrong, then provide proof, anyone. All Labor is hoping to do is returning dividend imputation to the way it was envisaged by Paul Keating when he was in government.

    Those on the full pension or some on part pension and other allowances such as the war widows’ pension, will be exempt. Personally, I think that’s a fair deal. Do the research, more than 80% of the benefit of imputation refundability goes to the wealthiest 20 per cent of households. The way I see it, there is no “change to retirement income,” it’s just a return to Keating’s original idea of how the imputation system should work.

    As for the “inquiry: not only is it a sham, the PM should sack Tim Wilson. Nepotism writ large. Both Tim Wilson and Geoff Wilson share the same grandfather.

    Another thing if anyone was stupid enough to put all their eggs in one basket, just to get franking credits, this is the time to get your finger out and be more creative.
    ABE
    11th Feb 2019
    9:56pm
    Yup, to those neo libs who wish to make disparaging comments, I am still a middle of the road Lib, but that does not mean I have to be a rusted on dinosaur.

    If something stinks in Denmark, I say so and I see nothing bad about axing the refund of franking credits for those who can afford it and that includes me.

    Goodnight, have a glass of red and relax!
    Adrianus
    12th Feb 2019
    9:35am
    Call yourself what you like but you certainly think like a rusted on lefty, a follower afraid to be the only one to be different. If we were the only one of two countries in the world to have women voting would that be enough evidence to overturn the decision?
    I suppose it would be for the small minded.

    Instead of going back in time reverting to what Paul Keating would have liked 30 years ago and like your good mate Chris Bowen who repeats 500 year old quotes from Niccolo Machiavelli, a person known for his unscrupulous politics, why not advance Australia with some forward thinking.??? Now that takes courage.

    You didn't mention the impact this would have on SFRs and OAPs with SMSFs in pension phase. As opposed to industry super funds which will be unaffected.

    No need to lie about the Wilson's being related either.
    This is a statement emailed to me by Geoff Wilson..

    "• I first met Tim Wilson MP during March 2018 at the Nexus Australian Youth Summit in Melbourne. It was there that we discovered that we are distant relatives. My father’s father’s father was his father’s father’s father’s father. I am currently unaware if I am related to Labor MP Josh Wilson, who is also on the Standing Committee on Economics."

    Please note that there are more fathers involved in the gene pool than your afore mentioned.

    Rules are rules!!
    Old Geezer
    12th Feb 2019
    1:25pm
    You said "more than 80% of the benefit of imputation refundability goes to the wealthiest 20 per cent of households" but you left out one critical bit of information.

    These people get their franking credits refunded under Labor.

    Oh dear someone just made a fool of themselves by repeating Labor's lies.
    Anonymous
    12th Feb 2019
    2:04pm
    Abe is just a simpleton
    He even fools himself every time he tries to think
    ABE
    12th Feb 2019
    8:58pm
    Oh lawdy, lawdy Miss Clawdy! The natives along the banks of Crooked Creek are getting a tad excited. Now they’re up ship creek without a paddle. Boys, did you put all your eggs into the refund of franking credits basket? Wipe your tears and start again.

    Happy to say I am not a “rusted” on anything, but that is of no importance. What is important is Tim Wilson owns shares in his relative’s Geoff Wilson’s company. They colluded. Bad, bad and he should be sacked. Same rule should apply if the ALP does anything shady. I don’t care which FAKE email you got. I got the same fake info from 4BC1116 News Talk, haha. Fact is, they are kissing cousins and I got my info from the gene pool.

    Now the crux of the matter is - one should get a tax return based on earnings, not based on the company you have shares in. To make this a bit clearer for the foggies, if your shares return X amounts, your return should be based on that income, NOT on the franking credits. As I said before pensioners are excluded from the removal of these outrageous tax refunds to wealthy people who pay no tax.

    I scratch my head wonderingly: in a post above it was Old Geezer who said he received an email from Geoff Wilson, now Adrianus is saying he received the same email. Geoff must love you two (or is it one?) hahaha

    Have a glass of CabSav and relax!!
    Adrianus
    12th Feb 2019
    9:50pm
    So you've got nothing Micha. I don't care about your gay connections, the facts remain. You were called on your bullsjit and you have no intelligent response other than more bs. You have lost what little credibility you may have had.
    RAY
    12th Feb 2019
    11:18pm
    LOL Abe,

    Nothing more to do here. Now they resort to abuse and that is a sure fire indication, they have no prestige and no firm ground to stand on.

    Stroke of genius revealing their EMAIL scam. Can't stop laughing. Save a glass for me mate!

    .
    Adrianus
    13th Feb 2019
    10:29am
    Are you two old enough to drink alcohol?
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    8:15pm
    More evidence that Labor supporters are totally misled, and happy to be misled - no interests in FACTS, because FACTS don't suit their greedy, self-serving agenda.

    Anyone who bothered to examine FACTS instead of listening to propaganda would know that Labor is NOT TAKING ONE SINGLE CENT FROM THE WEALTHIEST 20%. They are NOT taking anything from the well off. They are robbing people who are struggling on, at best, very little more than a pension and at worst much LESS than a pension - but are saving the nation up to $50,000 a year by living off their own savings. But greedy pensioners, who cost the government, want those people stripped of their hard-won LOW incomes and forced to drain their savings. Obviously a $50K a year contribution to the Treasury isn't enough for the greedy who live on the public purse.

    As for being the only country that refunds franking tax - we are the only country that does a lot of things. We are the only country that doesn't pay pensions to all over retirement age. How about instead of using an idiotic and irrelevant rant about being different (which very often means 'better' and 'smarter') to change ONE ASPECT OF DIFFERENCE, we change EVERYTHING to match other nations - including ceasing to be an island continent? There was never a more IDIOTIC, JUVENILE AND IRRELEVANT reason for change! Only a moron would accept that as a valid reason to change something that economists say was the one thing that put us miles in front of other nations through the GFC. But change the pension system to pay universal pensions and the tax system to be like other nations in ALL respects and SFRs will STOP objecting to being the ONLY sector of the community being asked to sacrifice their livelihood, while all the other selfish, greedy people continue to milk the public purse.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    8:15pm
    More evidence that Labor supporters are totally misled, and happy to be misled - no interests in FACTS, because FACTS don't suit their greedy, self-serving agenda.

    Anyone who bothered to examine FACTS instead of listening to propaganda would know that Labor is NOT TAKING ONE SINGLE CENT FROM THE WEALTHIEST 20%. They are NOT taking anything from the well off. They are robbing people who are struggling on, at best, very little more than a pension and at worst much LESS than a pension - but are saving the nation up to $50,000 a year by living off their own savings. But greedy pensioners, who cost the government, want those people stripped of their hard-won LOW incomes and forced to drain their savings. Obviously a $50K a year contribution to the Treasury isn't enough for the greedy who live on the public purse.

    As for being the only country that refunds franking tax - we are the only country that does a lot of things. We are the only country that doesn't pay pensions to all over retirement age. How about instead of using an idiotic and irrelevant rant about being different (which very often means 'better' and 'smarter') to change ONE ASPECT OF DIFFERENCE, we change EVERYTHING to match other nations - including ceasing to be an island continent? There was never a more IDIOTIC, JUVENILE AND IRRELEVANT reason for change! Only a moron would accept that as a valid reason to change something that economists say was the one thing that put us miles in front of other nations through the GFC. But change the pension system to pay universal pensions and the tax system to be like other nations in ALL respects and SFRs will STOP objecting to being the ONLY sector of the community being asked to sacrifice their livelihood, while all the other selfish, greedy people continue to milk the public purse.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    8:22pm
    And Abe, one should pay tax based on THEIR INCOME - not on what they do to achieve that income. Every other retiree is either getting tax free income or a taxpayer-funded handout, or BOTH, but you greedy Labor supporters aren't content to rip off SFRs by denying them a pension. You have to steal their income as well.

    They are NOT getting a tax refund based on the company they invest in. Only a dunce believes that lie. They are getting a refund of the tax they paid that they didn't owe because they had no taxable income - and they SHOULD get a tax refund in recognition that they contribute around $1 million to the tax coffers over the term of their retirement by being self-funded instead of living off the taxpayer and getting TRIPLE benefits, just because they either didn't save or manipulated to avoid having savings counted as assessable assets.

    Every investor in a company paying franked dividends IS TAXED. The well off will continue to have their tax payment refunded under Labor's stinking policy. The poorer folk will be deprived of their fair refund unless they are already getting a fat government handout and screaming for more. Those pensioners supporting this policy must be the greediest and most selfish and disgusting creeps alive!
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    8:22pm
    And Abe, one should pay tax based on THEIR INCOME - not on what they do to achieve that income. Every other retiree is either getting tax free income or a taxpayer-funded handout, or BOTH, but you greedy Labor supporters aren't content to rip off SFRs by denying them a pension. You have to steal their income as well.

    They are NOT getting a tax refund based on the company they invest in. Only a dunce believes that lie. They are getting a refund of the tax they paid that they didn't owe because they had no taxable income - and they SHOULD get a tax refund in recognition that they contribute around $1 million to the tax coffers over the term of their retirement by being self-funded instead of living off the taxpayer and getting TRIPLE benefits, just because they either didn't save or manipulated to avoid having savings counted as assessable assets.

    Every investor in a company paying franked dividends IS TAXED. The well off will continue to have their tax payment refunded under Labor's stinking policy. The poorer folk will be deprived of their fair refund unless they are already getting a fat government handout and screaming for more. Those pensioners supporting this policy must be the greediest and most selfish and disgusting creeps alive!
    bluewest
    12th Feb 2019
    3:43pm
    "a reversal of a cash payment" is not a tax? What doublespeak crap. I am just thankful that charities are exempt according to Labor party policy and will still be paid their refundable franking credits going forward. As they, and anyone else, should be, because the ATO has collected tax that under any fairness test, is refundable.
    bluewest
    12th Feb 2019
    3:43pm
    "a reversal of a cash payment" is not a tax? What doublespeak crap. I am just thankful that charities are exempt according to Labor party policy and will still be paid their refundable franking credits going forward. As they, and anyone else, should be, because the ATO has collected tax that under any fairness test, is refundable.
    bluewest
    12th Feb 2019
    3:44pm
    "a reversal of a cash payment" is not a tax? What doublespeak crap. I am just thankful that charities are exempt according to Labor party policy and will still be paid their refundable franking credits going forward. As they, and anyone else, should be, because the ATO has collected tax that under any fairness test, is refundable.
    bluewest
    12th Feb 2019
    3:44pm
    "a reversal of a cash payment" is not a tax? What doublespeak crap. I am just thankful that charities are exempt according to Labor party policy and will still be paid their refundable franking credits going forward. As they, and anyone else, should be, because the ATO has collected tax that under any fairness test, is refundable.
    bluewest
    12th Feb 2019
    3:44pm
    "a reversal of a cash payment" is not a tax? What doublespeak crap. I am just thankful that charities are exempt according to Labor party policy and will still be paid their refundable franking credits going forward. As they, and anyone else, should be, because the ATO has collected tax that under any fairness test, is refundable.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    7:28pm
    But charities have already complained that they will lose hundreds of thousands in donations from people who are having their income decimated by Labor's unfairness.
    Anonymous
    14th Feb 2019
    7:28pm
    But charities have already complained that they will lose hundreds of thousands in donations from people who are having their income decimated by Labor's unfairness.
    Hoohoo
    18th Feb 2019
    4:01pm
    bluewest you say "...As they, and anyone else, should be, because the ATO has collected tax that under any fairness test, is refundable." but isn't this what the ATO does - COLLECT TAX? Companies, businesses & people that earn profits from income have to pay tax. The ATO only gives refunds if an entity has paid too much tax & therefore deserves a refund.

