Understand Labor’s election plans without the political spin   :)

Australians should make up their own minds about Labor’s tax plans for the upcoming federal election, say David and Libby Koch.

February 26, 2019 News.com.au


In the lead up to an election political spin doctors go into overdrive to attack the policies of their opposition. A casualty of this process is that voters often can’t differentiate between spin and facts.   :(

We are finding a lot of misinformation being spread about the proposed ALP tax changes for dividend imputation, capital gains tax and negative gearing.

So here are the facts, without the spin, so you can work out your personal position.

DIVIDEND IMPUTATION

How it works: Dividend imputation was introduced by then Treasurer Paul Keating in the 1980s to stop the double taxation of dividends received by shareholders.

Back then companies would earn a profit, pay their 30 per cent company tax, then pay a dividend to shareholders from these after-tax profits which would then be taxed a second time at the shareholders’ marginal rate.

• Silver lining for Labor’s franking credit cash grab

• Stocks to watch as federal election nears

Dividend imputation attaches a tax credit to dividends. If a company pays a 30 per cent tax on its profits, its dividends carry a 30 per cent tax credit.

For a taxpayer on a 45 per cent tax bracket, the dividends would be taxed at 15 per cent.


Self-funded retirees are unhappy, and have been venting at public meetings across Australia.Source:News Corp Australia

They become tax-free for shareholders on a 30 per cent marginal rate, and for those on a lower tax bracket the excess franking credits could be used to offset other taxable income.

In 2000, the Howard/Costello government changed the rules so that if the franking credits more than offset an investor’s entire tax bill, they’d receive a cash refund on any excess franking credits.

The cost: When the Howard government first changed the rules, the cash refund total was estimated at about $400 million a year. This has now risen to $5 billion a year as investors worked out how to benefit from the change.

Proposed ALP changes: To take dividend imputation back to the original rules of simply stopping double taxation of dividends. No cash refunds. If you pay no tax then you don’t need a franking credit because you’re not being double taxed. Pensioners and part-pensioners would be exempt and still receive cash refunds.

Impact: The biggest impact will be felt by self funded retirees who structured their investment portfolios so they pay no tax, plus super funds in the pension phase that also pay no tax.

A large number of self-managed super funds use excess franking credits to claim cash refunds.

While the proposed changes bring the rules back to what they were intended for, many investors and super funds have become dependent on the refunds and are fighting to maintain them.

High-yielding fully franked stocks will still be attractive but won’t be supercharged by potential cash refunds.

NEGATIVE GEARING

How it works: Investing in direct property has always been difficult. It needs a hefty deposit, transaction costs are high and it can take a while to sell and get your money out.

We need a large pool of investment properties to provide rental stock for those who can’t, or don’t want to, own a home.


Labor leader Bill Shorten wants to change negative gearing.

Negative gearing has helped investors to get over those early financial hurdles on their way to earning a positive return. It is where you borrow money to invest and the income, such as rent received, is less than the expenses such as loan interest and other costs.

Essentially this means you are making a cash loss, which can be claimed against other taxable income to lower your overall tax rate and payments.

Over the years there has been a trend of investors on high marginal tax rates being permanently negatively geared and claiming the tax concessions.

The cost: The total cost of negative gearing tax concessions is $4.5 billion a year

Proposed changes: All existing negatively geared investments will be quarantined and continue under the existing rules. But the ALP will limit future negative gearing to new housing only. Losses from negative gearing other investments, like shares, will not be allowed to be claimed against salary and wage income but can be claimed against other positively geared assets and carried forward.

The impact: Existing investors won’t be affected. Limiting future property negative gearing to new housing will encourage new developments but logically see investors reassess existing properties, which could reduce demand. Having said that, positively geared property can be a good investment in its own right.

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

How it works: Capital gains tax is applied to the capital profit made between the buying and selling price of an asset (after costs are deducted) and is added to your income and taxed at your marginal rate.

However, if you’ve held the asset for longer than a year just half the capital gain is added to your taxable income

I thought you said "no spin".

If a person gets a franking credit they can use it to prevent double taxation.

Once you get below the limit you lose that taxation tat has been paid on those franked dividends.

That effectively means those on less than 30c are  in effect paying a higher level of tax. Because it has been paid for you. The same as it has been paid for those on 42cents/dollar.