    Surely companies have sought & received all deductions & refunds owing to them? (They over-excel at this!) Just because tax has already been paid on payments to shareholders, why do shareholders expect personal refunds on their income?

    If I go into a shop & pay $1000 for a bed (& tell them I am self-employed & have already paid tax on that $1000 of my earnings) can the shop turn around to the ATO asking for a credit, saying the tax has already been paid on this $!000? Why are large share-holder companies considered so bloody special?

    If I earn interest on a bank deposit, can I say to the ATO "I already paid tax on that money for the bank deposit. Why should I have to pay tax again for the interest earned?"

    Income is income - you have to pay tax on what you earn. Just ban franking credit refunds altogether, & for those on genuinely low incomes who have SMSF's, put your money in Govt Bonds. There are many very very rich older people out there who have huge assets tied up in Family Trusts, using those income-making assets for all sorts of deductions (which include their living expenses) then trickling out income so they stay below the taxable threshold. Yes it's legal but morally corrupt in my opinion.

    It will be good for Australia if the ATO can retain some of these rich people's perks.
    Anonymous
    18th Feb 2019
    4:39pm
    Hahaha
    Hoohooo thanks for the laugh
    Sadly also reminds me how many idiots vote and Shorty depends on the stupidity of these fools
    Hoohoo
    21st Feb 2019
    6:43pm
    Laugh all you like FLV, but no-one else will get your private joke unless you can engage your brain for a moment & give us an explanation of what you believe to be so funny.

    You appear to be a new contributor here, but you smell a lot like a few other regulars. Just another incarnation, Liberal troll?
    Hoohoo
    22nd Feb 2019
    6:37pm
    So you've been caught out, Lothario, posting as FLV = FormerLaborVoter. But it appears that FormerLaborVoter has morphed back into Lothario!

    Don't you know you have to register a different email address if you want to split your personality (or excuse for a personality)? You are a troll & you've been caught red handed.

    And I bet you've never voted for Labor in your life! You probably don't pay tax either. Or you declare just enough so you get your franking credit refund.
    ardnher
    14th Feb 2019
    7:06pm
    would like to see Morrison do is to call an election "right now" !

    14th Feb 2019
    8:36pm
    Unbelievable how illogical and idiotic Labor supporters are, choosing to believe that if you take 30% of a rich man's dividend and send it to the ATO, it's 'tax'; if you take 30% of a worker's wages and send to the ATO it's 'tax', but if you take 30% of the income of someone who is saving the nation up to $50K a year by being self-supporting in retirement and send it to the ATO, giving it back is a 'handout' and a 'rort'.

    Funny how pensions aren't a 'handout' or a 'rort' but rather an 'entitlement' because pensioners paid tax for decades. But SFRs paid tax too - probably a lot more tax - and not only have the pension they bought and paid for denied, but now are likely to be denied a fair refund of TAX taken from the income they EARN through their own diligence.

    Jealousy certainly blinds. All Labor voters can focus on is ''they might have more than me - take it away and give me more'. Just how much do you greedy Labor supporters want to steal?
    Farside
    15th Feb 2019
    1:06pm
    OGR, you do not speak for all SFRs, just those who want to keep their perks rather than see progress to a more equitable taxation system (yes, it's broke and needs overhauling but small steps are better than none).

    You might find the inevitable end to the 2001 changes easier to accept if you take time to objectively consider the matter before hitting CAPS LOCK and flicking the hysteria switch. Simply, the refunds effectively subsidise non tax paying SFRs to preserve their capital; this was never the intent. As a principle, SFRs wanting more income should drawdown on their capital instead of bleating poor and demanding the taxpayer continue to subsidise when investment returns are lower than the long term average. If in time it means a former SFR qualifies for welfare then so be it.

    Going forward SFRs can rearrange their affairs after the refunds for non-taxpayers perk is removed, just as they did when the refunds were introduced. So give the hyperbole a rest and reminisce fondly about the good old days when SFR coffers were full and you could pay no tax yet still receive a refund from the gov for your franked dividends.
    Anonymous
    15th Feb 2019
    6:47pm
    Farside, you are full of it!
    (1) Refunds DO NOT subsidize anyone. They are MY INCOME, rightly due and payable. The company paid the tax from my dividend, as proved by my earnings statement, and I don't owe tax so it is refundable. If it is STOLEN FROM ME, I am subsidizing the taxpayers who enjoy benefits I am denied.

    (2) Many SFRs DO NOT HAVE SUPER. They have money THEY SAVED BY WORKING HARD AND GOING WITHOUT, and they are bloody well ENTITLED to benefit from it - not be deprived so greedy people who spent all their income can be subsidized by the taxpayer with TRIPLE benefits.

    (3) SFRS BENEFIT the nation by not taking welfare. To hamper their ability to do that by stealing their income through over-taxation is STUPID, and will cost the nation far more than allowing them their fair refund.

    (4) You are DEAD WRONG about them having the ability to rearrange their affairs. The wealthy can - but the wealthy are not being touched. They keep their benefit. Those who will suffer are those with lower asset balances and low incomes and other than spending up big or buying a bigger house and claiming the pension, they have NOWHERE TO GO. Their advisers are telling them - as mine is telling me - that most viable investments today pay franked dividends and if Shorten steals our income, we have no alternative other than to spend down and claim a pension - OR GET A DIVORCE and claim single pensions. DISGUSTING!

    (5) Excuse me! WHY THE HELL SHOULDN'T SFRs preserve their capital? They saved it for future needs. Why the HELL should they be stripped of BOTH the pension AND their private income that they earned by saving and have to gift it all to the bloody government to waste. Pensioners don't spend their capital. They live off the taxpayer. SFRs should be allowed to LIVE OFF THEIR OWN EARNED MONEY without being taxed in a grossly unfair and discriminatory manner and grinding them into hardship just because they saved.

    (6) This is NOT a small step to a better tax system. It is a HUGE regressive step towards unfairness, a massively increased OAP cost - because few will want to even try to be self-funded given the unfair treatment SFRs receive - and a massive increase to the national debt. It's socialism at it's worst - a politically motivated step toward a feudal society, taking from battling workers to give to the rich and the bludgers.
    Anonymous
    15th Feb 2019
    6:47pm
    Farside, you are full of it!
    (1) Refunds DO NOT subsidize anyone. They are MY INCOME, rightly due and payable. The company paid the tax from my dividend, as proved by my earnings statement, and I don't owe tax so it is refundable. If it is STOLEN FROM ME, I am subsidizing the taxpayers who enjoy benefits I am denied.

    (2) Many SFRs DO NOT HAVE SUPER. They have money THEY SAVED BY WORKING HARD AND GOING WITHOUT, and they are bloody well ENTITLED to benefit from it - not be deprived so greedy people who spent all their income can be subsidized by the taxpayer with TRIPLE benefits.

    (3) SFRS BENEFIT the nation by not taking welfare. To hamper their ability to do that by stealing their income through over-taxation is STUPID, and will cost the nation far more than allowing them their fair refund.

    (4) You are DEAD WRONG about them having the ability to rearrange their affairs. The wealthy can - but the wealthy are not being touched. They keep their benefit. Those who will suffer are those with lower asset balances and low incomes and other than spending up big or buying a bigger house and claiming the pension, they have NOWHERE TO GO. Their advisers are telling them - as mine is telling me - that most viable investments today pay franked dividends and if Shorten steals our income, we have no alternative other than to spend down and claim a pension - OR GET A DIVORCE and claim single pensions. DISGUSTING!

    (5) Excuse me! WHY THE HELL SHOULDN'T SFRs preserve their capital? They saved it for future needs. Why the HELL should they be stripped of BOTH the pension AND their private income that they earned by saving and have to gift it all to the bloody government to waste. Pensioners don't spend their capital. They live off the taxpayer. SFRs should be allowed to LIVE OFF THEIR OWN EARNED MONEY without being taxed in a grossly unfair and discriminatory manner and grinding them into hardship just because they saved.

    (6) This is NOT a small step to a better tax system. It is a HUGE regressive step towards unfairness, a massively increased OAP cost - because few will want to even try to be self-funded given the unfair treatment SFRs receive - and a massive increase to the national debt. It's socialism at it's worst - a politically motivated step toward a feudal society, taking from battling workers to give to the rich and the bludgers.
    Anonymous
    15th Feb 2019
    7:00pm
    And don't be too confident Bill Shitten will get his way. The majority of senators OPPOSE his rubbish and fully understand how evil, unfair and economically harmful it is. So do many politicians in the House - INCLUDING some Labor politicians. And so do vast numbers of voters - and more are being educated every day to see through Labor's disgusting lies.
    Anonymous
    15th Feb 2019
    7:00pm
    And don't be too confident Bill Shitten will get his way. The majority of senators OPPOSE his rubbish and fully understand how evil, unfair and economically harmful it is. So do many politicians in the House - INCLUDING some Labor politicians. And so do vast numbers of voters - and more are being educated every day to see through Labor's disgusting lies.
    Farside
    17th Feb 2019
    6:55pm
    OGR, nobody is saying SFRs should not live off their own money. Indeed they are in the position to determine their standard of living by how much of their stash they choose to spend or leave invested. Just don't expect the taxpayers to subsidise them by continuing the franked dividend cash refund perk. As you say they saved the money for future needs, so it makes sense that now is the time to spend it.

    You misunderstand entirely if you think the intended purpose of franking is to gift you a refund; rather it is to ensure that company profit is taxed only once at the company tax rate. Dividends are taxed at personal income tax rates and credited for company tax paid – it is not for overpayment of personal income tax and would have never been enacted in the first place if not for Howard's addiction to middle class welfare.

    Fortunately this perk, and your confusion, is likely coming to an end regardless how many caps you use or how much confected rage you display. So chill, spend your capital to improve your lifestyle and research how you might rearrange your investments to suit the new political climate. If you do not like what your advisor is telling you then time to get a second opinion from another advisor.

    Rest assured the millenials will change the system in the decades ahead. Luckily for you the proposed Labor changes will exempt pensioners so they can continue to enjoy this ill-conceived largesse. And don't worry, there is little chance we will not become a feudal society any time soon.
    Farside
    17th Feb 2019
    7:04pm
    oops ... that last sentence should have read "And don't worry, there is little chance we will become a feudal society any time soon."
    Anonymous
    17th Feb 2019
    8:34pm
    Once again, Farside - NO SFR IS RECEIVING EVEN ONE CENT OF TAXPAYER MONEY.

    Clearly you have zero comprehension of the franking credit system.

    If your employer takes $30 out of your $90 wages and pays to the ATO, and then you show the ATO you earned so little you have no tax liability at all, the ATO will refund your $30 - as it should. Do you think it should keep it?

    When I receive my dividend payment, it shows the exact amount of taxable income I must declare to the ATO. The amount I receive is 30% LESS than the total I must declare. Why? Because that 30% was PAID IN TAX ON MY BEHALF. Now, if I don't owe that tax, it should be refunded. It's NOT taxpayer money. It's MY MONEY. It's the portion of MY DIVIDEND that wasn't paid to me because before I could claim it, I needed to evidence to the ATO that I did not have taxable income. Just like the low income PAYE taxpayer needs to show his total income before receiving his refund.

    You are the one misunderstanding completely, Farside. And a franking credit refund to a struggling SFR is NOT middle class welfare. Middle class welfare is letting wealthy people and high income earners claim a tax deduction while disallowing a refund to battlers who just want a reasonable income so they can save the taxpayer around $1 million by staying off the OAP.

    Labor is NOT exempting pensioners. They are exempting a select cross-section of pensioners who were on a pension before a given date. They are excluding all others, no matter how poor and needy they may be or become.

    If millennials are stupid enough to change the system in the way Labor proposes, they will be putting nails in their own coffins. They will inherit the retirement system created today and tomorrow - and if they stuff it up as Labor is doing, they will suffer.

    I have had many adviser opinions, as have thousands of others who will be affected by this unfair policy, and all agree that poorer SFRs have NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVES. As for spending capital, I need it to cover upcoming expenses. I saved it to cover those expenses. Why should I now be deprived of my own savings to give more to greedy folk who didn't save? It's MY MONEY. Tell your thieving Labor mates to GET THEIR STINKING HANDS OFF IT and give up some of their own massive wealth. No, now is NOT the time to spend my savings. The time to spend my savings is when the expenses I saved for arise - and ON THOSE EXPENSES, not compensating for theft by the taxman.

    I pay the tax. It is clearly shown on my dividend statement that I paid it. I don't owe the tax. I am ENTITLED to get it back.

    And if you think we are unlikely to become a feudal society any time soon, you are delusional. Labor is pushing us very rapidly in that direction. Sadly, the LNP is doing the same. Both parties have the same objective - to create a class of rich rulers and a class of poor servants, and NOTHING in between. Very soon, it will be pensioners having their income slashed. I hope you don't expect me to speak out in THEIR defence? I would have once, but now I honestly can't wait for it to happen. Many of them richly deserve it.
    Farside
    18th Feb 2019
    2:01am
    dear OGR, clearly you have no understanding of the difference between company tax and personal income tax. No taxes have been paid by the company on your behalf; rather the company has paid company tax upon its taxable income (it's a pity there are so many loopholes that most companies can easily reduce company tax). The declared dividend is paid to shareholders and included in their personal tax. Shareholders receive a credit for the franked amount to offset their tax personal tax commitments to ensure the company dividend paid is not taxed twice. Quite simply really.

    I imagine it must be very frustrating for you ... Labor against you, LNP against you, millennials against you, pensioners against you, society against you ... all of them after your stash that you want to save while you want them to pay for your standard of living. Time to watch some doomsday prepper videos hey.
    Hoohoo
    18th Feb 2019
    4:25pm
    Well Farside, it IS very very frustrating for OGR, as she is in that very tiny minority of people who have gone to a lot of trouble NOT to be dependent on the OAP with all its extra perks.

    I'll say it again, OGR, put your money into Govt Bonds. It sounds like this thing is eating you up & you don't deserve to suffer like this. Adjust your income planning & enjoy your life - you deserve it because you've worked so hard for it.

    14th Feb 2019
    8:36pm
    Unbelievable how illogical and idiotic Labor supporters are, choosing to believe that if you take 30% of a rich man's dividend and send it to the ATO, it's 'tax'; if you take 30% of a worker's wages and send to the ATO it's 'tax', but if you take 30% of the income of someone who is saving the nation up to $50K a year by being self-supporting in retirement and send it to the ATO, giving it back is a 'handout' and a 'rort'.

    Funny how pensions aren't a 'handout' or a 'rort' but rather an 'entitlement' because pensioners paid tax for decades. But SFRs paid tax too - probably a lot more tax - and not only have the pension they bought and paid for denied, but now are likely to be denied a fair refund of TAX taken from the income they EARN through their own diligence.

    Jealousy certainly blinds. All Labor voters can focus on is ''they might have more than me - take it away and give me more'. Just how much do you greedy Labor supporters want to steal?

    15th Feb 2019
    9:42am
    Yesterday, I discussed Labor's policy with a millennial who was initially in favour, but after I explained that due to the TBC legislation, those with over $1.6 million are less affected and the more wealth they have, the less they lose - and that high income earners lose NOTHING, but people who are struggling to earn enough to continue to be self-funding - and who are saving the government up to $50,000 a year - will suffer huge income loss that, in many cases, will force them onto pensioners - she asked why it isn't being properly explained to the rest of the population and assured me she would be telling all her friends to vote against Labor and to write to Labor politicians objecting to their very bad policy.

    It's just really sad that so many here are either so selfish or so dumb that they can't deal in facts and recognise the danger of supporting Labor on this appallingly unfair and harmful policy.

    15th Feb 2019
    9:42am
    Yesterday, I discussed Labor's policy with a millennial who was initially in favour, but after I explained that due to the TBC legislation, those with over $1.6 million are less affected and the more wealth they have, the less they lose - and that high income earners lose NOTHING, but people who are struggling to earn enough to continue to be self-funding - and who are saving the government up to $50,000 a year - will suffer huge income loss that, in many cases, will force them onto pensioners - she asked why it isn't being properly explained to the rest of the population and assured me she would be telling all her friends to vote against Labor and to write to Labor politicians objecting to their very bad policy.

    It's just really sad that so many here are either so selfish or so dumb that they can't deal in facts and recognise the danger of supporting Labor on this appallingly unfair and harmful policy.
    Lookfar
    15th Feb 2019
    11:47am
    Hi OGR, I have read almost all your posts, and they all contain slander and abuse, so using a very good old rule, that if, in an argunent, you start using insults, - let alone abuse, - you have run out of truth, whatever you say has to be regarded as dodgy. Now, an earlier poster maintained that very few companies first take tax out of the dividends they pay, they normally just pay the lot, and to me that makes more sense, easy peasy. no wasting money on an accountant to do that extra work, and easy for the shareholder as well.
    So why does a company take out the tax and pay it themself, of course, stands out like dog's whatsis, - so they can claim that payment off their tax, win win, they don't actually pay the tax, and get to keep more of their profits.
    So the tax department doesn't get the tax, ie the Australian people don't get their tax, - Again, and the the OGR's in the system get to be paid money out of the general Australian income.
    It should just take the Tax Office doing a couple of successful prosecutions on companies involved in that fraud, and fining them severely, cancelling their right to trade or a jail sentence or two and there will be no more Franking credits to confuse the ATO, and Mr Shorten can let go of a complicated situation that only benefits the Accountants and their old mates the banks.
    That way, any pensioner or part pensioner will recieve the full money from his share earnings, and everything is then between the share owner, (including OGR) the tax department, and God.
    So OGR, you have done good by stirring the pot, also by discrediting your evidence so I was able to more objectively look at other evidence, I will inform the Tax dept and Mr Shorten of the lapse in logic behind the almost unforgivable fuss, and hopefully all will be well for all.
    Anonymous
    15th Feb 2019
    11:51am
    You are so ignorant Lookfar.
    Please don't comment on what you do t understsand

    A company pays franked dividends when it has franking credits available , i.e tax paid

    If it has no franking credits to pass on shareholders, then it pays unfranked dividends

    Better you stop posting on this subject and stick to hugging trees
    Anonymous
    15th Feb 2019
    11:51am
    You are so ignorant Lookfar.
    Please don't comment on what you do t understsand

    A company pays franked dividends when it has franking credits available , i.e tax paid

    If it has no franking credits to pass on shareholders, then it pays unfranked dividends

    Better you stop posting on this subject and stick to hugging trees
    Adrianus
    15th Feb 2019
    12:10pm
    If by some chance we see Bill Shorten as PM, I wonder how many if any SFRs will see Bills discriminatory FC policy as the last straw and cash out their Super?
    I'm thinking that is the main reason behind this FC change, in support of Industry super.
    I don't understand why Labor and their Union bosses are so down on aspirational Australia.??
    Adrianus
    15th Feb 2019
    12:10pm
    If by some chance we see Bill Shorten as PM, I wonder how many if any SFRs will see Bills discriminatory FC policy as the last straw and cash out their Super?
    I'm thinking that is the main reason behind this FC change, in support of Industry super.
    I don't understand why Labor and their Union bosses are so down on aspirational Australia.??
    Adrianus
    15th Feb 2019
    12:53pm
    Lookfar, you obviously have not read all of Rainey's posts otherwise you would be more knowledgeable on how the Imputation system works and the discriminatory nature of Bill Shorten's, Chris Bowen's proposed variation. These bloody minded throwbacks from the 1960's are proposing that a select group of people not receive a benefit from the imputation system.
    Let me be clear. If somebody is not receiving the imputation credit then someone else is getting taxed twice.
    Adrianus
    15th Feb 2019
    12:53pm
    Lookfar, you obviously have not read all of Rainey's posts otherwise you would be more knowledgeable on how the Imputation system works and the discriminatory nature of Bill Shorten's, Chris Bowen's proposed variation. These bloody minded throwbacks from the 1960's are proposing that a select group of people not receive a benefit from the imputation system.
    Let me be clear. If somebody is not receiving the imputation credit then someone else is getting taxed twice.
    Anonymous
    15th Feb 2019
    6:36pm
    Goodness, Lookfar - I thought you were more rational and capable of understanding fact than most posters here, but clearly you are as muddle-headed and ignorant of the facts as the rest of the Labor supporters here. You have no idea!

    NOBODY is getting franking credits paid out of Australian income. NOBODY! I get a dividend. it has been REDUCED by the franking credit amount and I am required by law to declare the entire amount - INCLUDING THE 30% I DIDN'T RECEIVE- as 'taxable income'. Why? BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN PAID TO THE ATO BY THE COMPANY. And since I don't have a tax liability, the ATO owes me my refund. It has the use of it for months to benefit the nation - earning it mega-millions in interest on MY MONEY, but ultimately, it OWES ME THE REFUND. And to deny me is THEFT.
    Anonymous
    15th Feb 2019
    6:36pm
    Goodness, Lookfar - I thought you were more rational and capable of understanding fact than most posters here, but clearly you are as muddle-headed and ignorant of the facts as the rest of the Labor supporters here. You have no idea!