For some of the 850,000 self-funded retirees affected by the Shorten/Bowen Franking Credits tax grab, they will lose 30% of their annual income.

That's equivalent to them paying a 40% GST.  >:(

By definition, this Shorten/Bowen tax grab will hurt the lowest  income self-funded retirees the most.  >:(


On negative Gearing: the ALP will limit future negative gearing to new housing only.

This will probably add excess stock to an already lowering housing market - further lowering house values.

Lower house values may sound fine on the face of it, but many will find themselves owing loans on houses worth less than the loan.

It will likely lead to a consumer downturn, leading to a mugging of the general economy.

Unemployment will rise - further fueling housing sell-offs which will further lower house values.

A recession will result.

Thanks Bill and Chris.  ::)

https://www.3aw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2017/05/httpwww.3aw.com_.aucontentdamimagesgl6cfp.png

Getting a giftcard doesn't mean you can exchange for cash.
Getting franked dividends doesnt mean you should get cash (unless you are a Howard "battler" who sells out the country for money).

stunspore wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 5:28pm:

Getting franked dividends doesnt mean you should get cash (unless you are a Howard "battler" who sells out the country for money).

So it doesn't matter that they have a higher effective tax rate?

Says it all really....No more sit down money for these fat investors!!!


Quote:

Proposed ALP changes: To take dividend imputation back to the original rules of simply stopping double taxation of dividends. No cash refunds. If you pay no tax then you don’t need a franking credit because you’re not being double taxed. Pensioners and part-pensioners would be exempt and still receive cash refunds. Impact: The biggest impact will be felt by self funded retirees who structured their investment portfolios so they pay no tax, plus super funds in the pension phase that also pay no tax.

:) :) :)

lee wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 5:33pm:

stunspore wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 5:28pm: Getting franked dividends doesnt mean you should get cash (unless you are a Howard "battler" who sells out the country for money). So it doesn't matter that they have a higher effective tax rate?

I'm more of a mix of ideas.  Like how about retaining tax credits for future income offsets?  As in, i couldn't claim anything this year, i will save it for next year, such as after a capital sales.

stunspore wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 6:03pm:

Like how about retaining tax credits for future income offsets?  As in, i couldn't claim anything this year, i will save it for next year, such as after a capital sales.

But Labor hasn't promoted that idea. Until that time its like pi**ing in the dark. So that means Labor's plan, as it stands, still has flaws.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 6:02pm:

Impact: The biggest impact will be felt by self funded retirees who structured their investment portfolios so they pay no tax, plus super funds in the pension phase that also pay no tax.

You notice it doesn't say just SMSF's?

That would mean each and every super fund that has a portion of their money in the pension phase will miss out. That means even industry funds will be hit.

The taxpayers are giving these free loaders a tax refund despite them paying no tax....The scheme was meant to remove double taxation not allow wealthy investors to get a tax refund on tax not paid!!!


Quote:

In 2000, the Howard/Costello government changed the rules so that if the franking credits more than offset an investor’s entire tax bill, they’d receive a cash refund on any excess franking credits.

$5 billion a year  and growing???

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 6:02pm:

Says it all really....No more sit down money for these fat investors!!! Quote: Proposed ALP changes: To take dividend imputation back to the original rules of simply stopping double taxation of dividends. No cash refunds. If you pay no tax then you don’t need a franking credit because you’re not being double taxed. Pensioners and part-pensioners would be exempt and still receive cash refunds. Impact: The biggest impact will be felt by self funded retirees who structured their investment portfolios so they pay no tax, plus super funds in the pension phase that also pay no tax. :) :) :)

[smiley=tekst-toppie.gif] [smiley=tekst-toppie.gif] [smiley=tekst-toppie.gif]

And Jo and Joe Toiler get an offset against future earnings for time taken off for unemployment or baby booming ... sounds good to me without the added nonsense of paying someone for time off.

When Jo goes back to work, she gets a tax break for the opportunity loss from having to abide by genetic dictates... like breeding.... lose a year's salary on 25% a year (e.g.) tax rate and you get a tax break for four years.

When Joe gets crook and takes a year off to recover, he gets a tax break....

Sounds better than paying people different rates per hour worked for the same job.... as the current Labor nonsense is offering..