    NOBODY is getting franking credits paid out of Australian income. NOBODY! I get a dividend. it has been REDUCED by the franking credit amount and I am required by law to declare the entire amount - INCLUDING THE 30% I DIDN'T RECEIVE- as 'taxable income'. Why? BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN PAID TO THE ATO BY THE COMPANY. And since I don't have a tax liability, the ATO owes me my refund. It has the use of it for months to benefit the nation - earning it mega-millions in interest on MY MONEY, but ultimately, it OWES ME THE REFUND. And to deny me is THEFT.
    Lookfar
    15th Feb 2019
    12:46pm
    Lothario, your comments and Adrianus are under the same cloud of abuse, so I assume you are trying to weasle out of being in the wrong Again.
    Well, if a company pays franked dividends that is a slight inducement for people to invest in them, but it would be best if they just pay unfranked dividends, - then no more shonk, no body else is responsible for paying the tax, at whatever level, just the person who earn't the dividend from their investment.
    All else is smoke and mirrors, The old phrase, "just keep it simple stupid" - KISS, is the best, no poor people are hurt, and dishonest companies have nobody else's tax to claim against, no doubt hugely exagerated also. win win for the Australian people, whether of not they hug trees to save them from being cut down or whatever to save the environment.
    Anonymous
    15th Feb 2019
    12:59pm
    Oh my god - you are thick as 4 planks
    absolute waste of space
    Anonymous
    15th Feb 2019
    12:59pm
    Oh my god - you are thick as 4 planks
    absolute waste of space
    Lookfar
    15th Feb 2019
    1:05pm
    Just to re-state it, if a company pays, as one would expect, the remuneration from a shareholders investment, directly to them, no problem, if a plumber charges $500, for a job, it will include the GST by law, the customer may be able to claim the GST back, the Plumber will pay income tax if he made a profit, etc. there are no dodgy loose ends.
    KISS.
    Anonymous
    15th Feb 2019
    6:31pm
    Then suggest to your dodgy thieving lying Labor Party mates that they change the system that way instead of robbing honest shareholders who need their full dividend to pay their bills.
    Anonymous
    15th Feb 2019
    6:31pm
    Then suggest to your dodgy thieving lying Labor Party mates that they change the system that way instead of robbing honest shareholders who need their full dividend to pay their bills.
    Adrianus
    16th Feb 2019
    3:42pm
    Rainey, what I'm trying to understand is that the left always go to great lengths eluding to their empathetic, caring, kind hearted nature. Why? Anyone with an IQ over 80 can see by their actions that it is a ruse. It hides a vindictive cruel streak driven by envy, hatred and self promotion. This is a far different Labor Party than that of the pre 1990's.
    Anonymous
    17th Feb 2019
    7:02am
    Adrianus, what I'm trying to understand is why people who claim to support the empathetic, caring approach are supporting THIS Labor Party and its disgusting treachery and dishonesty. I'm wondering whatever happened to the Aussie ''fair go' mentality. It seems to have been broadly replaced by envy, hatred, and selfishness. As someone who struggled for most of my life with serious underprivilege, I despised the LNP and the rich for their selfishness and greed. Now I find myself despising Labor and its supporters even more, for the unfairness, dishonesty, envy and lack of respect I'm seeing among people who live off the taxpayer and continually demand more and more and more be taken from low income battlers who get no government benefits because they struggled to save a little (and it really IS only a little compared to what pensioners are GIVEN.)
    Lookfar
    15th Feb 2019
    7:12pm
    You are doing it again Rainey, screaming abuse, no arguments, just repetition of somebody else's dogma, - it is not right and human to behave that way, but you need to substantiate your arguments, you can't just scream and demand, - who do you think you are, Donald Trump?
    The statement that a company has paid it's tax, when many companies don't pay their tax but avoid it, and possibly even legally, does not answer my analysis, - if the company has claimed your payment as income and then written it off against their expenses, they have not paid it in respect of you, they have only "paid" it in respect of other unrelated items, the ATO did not get that money that you have to pay, - your income tax on your earnings, - No Rainey they did not get from you the money owed them, (us) from your earnings, whatever the company dodginess may spruik, so you did not pay your tax, and the company has illegally held back part of your earnings, apparently with your approval?
    Whatever, despite the flummery of third parties, you should pay tax on your app. million dollar investment earnings, the which you have apparently worked out a way of not doing.
    The fact that a huge number of multinationals are also not paying their tax is no justification for you not paying your tax, it is merely an absolute statement that the Multis must pay their tax or else the weak minded will try to not pay their tax also.
    You are not weak minded, although you do need to wash out your mouth with strong soap, you just need to find a quiet space where you can think it all through and change your actions concordantly, then, no blame.
    Adrianus
    15th Feb 2019
    10:12pm
    I didn't hear any screaming Lookfar.
    Anonymous
    16th Feb 2019
    8:05pm
    Lookfar, if you think the company didn't pay its tax, take it up with the ATO. Don't ask me to pay it for them! I can't afford to carry someone else's tax burden. I have enough trouble making ends meet on the small income I can generate for myself, while pensioners get much much more!

    And how dare you accuse me of not paying my tax. And how dare you suggest I have multi-million-dollar earnings. You are making yourself sound disgracefully envious, dishonest and nasty with such comment.

    And since when do you know more than hundreds of expert financial advisers who are advising clients that THEY CANNOT FIND WAYS AROUND THE INCOME LOSS SHORTEN THREATENS? The rich can find ways around it. Battlers with limited assets and no pension CANNOT.

    Lookfar, until now you have appeared rational and reasonable. Now you are showing yourself to be as arrogant, ignorant, rude and nasty as Shorten, Bowen, and some of the more disgracefully selfish people posting here.
    Anonymous
    16th Feb 2019
    8:05pm
    Lookfar, if you think the company didn't pay its tax, take it up with the ATO. Don't ask me to pay it for them! I can't afford to carry someone else's tax burden. I have enough trouble making ends meet on the small income I can generate for myself, while pensioners get much much more!

    And how dare you accuse me of not paying my tax. And how dare you suggest I have multi-million-dollar earnings. You are making yourself sound disgracefully envious, dishonest and nasty with such comment.

    And since when do you know more than hundreds of expert financial advisers who are advising clients that THEY CANNOT FIND WAYS AROUND THE INCOME LOSS SHORTEN THREATENS? The rich can find ways around it. Battlers with limited assets and no pension CANNOT.

    Lookfar, until now you have appeared rational and reasonable. Now you are showing yourself to be as arrogant, ignorant, rude and nasty as Shorten, Bowen, and some of the more disgracefully selfish people posting here.
    Lookfar
    15th Feb 2019
    7:20pm
    again OGR, the good part is that you can change your investments, and do the right thing without penalty, - but the bad thing is that the Neo-liberals, the multi billionaires, will destroy the world we all live on, without a thought, just so they keep their snouts in the trough, and another good thing, - you can decide not to help them.
    Adrianus
    16th Feb 2019
    11:41am
    Rubbish!!
    Anonymous
    16th Feb 2019
    8:13pm
    Lookfar, are you now a financial expert? Obviously professing to know more than 100s of financial advisers and economists who are saying SFRs with low assets and income - like me - have NO REASONABLE OPTIONS. Change investments? To what? Property - which is earning less than shares? Foreign shares - which impose massive currency risk and deprive Australian companies of needed capital for expansion and job creation. Maybe to bank interest at 2%, which would give me, at best, $15000 a year with no benefits or concessions - for two people to live on. Sorry! No can do! Greedy pensioners aren't content with way in excess of double that, PLUS concessions, PLUS franking credits. Why should I have to live on such a tiny income?

    Sorry, but you have swallowed Labor's lies hook, line and sinker. I agree the multi-billionaires will destroy the world. I agree neo-liberalism will destroy the world. That's why I urge ALL Labor supporters to DEMAND Labor change its franking credit policy. I don't want to vote LNP. And I'm seeing one SFR after another, who doesn't want to vote LNP, declare that after voting Labor all their life, they never will again because of Labor's bullying and unfair treatment of SFRs.

    This debate is not about neo-liberalism. It's about a Labor policy that is WRONG and that is being grossly MISREPRESENTED. All they have to do is change it to be fair and honest. That shouldn't be too hard if they are at all qualified to govern. If they can't change it to be fair and honest, they shouldn't be trusted with the keys to the Lodge. End of story.
    ABE
    15th Feb 2019
    7:36pm
    Quote Rainey: “And Abe, one should pay tax based on THEIR INCOME - not on what they do to achieve that income. Every other retiree is either getting tax free income or a taxpayer-funded handout, or BOTH, but you greedy Labor supporters aren't content to rip off SFRs by denying them a pension. You have to steal their income as well.”
    ---
    Groan, groan, groan. Sorry to disappoint you Rainey but your rant is wasted on me. I am a Capitalist, a Responsible Capitalist (google it). I am not a pensioner and when I retire I will be a SFR and therefore should not have a pension. Why should I?? Your rant is most unseemly.

    I repeat for your benefit – one should pay tax based on their income. What don’t you understand about that? What you did to get that income is your business. What I did to get my income is my business that does not make either of us special, we did it for ourselves so why whip those who did not follow your lead??

    As for “facts”, in politics, that doesn’t exist – there are only lies, damn lies and post-truths ole bean, but what I see here is, you’re spreading a helluva lot of “propaganda” but I don’t see anyone biting, so why waste your breath? You are influencing no one!!

    Obviously Rainey, like Aquarius and Lottie, you have no idea how the imputation system works and in addition, you have not grasped the intricacies of financial matters. If you did, you would see the benefit in what Labor is trying to achieve with this policy.

    Now, I am going to leave it there, this is done and dusted as far as I’m concerned. Control yourself, simmer down and try and see the bigger picture. If you had invested wisely in the beginning, you wouldn’t be tearing your hair out now. As I said to your dear mates Aquarius and Lottie, just wipe your tears and be more creative next time. There are enough apples in the orchard for all, there is no need to be greedy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_-q9xeOgG4

    .
    Adrianus
    15th Feb 2019
    10:18pm
    Ha Ha Ha!! Its so funny seeing Micha trying to appear like she knows what shes talking about. LOL!!

    You are wrong MIcha. A taxpayer's liability for income tax is calculated on taxable income.
    RAY
    15th Feb 2019
    11:07pm
    Just like a woman to get hysterical Adrianus. It won’t help you one bit. Get over it, Abe is 100% right. Screaming at the top of your lungs like Rainey is giving me a headache. Are you two related?

    Life is not fair nor is there any principle that says a NON taxpayer should get a cash tax refund. Where did you get that from, noddy land?

    The govt is paying $100 million a week in the way of cash refunds to people who are not paying tax, while public schools go without. As someone who sees students struggling, I am not impressed. Your abuse won’t help, only reinforces the fact you and your little mates are desperate. I don’t care who wins the next election as long as people are made to pay their taxes. I pay mine and I stand to lose also.
    Anonymous
    15th Feb 2019
    11:13pm
    Gobbledegook from little princess Micha as usual
    And then dumber Ray comes along to add to her sisters nonsense
    Adrianus
    16th Feb 2019
    9:20am
    Lothario, The government pays $3.7B every week in welfare to non taxpayers. Do you think we can afford this? I'm not fussed who wins the election as long as its not Labor. I have children trying to make their way in life.
    Anonymous
    16th Feb 2019
    9:42am
    $3.7B a week is an enormous burden on the taxpayer. Labor's franking credit policy will likely push this to up to $5 Billion in the first couple of years steady increasing by 5-10% year on year after that as SFR's spend up so that they can increase their income by going part OAP
    Unfortunately for these people they will never get franking credits even if they go on OAP due to labors cut-off date
    Anonymous
    16th Feb 2019
    9:42am
    $3.7B a week is an enormous burden on the taxpayer. Labor's franking credit policy will likely push this to up to $5 Billion in the first couple of years steady increasing by 5-10% year on year after that as SFR's spend up so that they can increase their income by going part OAP
    Unfortunately for these people they will never get franking credits even if they go on OAP due to labors cut-off date
    Anonymous
    16th Feb 2019
    7:57pm
    "I repeat for your benefit – one should pay tax based on their income."

    That's EXACTLY what I said, Abe. One should PAY TAX ON THEIR INCOME, not according to the source of that income. Just because I invest in shares in blue-chip Australian companies should not make me liable to pay more tax than if I invested in property or foreign shares.

    "What you did to get that income is your business." PRECISELY! So when I pay 30% of my income in tax that I don't owe, I should get it back - just like others who pay tax they don't owe.

    I understand franking credits very well. I also understand economics very well. It's a field in which I have expertise, Abe. And I know that overtaxing people who are saving the taxpayer tens of thousands per year, and rewarding pensioners, is a recipe for economic disaster because, as Lothario correctly points out, it will push vast numbers onto pensions. I'm one of them. I will go on a pension and cost the government 40% more than it costs to pay me franking credits. My children are already cutting their super contributions and planning to be pensioners. So are my younger cousins. They have seen that it doesn't pay to work and be self-funded. You just get bullied and bashed and deprived.

    Lucky you if you can afford to be an SFR without franking credits. I can't, and neither can hundreds of thousands of others, and we shouldn't have to. We worked hard and contributed very well and continue to contribute to economic prosperity. We deserve recognition and reward, and it's in the nation's interests to encourage and reward those who stay off the OAP and take responsibility for themselves.|

    I, too, see what Labor is trying to do. It is trying to inflict socialism and bankrupt the country.
    Anonymous
    16th Feb 2019
    7:57pm
    "I repeat for your benefit – one should pay tax based on their income."

    That's EXACTLY what I said, Abe. One should PAY TAX ON THEIR INCOME, not according to the source of that income. Just because I invest in shares in blue-chip Australian companies should not make me liable to pay more tax than if I invested in property or foreign shares.

    "What you did to get that income is your business." PRECISELY! So when I pay 30% of my income in tax that I don't owe, I should get it back - just like others who pay tax they don't owe.

    I understand franking credits very well. I also understand economics very well. It's a field in which I have expertise, Abe. And I know that overtaxing people who are saving the taxpayer tens of thousands per year, and rewarding pensioners, is a recipe for economic disaster because, as Lothario correctly points out, it will push vast numbers onto pensions. I'm one of them. I will go on a pension and cost the government 40% more than it costs to pay me franking credits. My children are already cutting their super contributions and planning to be pensioners. So are my younger cousins. They have seen that it doesn't pay to work and be self-funded. You just get bullied and bashed and deprived.

    Lucky you if you can afford to be an SFR without franking credits. I can't, and neither can hundreds of thousands of others, and we shouldn't have to. We worked hard and contributed very well and continue to contribute to economic prosperity. We deserve recognition and reward, and it's in the nation's interests to encourage and reward those who stay off the OAP and take responsibility for themselves.|

    I, too, see what Labor is trying to do. It is trying to inflict socialism and bankrupt the country.
    Anonymous
    16th Feb 2019
    7:59pm
    Ray, you are showing your ignorance. Non-taxpayers get tax refunds every year. All PAYE and PAYG taxpayers who pay more than they owe get refunds. People whose banks take withholding tax get refunds. Franking credits are no different.

    If Labor was honest and responsible, it would tax based on income - not on the source of the income. But Labor has NEVER been honest or responsible.
    Anonymous
    16th Feb 2019
    7:59pm
    Ray, you are showing your ignorance. Non-taxpayers get tax refunds every year. All PAYE and PAYG taxpayers who pay more than they owe get refunds. People whose banks take withholding tax get refunds. Franking credits are no different.

    If Labor was honest and responsible, it would tax based on income - not on the source of the income. But Labor has NEVER been honest or responsible.
    Farside
    18th Feb 2019
    2:22am
    well said @Abe even if old mate continues to rant and make valiant albeit futile attempts to redefine the world e.g. franking credits are no different to bank withholding tax.
    Hoohoo
    18th Feb 2019
    5:16pm
    It is true, OGR, there is a zone between people who sincerely need the OAP & those who can fund their own retirement with Superannuation. I agree that people should be encouraged to fund themselves rather than game the pension system (where rich people can still receive the OAP perks, if not the pension income). But we are in between generations where some older people have never earned Super, while younger people have been forced to contribute all their working lives. Until this schism regarding Super is breached, the rules tweaking retirement planning are necessarily in a state of flux. It's unfortunate for you that you're on the edge of losing out on this one, if you don't change your planning accordingly.

    I'm in a similar conundrum in that I'm not rich enough to rort the system. For example, I pay an upfront quarterly PAYG amount determined by the ATO from last year's tax assessment. So, out of my savings account (from past income I have already paid tax on), I have to shell out thousands of $$$ to pay my PAYG, hoping: 1) I get it back because my income is reduced or 2) I don't get it back because I've earned so much more compared to last year, that I owe it to the ATO. Give me option 2) every time please!

    I also have to shell out for 10% of all my earnings as GST every quarter, but at least that's not upfront.
    I've also had to risk & invest thousands $$$ upfront for raw materials so I can manufacture it into something I hope people will buy. At least I will be able to use this investment as a deduction.

    So where does income start & income end? All money invested has already had tax paid on it, unless you are an organised criminal or the Mint. This idea of franking credits being the only income that is "double taxed" is a furphy. Income is income. You pay tax (unless you're rich enough to pay for a creative accountant).

    Get rid of franking credits altogether I say - at least then we'll stop the operators rorting the system.

    16th Feb 2019
    7:47pm
    Union-run fund, Australian Super, opposed any change to the current franking credit policy when the LNP considered it in 2015 - on the grounds that it would drive investment off shore.

    In its submission to the tax white paper on May 29, 2015, AustralianSuper said: “AustralianSuper submits that there are substantial benefits to Australia in the continued operation of the present dividend imputation system. AustralianSuper strongly supports the dividend imputation system and opposes modification or removal of the system.

    “AustralianSuper is therefore concerned that modification or removal of the imputation system could lead to significant amounts of capital in the superannuation system being reallocated towards foreign invest­ment on the basis that such reallocation could provide comparative benefits to the retirement outcomes of Australian superannuation fund members.”

    Labor candidates in NSW are feeling the heat over the policy proposal, which they say could well drive an LNP victory.

    Intelligent Labor voters should be urging Bowen and Shorten to modify their policy to show respect for self-funded retirees who are saving the government tens of thousands annually, instead of nastily cheering theft from folk who are making a huge contribution to the national budget.
    Hoohoo
    17th Feb 2019
    2:42pm
    Ever since Costello introduced it it's been an iffy scheme but it's wrong that low income people who have counted on this income for their modest retirement will be so badly affected.
    If Labor gets in, I suggest all low income people (below the taxable income) who will miss out on receiving these credits from Govt ATO coffers, should move their money from the Share Market & put it into Govt. Bonds.
    STOP GIVING SUCH TAX BREAKS TO THE RICH! Don't they already get paid the Dividends?
    Anonymous
    17th Feb 2019
    5:45pm
    It’s not a tax break
    It’s a refund of overpayment of tax
    Duh !!!
    Anonymous
    17th Feb 2019
    5:46pm
    And SFR’s earning $25,000 inclusive of franking credits of $7k are not rich
    Anonymous
    17th Feb 2019
    8:10pm
    If Labor wants to fix what it thinks is a problem, take the franking credits from the WEALTHY - not battlers on low incomes.
    Govt Bonds don't pay enough for a low-asset SFR to live on, Hoohoo. That option simply won't work. Poorer SFRs NEED their franking credits, and paying them fairly is not only appropriate tax policy, but a sustainable budget measure by keeping SFRs from moving onto the OAP and costing the nation far, far more than their miserable little bit of franking credit.

    Labor is LYING about these credits. Ask Bowen and Shorten to identify the people who are supposedly getting $1 million in cash refunds and paying no tax. They would need to have some $100 million in assets to get that kind of rebate. If such people exist, that's a matter for the ATO. There can't be many of them. It's certainly NOT a reason to rob honest retirees of a fair refund of overpaid tax.
    Hoohoo
    18th Feb 2019
    5:30pm
    Lothario, is it not a tax break from income earned from Dividends?
    Is it not a tax break if it reduces your tax burden?
    No, people on $25K p.a. are not rich. PUT YOUR MONEY IN GOVT BONDS! And do it before the election, methinks!

    I agree, OGR, don't give any exemptions to the rich to reduce their tax burden. Here's a chance to actually make them pay some tax for a change!

    Ban franking credit refunds altogether, I say, & make foreign companies pay tax on the income earned in Australia - no more of this "investment-shifting" rort.
    Hoohoo
    22nd Feb 2019
    7:02pm
    Your problem OGR is that you're that rare beast - an honest retiree who isn't on the lam seeking government handouts in the area most other wealthier retirees do - OAP extras.

    You're going to have to change your strategy if you can't afford to live without franking credit refunds. Then again, wait till after the election, who knows? The Libs are doing what they do best - frightening people so they don't vote for Labor. They have the Murdoch Media giant behind them & they may well win.

    If only they could govern! If only they had leadership without stabbing the last bloke in the back to change leaders. And I say "bloke" because blokes will always be the candidate for the top job in this Liberal Government. I note more Lib women are jumping from the stinking ship before the next election - even their most experienced & best leader, Julie Bishop, has thrown in the towel. She knows she can never become PM while she's a Liberal & it's because of her gender.
    rawy
    17th Feb 2019
    7:27pm
    Howard and Costello bought an election victory with unsustainable largesse to retirees. We are currently enjoying benefits not available anywhere else in the world, but are doing so at our children's and grandchildren's expense. I have not seen any of the commentators clinging to their cash refunds acknowledging the demographic changes occurring in this country. Less workers can not support more retirees indefinitely. In my view, although I have had personal benefit, a negative income tax has never been supportable on either economic or moral grounds. Imputation and franking credits were introduced to prevent double taxation of dividends. That is sound and worthwhile. Giving people cash refunds when they have paid no tax is not. "Arguments" being raised are expressions of self interest not rational debate. If changes are not made now, more severe changes will have to be made in future. I can see that some people, including those massively rorting the system, will have made plans based on the existing arrangements. For them I would support a transitional arrangement, phasing out their cash refunds over 5 years. Alternatively, those of us struggling with low interest rates and a falling share market could be given a Grandfathered capped cash refund, say $2,500 for 2 years then $1,500 thereafter. Non-taxpayers receiving a $1 million cash refund or more can not be allowed to continue. The ALP should be commended for raising this public interest issue. The LNP deserves to be shamed ( for the original vote buying ) and for the misrepresentation, electioneering and misuse of Parliament's Committees.
    Anonymous
    17th Feb 2019
    8:02pm
    Rawy, if you are really concerned about the future of our children and grandchildren - as I am - you will rigorously OPPOSE Labor's proposal to transfer wealth from battlers to the wealthy and force battling low-income SFRs onto the OAP - a move that will cost the nation dearly in multiple ways - reduced spending reducing business profits and jobs; reduced investment in Australian companies to drive growth and jobs; and increased expenditure on welfare to pay hundreds of thousands of additional aged pensioners.

    The small amount of cash refund of franking credits to battling SFRs is a wise investment in ensuring they can continue to contribute tens of thousands annually (well over $1 million over the course of retirement for most) to the national treasury.

    Nobody is receiving a cash refund and not paying tax. That simply isn't possible. Shorten and Bowen are misleading the public with that absurd claim. The tax IS paid, If it is not owed, it should be refunded - just like overpaid PAYE and PAYG tax.

    I share your concern that some high income earners may be manipulating or using the tax benefits of super to get substantial cash refunds that they don't deserve. The Transfer Balance Cap legislation will have alleviated this problem substantially, but I think it could go further. I think the $1.6 mil cap is way too high, considering that a couple with just $850,000 in total assessable assets (including non-returning car, furniture, household and personal effects and cash) are deprived of the pension. Certainly, where there is potentially tax avoidance, the ATO should step in. But depriving HONEST low income SFRs is both an act of elder abuse and an act that is harmful to our economy.

    There are abundant other ways to address budget deficits. Why are you supporting Labor's proposal when it impacts poorer SFRs and NOT the wealthy - who retain their credits?

    The LNP should be commended, not shamed, for exposing the truth of Labor's disgusting lies and bad policy.

    SFRs are struggling with low interest rates and a falling share market, and a small once-off handout is not going to help them endure potentially 2 or 3 decades of dramatically reduced income due to the imposition of unfair taxation.