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 6:38pm:

The taxpayers are giving these free loaders a tax refund despite them paying no tax.

What part of dividend imputation didn't you understand. The tax is paid for them as it is for those on the 37c or 45c in the dollar rates.

It they are earning less than 37K their marginal tax rate is effectively higher.

lee wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 5:33pm:

stunspore wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 5:28pm: Getting franked dividends doesnt mean you should get cash (unless you are a Howard "battler" who sells out the country for money). So it doesn't matter that they have a higher effective tax rate?

They pay no tax at all how can their tax rate be higher.

To be honest I see them simply moving parts of their investments away from franked credits. The non franked profits can then be offset against the franked ones.

You take some un-franked investments which means the company does not pay 30% tax on the pay out. i.e you get 30% more. You can then offset your franked credits against this investment profit. This means that you are paid more and still pay no tax on it. 

Storm in a tea cup.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 7:19pm:

They pay no tax at all how can their tax rate be higher.

They have paid dividend imputation tax. Same as people earning more than $60,000.

Effectively a 30% tax rate.


Dnarever wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 7:19pm:

You take some un-franked investments which means the company does not pay 30% tax on the pay out. i.e you get 30% more. You can then offset your franked credits against this investment profit. This means that you are paid more and still pay no tax on it.

That only works if the companies have unfranked dividends to distribute.

If the company is solely Australian based there will be no unfranked dividends as the company has paid tax on the profits.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 7:19pm:

lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 5:33pm: So it doesn't matter that they have a higher effective tax rate? They pay no tax at all how can their tax rate be higher.

Perhaps what these fat cat retirees really want is to be made to pay tax like everyone else ... and then they will start squealing.

Some of these people have six-figure incomes with no income tax payable at all. Talk about entitled! Do they self fund all their medical care too?

lee wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 7:36pm:

They have paid dividend imputation tax.

no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing.

John Smith wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 8:20pm:

no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing.

So if that is the case then shareholders who declare income over $37K haven't paid imputation tax either. But that is clearly not the case as Bill has specifically said they have, as they are allowed that imputation credit. ;)

You cannot be double taxed if you pay no tax....Why should taxpayers give a refund on tax not paid....The scheme was established to prevent double taxation not give investors a 30% bonus!!!

::) ::) ::)

John Smith wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 8:20pm:

lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:36pm: They have paid dividend imputation tax. no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing.

The shareholders own the company you colostomy bag.

Bam wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 8:19pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:19pm: lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 5:33pm: So it doesn't matter that they have a higher effective tax rate? They pay no tax at all how can their tax rate be higher. Perhaps what these fat cat retirees really want is to be made to pay tax like everyone else ... and then they will start squealing. Some of these people have six-figure incomes with no income tax payable at all. Talk about entitled! Do they self fund all their medical care too?

If there are six figure income people yes they do pay their medical too as well as paying tax.

The people this is a problem for are self funded retirees who have an income just high enough that they get no pension.

crocodile wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 9:19pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 8:20pm: lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:36pm: They have paid dividend imputation tax. no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing. The shareholders own the company you colostomy bag.

They still payed no tax on their income

crocodile wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 9:19pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 8:20pm: lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:36pm: They have paid dividend imputation tax. no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing. The shareholders own the company you colostomy bag.

The shareholders receive an after tax dividend and a 30% tax credit to offset any tax they have paid thus eliminating double taxation....Why should the taxpayer refund tax not paid???

:-? :-? :-?

lee wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 7:36pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:19pm: They pay no tax at all how can their tax rate be higher. They have paid dividend imputation tax. Same as people earning more than $60,000. Effectively a 30% tax rate. Dnarever wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:19pm: You take some un-franked investments which means the company does not pay 30% tax on the pay out. i.e you get 30% more. You can then offset your franked credits against this investment profit. This means that you are paid more and still pay no tax on it.  That only works if the companies have unfranked dividends to distribute. If the company is solely Australian based there will be no unfranked dividends as the company has paid tax on the profits.

It is their option and it is better for the company. They pay franked dividends because there is a demand for it and it makes their shares more attractive. If there is a benefit to un-franked dividends then this product will be made available.

There are plenty of companies that do this anyway.

If they don't provide the product the customer wants the customer will go somewhere else.