    The ALP is WRONG on this issue. If it was genuine in its intent, it would be stopping franking credits for the wealthy and high income earners - not attacking battlers who are struggling to stay off the OAP and by doing so are helping the budget greatly.

    I guarantee you, rawy, if these changes go ahead, much more severe changes WILL be necessary later because of the massive economic harm they will cause.

    Reduce the TBC. Start taxing superannuation income in retirement (above a fair threshold). MAKE HONEST AND FAIR CHANGES that GENUINELY deliver budget savings, not fake, dishonest and unfair changes that hit at the wrong target and do major harm.

    And BTW. Please identify these non-taxpayers who receive $1 million cash refunds. Or ask Shorten and Bowen to do so. I don't believe they exist. The recipient would need to be receiving some $2.5 million in dividends. That would mean they owned some $50 million in shares. Given that investors at that level would be most unlikely to have all their assets in shares paying franked dividends, they would have at least $100 million invested. If someone with $100 million in assets were not paying tax, even if that $100 million were in super (where $98.4 mil would be required to be in a taxed accumulation fund - getting franking credits that Shorten WILL NOT cancel!), that would certainly be a matter for the ATO to investigate and NOT a reason to deny franking credits to a couple with just $850,000 in assessable assets and an income LESS than the OAP.
    Anonymous
    17th Feb 2019
    8:02pm
    Rawy, if you are really concerned about the future of our children and grandchildren - as I am - you will rigorously OPPOSE Labor's proposal to transfer wealth from battlers to the wealthy and force battling low-income SFRs onto the OAP - a move that will cost the nation dearly in multiple ways - reduced spending reducing business profits and jobs; reduced investment in Australian companies to drive growth and jobs; and increased expenditure on welfare to pay hundreds of thousands of additional aged pensioners.

    The small amount of cash refund of franking credits to battling SFRs is a wise investment in ensuring they can continue to contribute tens of thousands annually (well over $1 million over the course of retirement for most) to the national treasury.

    Nobody is receiving a cash refund and not paying tax. That simply isn't possible. Shorten and Bowen are misleading the public with that absurd claim. The tax IS paid, If it is not owed, it should be refunded - just like overpaid PAYE and PAYG tax.

    I share your concern that some high income earners may be manipulating or using the tax benefits of super to get substantial cash refunds that they don't deserve. The Transfer Balance Cap legislation will have alleviated this problem substantially, but I think it could go further. I think the $1.6 mil cap is way too high, considering that a couple with just $850,000 in total assessable assets (including non-returning car, furniture, household and personal effects and cash) are deprived of the pension. Certainly, where there is potentially tax avoidance, the ATO should step in. But depriving HONEST low income SFRs is both an act of elder abuse and an act that is harmful to our economy.

    There are abundant other ways to address budget deficits. Why are you supporting Labor's proposal when it impacts poorer SFRs and NOT the wealthy - who retain their credits?

    The LNP should be commended, not shamed, for exposing the truth of Labor's disgusting lies and bad policy.

    SFRs are struggling with low interest rates and a falling share market, and a small once-off handout is not going to help them endure potentially 2 or 3 decades of dramatically reduced income due to the imposition of unfair taxation.

    The ALP is WRONG on this issue. If it was genuine in its intent, it would be stopping franking credits for the wealthy and high income earners - not attacking battlers who are struggling to stay off the OAP and by doing so are helping the budget greatly.

    I guarantee you, rawy, if these changes go ahead, much more severe changes WILL be necessary later because of the massive economic harm they will cause.

    Reduce the TBC. Start taxing superannuation income in retirement (above a fair threshold). MAKE HONEST AND FAIR CHANGES that GENUINELY deliver budget savings, not fake, dishonest and unfair changes that hit at the wrong target and do major harm.

    And BTW. Please identify these non-taxpayers who receive $1 million cash refunds. Or ask Shorten and Bowen to do so. I don't believe they exist. The recipient would need to be receiving some $2.5 million in dividends. That would mean they owned some $50 million in shares. Given that investors at that level would be most unlikely to have all their assets in shares paying franked dividends, they would have at least $100 million invested. If someone with $100 million in assets were not paying tax, even if that $100 million were in super (where $98.4 mil would be required to be in a taxed accumulation fund - getting franking credits that Shorten WILL NOT cancel!), that would certainly be a matter for the ATO to investigate and NOT a reason to deny franking credits to a couple with just $850,000 in assessable assets and an income LESS than the OAP.
    Hoohoo
    21st Feb 2019
    7:26pm
    Stop complaining OGR & buy Government Bonds instead of relying on FC refunds.

    17th Feb 2019
    8:19pm
    Seems some here can't do the math required to see through Shorten and Bowen's massive lies.

    To get $1 million in cash franking credits, one would need to have around $2.5 million in dividend income and hold probably at least $100 million in assets. If anyone is earning $2.5 million in dividends and paying no tax, that's a matter for the ATO. It is NOT a reason to deprive struggling SFRs of the income they NEED to stay off the OAP.

    Then there's the claim that over 50% of refunds go to people with more than $2.4 million in super. Really? But if they had more than $2.4 mil in super, they would have to have at least $800,000 in accumulation mode and paying tax. Now, I happen to think the $1.6 mil transfer balance cap is too low and the 15% tax rate on balances over $1.6 mil is too generous, so why not reduce that - imposing loss on WEALTHIER retirees who can afford the loss. But no! Those with $2.4 mil or more will retain at least some of their franking credits. The more than have, the more franking credits they will retain.

    It's those with LESS than $1.6 mil who will lose, and those with less than $1 mil will lose far too much, in many cases leaving them with insufficient to live on and forcing them onto the OAP, which will cost the nation much more.

    Nobody with either any sense of fairness or decency, or with any economic savvy, would support this ludicrous policy proposal. Thankfully, it's coming back to bite Labor now. NSW Labor candidates say they are deeply worried that it is handing the LNP a victory. That doesn't please me, but I guess we are faced with the lesser of two evils, and certainly as long as it sticks with this absurd, cruel, unfair and dangerous franking credit policy, Labor is the greatest evil.

    17th Feb 2019
    8:19pm
    Seems some here can't do the math required to see through Shorten and Bowen's massive lies.

    To get $1 million in cash franking credits, one would need to have around $2.5 million in dividend income and hold probably at least $100 million in assets. If anyone is earning $2.5 million in dividends and paying no tax, that's a matter for the ATO. It is NOT a reason to deprive struggling SFRs of the income they NEED to stay off the OAP.

    Then there's the claim that over 50% of refunds go to people with more than $2.4 million in super. Really? But if they had more than $2.4 mil in super, they would have to have at least $800,000 in accumulation mode and paying tax. Now, I happen to think the $1.6 mil transfer balance cap is too low and the 15% tax rate on balances over $1.6 mil is too generous, so why not reduce that - imposing loss on WEALTHIER retirees who can afford the loss. But no! Those with $2.4 mil or more will retain at least some of their franking credits. The more than have, the more franking credits they will retain.

    It's those with LESS than $1.6 mil who will lose, and those with less than $1 mil will lose far too much, in many cases leaving them with insufficient to live on and forcing them onto the OAP, which will cost the nation much more.

    Nobody with either any sense of fairness or decency, or with any economic savvy, would support this ludicrous policy proposal. Thankfully, it's coming back to bite Labor now. NSW Labor candidates say they are deeply worried that it is handing the LNP a victory. That doesn't please me, but I guess we are faced with the lesser of two evils, and certainly as long as it sticks with this absurd, cruel, unfair and dangerous franking credit policy, Labor is the greatest evil.
    Lookfar
    19th Feb 2019
    3:11pm
    Again supporting the abuser team Rainey, or did you all along?
    Welcome to the (Troll?) team of Lothario, Adrianus, OG, Old frt, Bob menzies and several other forgettable former trolls, - so you support the liberal party, boots and all, - the which supports the Neo-Liberal super rich parasites destroying the very planet we live on, - at least in it's ability to support human beings?
    How does that help Older people on YLC? - do you think we are happy to sacrifice our grand children to present greed?
    Several times you have been proved wrong in this discussion, never do you acknowledge it, - do you think we think you are God Almighty?
    No, you are just a common abuser, i suspect a pimp for the liberal party but not really aware that you serve the Neo-Liberal madness.
    You should start your posts, - "I am a liberal voter, this is what I have been told to say", then we could at least look at your rants objectively, make allowance for bias and see if any humanity remains, but now, nothing you say can be trusted, because you have pretended and abused for far too long.
    Shame on you "OGR", just another stooge. - pity.
    RAY
    17th Feb 2019
    10:00pm
    Quote Rainey: “The tax IS paid, If it is not owed, it should be refunded - just like overpaid PAYE and PAYG tax.”

    BS. Franking credits are double-dipping, so stop throwing in red herrings. Tax has already been paid on the dividend. So you think I’m “ignorant”? Well, got news for you. I think you’re a leaner and rorter, trying to rip off the taxation system. You want to defraud the taxpayers by claiming cash refunds you haven’t paid tax for.

    Don’t know why you’re getting so frantic, it might never happen, Shorten may not win the election. But, that’s not to say, you’ll see the end to this, because it’s such a good idea, Morrison may very well adopt it if he gets in!

    Take Abe’s advice (he knows what he’s talking about) and get “creative” with your future investments, while you still have time.
    Anonymous
    17th Feb 2019
    10:03pm
    How is franking credits double dipping ?
    Care to explain your idiotic statement ???
    rawy
    18th Feb 2019
    2:25am
    Disappointing to see so many lies and so much crass abuse. The facts and logic are quite clear and simple. I would not have expected so many to swallow the fear campaign, but I should have learnt from the "Tampa" exercise.
    Adrianus
    18th Feb 2019
    4:09pm
    Test your knowledge?

    Brenda completes her tax return.
    She has earned 18,000 in her job as a waitress after working only 6 months of the year and has some shares left to her from her parent's estate which provide her with an additional $7,000 fully franked dividend income.
    Therefore her total declared taxable income is $28,000.
    Brenda's employer has been paying withholding tax on her behalf totalling $1690.00.

    What is Brenda's tax liability under PM Bill Shorten?

    a. $172 owed.

    b. $398 refund.

    c. $1,690 refund.

    d. $2,828 refund.

    Will Bill call Brenda a filthy rich bastard and instruct the ATO to ignore the tax paid on her behalf by one or more of the corporate entities with which she is involved?
    Hoohoo
    18th Feb 2019
    7:33pm
    $18,000 + $7000 = $25,000, not $28,000 Adrianus.

    Let's say the tax threshold is $18,000, therefore she should pay tax on $7,000 at the lowest tax rate (let's say at 10% for ease of maths = $700) owing to the ATO minus what her boss has paid on her behalf that she's already paid ($1,690) = $990 refund!

    So what the hell are you on about??? She has paid the tax WOOoooooo spooky. Not a part of your religion perhaps?

    Her employer has also paid worker's comp, GST, Superannuation & other charges. Shall we deduct those too?
    Brenda should thank her lucky stars that she inherited such a large lump of inheritance that it earns her $7,000 p.a. in dividend income. That's what OGR is getting & she worked damned hard all her life for it!

    Is it income? Is it something she even worked for? Should she pay tax? Bloody oath she should!
    Adrianus
    18th Feb 2019
    10:20pm
    Interesting Hoohoo.
    I thought I had covered all possible outcomes. Then you come up with another I did not even think about. Thank You.

    No I didn't make a mistake. Brenda's taxable income is $28,000.

    She actually received $7,000 in dividends and $3,000 in franking credits because all those corporations paid tax at 30% on her behalf. Just as Brenda's employer submitted withholding tax on her personal exertion income.
    Therefor, her accountant quite correctly declared her income as $28,000.

    She didn't tell me, but I think her share portfolio is about $130,000? Does it matter?

    Any other ideas??

    Does anyone know what Bill has planned for Brenda??
    Anonymous
    18th Feb 2019
    10:36pm
    Bill's going to take Brenda's $3k because she's rich

    And poor Brenda is not a pensioner so she royally screwed by Bill
    Anonymous
    18th Feb 2019
    10:36pm
    Bill's going to take Brenda's $3k because she's rich

    And poor Brenda is not a pensioner so she royally screwed by Bill
    Adrianus
    19th Feb 2019
    7:44am
    Brenda's older brother Phil dropped by last night. People call him filthy Phil. I guess its because he works in a mine?

    Anyway, I explained how worried his sister was that Bill Shorten was calling her names and planning to take her Franking Credits.

    Phil is lucky because he earns $200,000 pa, has the same inheritance of company shares which have provided him with $7,000 of fully franked dividend income. Phil's taxable income is therefor $210,000 and his position will be unchanged under PM Bill Shorten. Yes he gets to keep his $3,000 franking credits.

    Well I said Bill is just picking on Brenda because she doesn't vote Labor. Phil replied, no that cant be true because they have both voted Labor all their lives?


    Can anyone explain why Bill Shorten is being so mean to Brenda??
    Adrianus
    19th Feb 2019
    11:44am
    Hoohoo, I forgot to ask you..
    That $7,000 of dividend which Brenda got has already been taxed at 30% that's why it is only $7,000. The pre-taxed amount was $10,000.
    So why should Brenda pay another 10% tax on income which has already been taxed?
    Farside
    19th Feb 2019
    12:54pm
    I guess your point Brenda will not receive a cash refund for the franking credits (her tax bill on $28,000 was nil after the low income offset). This largesse is coming to an end so Brenda will need to get used to it. The franking amount is not tax paid by the corporations on her behalf, rather it is tax paid on company profits to ensure equity and interest are both taxed once.
    Adrianus
    19th Feb 2019
    4:13pm
    Brenda is a shareholder which means she is an owner. The corporation has paid the company rate of tax in lieu of decisions on dividend distribution to shareholders which should be assessed on an individuals personal taxable income. There is no question about that. What is under a cloud with Bill Shorten's mutterings is weather Brenda's employee withholding tax and imputation credits will be separated by design. Producing an unfair disadvantage to low income earners.
    Adrianus
    19th Feb 2019
    4:13pm
    Brenda is a shareholder which means she is an owner. The corporation has paid the company rate of tax in lieu of decisions on dividend distribution to shareholders which should be assessed on an individuals personal taxable income. There is no question about that. What is under a cloud with Bill Shorten's mutterings is weather Brenda's employee withholding tax and imputation credits will be separated by design. Producing an unfair disadvantage to low income earners.
    Old Geezer
    19th Feb 2019
    4:19pm
    It is quite simple if you don't believe a word Labor says.

    Labor's policy gives back $34 billion to high income earners like Phil but steals $5 billion in franking credits from the low income earning Brendas of this country. The high your income the more you keep of your franking credits.

    Brenda will lose $3000 in franking credits but still get a refund of $273 under Labor.

    Currently she would get a refund of $3273.


    Income Tax Estimator.

    https://www.ato.gov.au/Calculators-and-tools/Host/?anchor=IncomeTaxEstimator/questions&anchor=IncomeTaxEstimator&anchor=IncomeTaxEstimator/questions#IncomeTaxEstimator/questions
    Hoohoo
    21st Feb 2019
    8:02pm
    She still gets a refund, doesn't she? Lucky bugger. As well as the $7,000? What a bonus for doing nothing!

    So why not say she "earned" $10,00 not $7.000 in income/dividends? Does she declare $7K or $10K to the ATO?

    Get over it you bludgers - income is income. Pay the tax like the rest of us! You've been on a bloody rort & hopefully soon, the party will be over!
    Adrianus
    22nd Feb 2019
    9:05am
    Hoohoo, there is no party, its just a fair system. simply put, Brenda declared the $10,000 of non personal exertion income with a footnote that $3,000 of tax had already been paid on that amount.
    Chris Bowen is telling a lie to a gullible public when he says the taxpayer hasn't paid any tax so why should they get a refund.

    Now this opens another question for debate?

    Does Chris Bowen really know what he is talking about? Or is he lying to the Australian people?

    He appears to be the sort of guy who touches something and it turns to mud. We all know someone like that. I think they call it the Sadim Touch.
    Adrianus
    22nd Feb 2019
    9:05am
    Hoohoo, there is no party, its just a fair system. simply put, Brenda declared the $10,000 of non personal exertion income with a footnote that $3,000 of tax had already been paid on that amount.
    Chris Bowen is telling a lie to a gullible public when he says the taxpayer hasn't paid any tax so why should they get a refund.

    Now this opens another question for debate?

    Does Chris Bowen really know what he is talking about? Or is he lying to the Australian people?

    He appears to be the sort of guy who touches something and it turns to mud. We all know someone like that. I think they call it the Sadim Touch.
    Hoohoo
    22nd Feb 2019
    7:13pm
    So the companies paid $3,000 tax? That they owed? Great! Thank god for that! There's a victory! The only reason the companies don't weasel out of paying any tax at all is because they have to show they pay their shareholders, so they can't hide their profits with expenses in this case. Do the companies then use the full $10,000 as a deduction from next year's profit?

    Brenda also got $7,000 for doing nothing.
    Adrianus
    23rd Feb 2019
    3:06pm
    Thank you OG, finally someone who knows what Bill and Chris are planning for Brenda.
    Adrianus
    23rd Feb 2019
    3:06pm
    Thank you OG, finally someone who knows what Bill and Chris are planning for Brenda.
    Adrianus
    23rd Feb 2019
    3:11pm
    Hoohoo, the company isn't compelled to pay out all profit in dividends and they often don't. usually they re-invest part of the profit so the company continues to grow. Sometimes when they don't make a profit they can borrow in order to pay a dividend so as not to lose shareholders.
    Adrianus
    23rd Feb 2019
    3:11pm
    Hoohoo, the company isn't compelled to pay out all profit in dividends and they often don't. usually they re-invest part of the profit so the company continues to grow. Sometimes when they don't make a profit they can borrow in order to pay a dividend so as not to lose shareholders.
    rawy
    18th Feb 2019
    4:38pm
    I see a lot of nonsense about if the rich are not paying tax they should be investigated and punished. The fact is many corporations and wealthy individuals are not paying tax ( and are proud of that success - the late Kerry Packer was a prime example ). They use a variety of avoidance mechanisms and the cash refund for franking credits is a significant component. The ATO can investigate but they can take no action against stratagems that comply with existing policy and legislation. That is why a change to policy and legislation is proposed.There are valid arguments that can be raised against the ALP proposal but this is not one of them.
    As I understand it the wealthy will still have the ability to use franking credits to avoid double taxation ( as was intended by the Keating legislation, and which has social and economic benefits ) but they will lose the negative tax payments currently enjoyed!
    Anonymous
    18th Feb 2019
    4:42pm
    Negative tax payments ?
    Oh gawd - not another one
    Adrianus
    19th Feb 2019
    11:22am
    rawy, maybe you can explain why Bill Shorten is calling Brenda names and taking away her Franking Credits but not taking Phil's Franking Credits?
    If in fact you say that Keating's legislation was indeed to avoid double taxation then why are you backing Bill Shorten to introduce it?

    Brenda's example would be one of many, whereby Tax is taken from her income, then once again when she does her return she will be lucky if she gets any part of it. I call that the ATO having two bites of the cherry.
    Can you please help me understand what I'm missing?
    Farside
    19th Feb 2019
    12:58pm
    Brenda is not paying tax in any case so she has her $7000 of dividends. She does not have a tax liability to apply the franking credits against.
    Adrianus
    19th Feb 2019
    3:55pm
    Wrong Farside. Brenda has paid $3000 on her $10,000 dividend and $1690 on personal exertion income. A total of $4690 on a taxable income of $28,000.

    Brenda's cousin Sarah heard about Brenda's concerns and she also thinks it is unfair when compared to her income tax liability of $4,547 on her wage of $40,000.


    Why does Bill want Brenda earning $28,000 to pay more tax than Sarah who is earning $40,000??


    Has Bill actually thought about the equality issues?
    Farside
    19th Feb 2019
    7:15pm
    Adrianus, Brenda has not paid $3000 tax on her dividends. The dividends are franked for company tax paid by the corporation so that the company profit is only taxed once and so treated same as interest income. If Brenda does not have sufficient income to utilise the credits then these will be lost. Refunding the unused credits is akin to the company not paying tax on its taxable profits.

    Sarah might also think it is unfair however her opinion, like yours, will matter little in shaping future tax policy.
    Adrianus
    19th Feb 2019
    11:15pm
    Farside I'm not going to give you a lesson in corporate law because I doubt you have an open mind. But what I will say is that private and public companies operate in the same way, in that they can reinvest undistributed profits once they pay tax on them or they can distribute same to shareholders (owners) and have that portion taxed at the shareholders personal rate. Nothing I can say will make you realise that the Bill Shorten changes will make a mockery of the imputation system and disadvantage some with lower incomes while not changing the situation for higher income taxpayers. You obviously cannot see that.
    rawy
    18th Feb 2019
    4:40pm
    THIS SHOULD BE A DEBATE ABOUT SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC WELFARE FOR AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS ( sorry about caps ) not a party political S...fight. Let's lift our game a little.
    Adrianus
    19th Feb 2019
    11:28am
    rawy, if we don't encourage more people to accumulate wealth then we will have more on welfare. This will give us a welfare bill we cannot afford. Why do you think most advanced countries are encouraging women to have babies?
    Lookfar
    19th Feb 2019
    1:36pm
    Rawy, you are absolutely correct, the Trolls are winning at the moment, eg Adrianus has no idea that if the Govt pays pensions they get it all back so it doesn't cost Australia anything, - as opposed to the Multinationals etc. that don't pay tax, so the money, (Australia's wealth) disappears offshore.
    Everybody needs to take this concept on board, money spent locally stimulates the Australian economy, Money spent overseas diminishes Australia's economy.
    Money spent on our society, all else being equal, gives all the older people, sick people, young people and anyone else, what they (we) need to live a good productive life.
    Admittedly t needs to be wisely administered, so that the old can share their lf'es learning but not control the next generation and equally if the next generation is abandoned as is significantly the case at the moment, our society ends up with a whole stack of unhappy dysfunctional, wasted youth, costing a lot more than just money to deal with.
    Our Goverment must be insane to have created the situation we have now, - andI must admit, probably they actually are technically insane, - they do not live in the real world, but their world dominated by the parasitic class, the super rich.
    The viewpoint of the super rich is insane, we need to totally expunge it, children need to be brought up being well fed, stimulated to learn about the world about them, surrounded by love and acceptance, - although with gentle boundaries, (fairness) encouraged to develop their talents, - to future jobs not just current jobs, or to artistic expression or reseach insofar as it is wisely appreciated.
    Then society will have a firm foundation, flexible because of multi talented members, - secure because of adequate social networks to support all, including the sick,
    able to benefit from the older folk but without control from them, - because age can bring rigidity as well as wisdom, (ie Rupert Murdoch) yet the wisdom can be respected, and ability to look to the future requirements.
    I must admit, the control of capital/money must be wrested from the super rich and given back to the Democratic Govt. elected by US, not the media, - this is our challenge.
    Adrianus
    19th Feb 2019
    4:33pm
    "Adrianus has no idea that if the Govt pays pensions they get it all back so it doesn't cost Australia anything, " - Lookfar.

    Who is feeding you this nonsense.
    The government doesn't have any money. It rakes it in from taxes and then spends it.

    jeeeeshh!!!
    Adrianus
    19th Feb 2019
    4:33pm
    "Adrianus has no idea that if the Govt pays pensions they get it all back so it doesn't cost Australia anything, " - Lookfar.

    Who is feeding you this nonsense.
    The government doesn't have any money. It rakes it in from taxes and then spends it.

    jeeeeshh!!!
    Marie
    18th Feb 2019
    5:27pm
    It is incredibly frustrating to see the constant name calling and personal attacks on each other on this site. You all often sound nasty and bitter. Please stick to the issue of the subjects that are worthy of civilised discussion and stop attacking each other over your political beliefs. It doesn’t help at all and just diminishes your credibility. These subjects are important to all of you but if you cannot present a united front over the topics you get no where. Don’t attack personally. Just stick to the isssues please. You all are embarrassing yourselves.
    Adrianus
    19th Feb 2019
    11:30am
    Marie, what are the issues?
    Lookfar
    19th Feb 2019
    12:55pm
    Marie, I think if you look at the various posters, there are a few that continually abuse, contradict without justifications, insinuate insanity on the part of the contributor, Cherry pick in arguments, try to completely change the subject when they have been proved wrong and all that stuff.
    By no means do all the members on this site do that, - it is just a select few, who seem to have all the time in the world to post again and again and again, trotting out the same old arguments again and again, never listening to any one else.
    I call them Trolls, insofar as they represent a very narrow political spectrum, that they use techniques to destroy trust in a discussion group, - by using insults, vilification, outrageous claims of personal financial hurt, by "Appealing to Authority", etc.
    Whether they are in fact getting paid by the multi Billionaire Koch Bros Coal magnates in America is impossible to prove, although it seems quite likely, but you have to decide for your self, - if you feel you are being pushed to a point of view you don't really accept and it is by one or more of these, - look at the answer to your post by one of them just now, - you mentioned a whole raft of issues, - what did he say? "Marie what are the issues".
    This is a version of a stock answer by the Neo Liberal troll network, throws the poster into confusion because she has already advanced her issues, and didn't provide an answer, merely answered a lot of sophisticated question with one stupid question.
    All I can suggest is to take no notice of the posters who insult, accuse, degrade and villify, be very aware of those who assert without proof, dismiss without proof and somehow always seem to favour the .01% of the world's population that owns or controls almost everything, and beware of emotional tricks such as platitudes.
    The rest of us are reasonably fine imho.

    Cheers,
    Geoff (Lookfar).
    Adrianus
    19th Feb 2019
    4:28pm
    Geoff (Lookfar), Why do that?
    Why shout down Marie with the same dross she is complaining about?
    I wanted to hear her views and you may have now chased off a decent poster.
    Marie is right. Keep your insults to yourself.
    Hoohoo
    22nd Feb 2019
    7:19pm
    Thank you, Marie. The voice of sanity.
    Hoohoo
    25th Feb 2019
    2:13pm
    Just ignore everything from Adrianus, Marie.

    Again, he's done exactly what Geoff just called him out on. It does verge on psychopathy, so best ignored. Psychopaths are so smart they presume everyone else is stupid (& can't see through his tactics). He is not interested in your views, Marie, except to attack you if he disagrees with you.
    Adrianus
    19th Feb 2019
    12:25pm
    I cant help but feel for Brenda and her situation. She has lost both parents suddenly. Struggling to make ends meet. Bill Shorten has garnered 30% of the population to convince her that she is a bad person for getting franking credits. I know Phil has offered to put some of his financial plans on hold and help Brenda but she is a determined, independent woman who wants to make her own way.
    Brenda's marginal tax rate is only 19% on the amount over $18,000.
    Why should she pay 30% tax on $10,000 of her income?

    Why is Bill Shorten applying extra tax on Brenda's income and not applying the same rule to Phil's income?
    Farside
    19th Feb 2019
    1:03pm
    It is not extra tax. Brenda's problem is she does not have sufficient income to utilise the franking credits. The solution is obvious.
    Anonymous
    19th Feb 2019
    1:18pm
    but she did pay tax on her dividends , just that she paid too much for the gross income she earned
    So whats your "obvious" solution for Brenda ???
    Anonymous
    19th Feb 2019
    1:18pm
    but she did pay tax on her dividends , just that she paid too much for the gross income she earned
    So whats your "obvious" solution for Brenda ???
    Farside
    19th Feb 2019
    1:41pm
    Brenda did not pay tax on the dividends received. The corporations paid company tax on its profits and this was imputed or franked to apply against Brenda's tax liability. This meansthe $7000 distributed as a dividend is only taxed once. Since Brenda pays no tax then she is unable to take advantage of the franked amounts.
    Anonymous
    19th Feb 2019
    1:44pm
    And Phil can ?????

    You make no sense - you pretend to understand what is obviously completely over your head
    I used to deal with so many dunces like yourself in school and whilst working
    Anonymous
    19th Feb 2019
    1:44pm
    And Phil can ?????

    You make no sense - you pretend to understand what is obviously completely over your head
    I used to deal with so many dunces like yourself in school and whilst working
    Farside
    19th Feb 2019
    4:10pm
    Lothario, I'm not sure whether you misunderstand or are deliberately trying to obfuscate to confuse others. Either way, your franked dividend refund will eventually become nothing more than a memory. The sooner this tax rort is closed by Shorten or a subsequent government (don't care about its persuasion) the better.

    Quite simply, it is nonsense to refund unused franking credits to individuals as it results in company profits used to pay dividends not being taxed. Perhaps have a chat with your accountants or tax lawyers and have them explain it to you.
    Adrianus
    19th Feb 2019
    4:19pm
    So, Bill (and Farside) want to discourage low income earners from being shareholders. I would have thought a strong and robust economy would rely heavily on a culture of "the more shareholders the better" kind of attitude.??
    Lookfar
    19th Feb 2019
    4:43pm
    Right Adrianus, why do that, why explain to Marie that you abusers are a corrupted minority on this site?
    Obviously so she can decide for her self who are the abusers, slanderesr etc. - it is not hard to do, you are insulting Mairie's intelligenge to think that she can't do that, - but of course, the far right regard women as slaves only. You Fools!
    Farside
    19th Feb 2019
    7:24pm
    Adrianus, I do not discourage low income earners from being shareholders. Indeed, I regard myself as a very low income earner yet I have investments in shares that pays franked dividends.

    My view is that all investors, even low income earners, should make informed investment decisions. What constitutes a strong economy is more nuanced than a "culture of "the more shareholders the better kind of attitude" however that is a conversation for another day and likely outside the scope of this audience.
    Adrianus
    19th Feb 2019
    11:16pm
    When you want lower income earners to be disadvantaged then you do just that.
    Adrianus
    20th Feb 2019
    10:35am
    "Adrianus has no idea that if the Govt pays pensions they get it all back so it doesn't cost Australia anything, " - Lookfar.

    I was just thinking how wonderfully hypocritical your argument is.
    you should let Bill Shorten know that he doesn't need to thieve Brenda's franking credits because he will get it all back and it wont cost Australia anything? la de da de da!!
    What yu got growin oud dare? huh? looky?
    Lookfar
    19th Feb 2019
    3:30pm
    so Lothario, you experienced a Dunce, (your word) during a brief period of working, and couldn't cope with even one person that didn't believe your point of view. - Couldn't that suggest a certain inflexibility in your own thought processes rather than blaming the "Dunce"?
    Adrianus
    19th Feb 2019
    11:19pm
    You don't need to be smart to understand Bill Shorten's Franking Credit policy, in fact it helps if you are not smart.
    Adrianus
    20th Feb 2019
    9:22am
    Good morning.

    You're not going to believe this!!

    Last night two of Brenda's friends dropped by, Emma and Elijah. Seems all they wanted to talk about was Bill Shorten's theft of franking credits.
    Quite frankly its not something worth discussing 24/7 in my opinion, but for them its a different story.
    You see they run a little business, a dress shop employing 4 casuals. They had heard about Brenda's situation and wanted to know how it would effect them in their business.
    I told them in honesty nobody really knows, not even Bill himself. But they are worried that Bill Shorten is going to take their company's franking credits away?

    They are concerned because of the struggle they have been enduring lately. They said retail is not doing too well and this would be another huge hurdle we don't need at this time.
    I explained that Brenda is quite distraught and not to let her emotions be a distraction but there was no placating Emma and Elijah, they are worried.

    I told them there are a lot of smart people who post on this forum, I will put it out there and see what they know.

    How about it? Is there any good news for Elijah and Emma?
    Adrianus
    20th Feb 2019
    9:49am
    Just got off the phone with Elijah. This is quite frankly getting out of hand. I told them Bill had already changed his mind and would let anyone who has a pension get their franking credits, so its possible that he will be changing his mind a few more times before the election. Anyway, having only two shareholders in their company they can decide to have no undistributed profits by paying themselves more then borrowing more from the bank to fund the businesses growth? They said they don't feel comfortable dealing with banks now. Since Bill Shorten told them to hand back their bonuses they have become angry and tight fisted.
    I really feel sorry for Elijah and Emma, what a nice young couple they are.
    I've tried explaining that unfortunately they have been caught in the crossfire, Bill's intended target was SMSF and their 1,000,000 members. Bill is the errand boy for the powerful union run funds. Well that made absolutely no difference in their level of concern.
    Hoohoo
    22nd Feb 2019
    7:59pm
    You're right, Adrianus, I'm not going to believe it. Not a single word.
    Adrianus
    22nd Feb 2019
    9:21am
    I met up with Brenda this morning for breakfast at the coffee shop. They make great eggs, anyway you want them. Anyhoo, I told Brenda what Farside said, about her not earning enough income and that's why she is taxed more. She told me its not making sense. I explained that there was a similar precedent when a storm ravaged parts of QLD and Julia Gillard hit them with an extra tax. Then there was the argument I put forward about the world coming to an end by way of the climate changing so people had to pay higher prices on their electricity to save the planet from destruction.
    I have to admit, when I verbalised these thoughts I didn't even convince myself.
    Brenda is now wondering how she can get a pension or a higher income. She is leaning toward getting a higher income so she doesn't get hit with Bill Shorten's franking tax, but that's easier said then done.
    Hoohoo
    22nd Feb 2019
    7:28pm
    I don't believe you.
    Anonymous
    22nd Feb 2019
    7:49pm
    Poor Brenda
    Many will be in her situation if Shorten gets in
    Does she make a good eggs Benedict - with salmon and avocado cream - my favorite
    Hoohoo
    22nd Feb 2019
    8:05pm
    Poor, poor Brenda.
    A fictitious character invented by Adrianus/Lothario/FormerLaborVoter/Liberal troll. She can drown her tears with that $7,000 she got for doing nothing but inherit money from her wealthy parents (who also live in fairyland).
    Stop making up stories. Yes, I fell for it earlier because I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.
    Adrianus
    22nd Feb 2019
    10:13pm
    Hoohoo, nobody could make this stuff up. Quite frankly, I'm lost for words. What would you say to Brenda? What should Brenda do?
    Hoohoo
    24th Feb 2019
    12:59am
    Go to the casino & launder it with the other crims.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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