It would be stupid for companies to pay tax that they do not have to pay on behalf of their share holders when the shareholders get no benefit from it and the alternative is to pay the shareholder more money that will be an advantage.

It actually has no cost to the company to reverse a lot of the impact of this change. Instead of the shareholder claiming a 30% rebate the company pays them 30% more.

crocodile wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 9:19pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 8:20pm: lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:36pm: They have paid dividend imputation tax. no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing. The shareholders own the company you colostomy bag.

No, they do not - the owners own the company - you know .... the big shareholders?  Ask them sometime... go tell Gina she doesn't own the joint... the little people are shareholders, not owners, and they are buying shares for an investment and to earn income.

You know full well that companies and shareholders are totally separate operating entities - and each is liable for their own tax.. the company pays its taxes, the recipient of income from shareholding pays his/her taxes.

Abolish dividend imputation and no more arguments... company pays it taxes and the shareholder pays his/her without all this nonsense going around and around.

lee wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 9:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 8:20pm: no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing. So if that is the case then shareholders who declare income over $37K haven't paid imputation tax either. But that is clearly not the case as Bill has specifically said they have, as they are allowed that imputation credit. ;)

Rubbish - anyone whose overall income falls below the tax-free threshold is entitled to a return, and a part return may be available depending on actual income.... the ATO says so, and someone elsewhere also said that by law a return had to be paid in certain circumstances, where the taxpayer's income is within a specified range that says full or partial tax refund required.

It's all about REAL income vs claimed income using far to many available tax dodges.

This whole argument is just scare mongering.

What IS required is a total revamp of how so many people can pay no or little tax while enjoying the fat of the land.

Been arguing with a guy elsewhere who says (he say anyway) he has a family 'company', it pays no tax, he draws a salary - he pays no tax.. and he occasionally draws on shares via that 'company' and pays no tax...

Clear proof of why the rules for such things as 'trusts' and 'family companies' and 1+1 companies need to be abolished... clear proof of using it to rob the taxpaying public, who pay for his everything via deductions unearned and unwarranted.

As for companies - how about they started by paying the same income tax as Joe and Jo Toiler?  On gross income minus a few lazy maybe deductions?

More screaming than a B-52 base on immediate alert takeoffs ....

Dnarever wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 9:26pm:

It is their option and it is better for the company.

No. The company pays tax. The imputation credits (the tax paid) are attached.

The only way for companies to have unfranked dividends is for them to come from overseas or be a legacy of taxation prior to 1985, which is of course not a growing source.

"Unfranked dividends have had no Australian company tax paid on the profits from which they are paid. If the dividend is unfranked, there is no franking credit."

https://www.ato.gov.au/forms/refund-of-franking-credits--application---instructions-for-individuals-2007/?page=12



Dnarever wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 9:26pm:

If there is a benefit to un-franked dividends then this product will be made available.

You can't unfrank a dividend.


Dnarever wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 9:26pm:

It would be stupid for companies to pay tax that they do not have to pay on behalf of their share holders when the shareholders get no benefit from it and the alternative is to pay the shareholder more money that will be an advantage.

They pay tax on the profits. The shareholders are the owners. You can't magically disaggregate them.


Dnarever wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 9:26pm:

It actually has no cost to the company to reverse a lot of the impact of this change. Instead of the shareholder claiming a 30% rebate the company pays them 30% more.

Absolute drivel.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 10:03pm:

Rubbish - anyone whose overall income falls below the tax-free threshold is entitled to a return, and a part return may be available depending on actual income.... the ATO says so, and someone elsewhere also said that by law a return had to be paid in certain circumstances, where the taxpayer's income is within a specified range that says full or partial tax refund required.

That's current Law.

lee wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 10:14pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 10:03pm: Rubbish - anyone whose overall income falls below the tax-free threshold is entitled to a return, and a part return may be available depending on actual income.... the ATO says so, and someone elsewhere also said that by law a return had to be paid in certain circumstances, where the taxpayer's income is within a specified range that says full or partial tax refund required. That's current Law.

Yup - and many such are in desperate need of overhaul to reflect reality, especially those pertaining to business and company and accounting - the fact remains that anyone with a genuine income lower than the tax-free threshold will continue to get a return, and some above get a part return... but they will have to put their whole income structure up for analysis first...

That'll send a few scurrying away... this is like Robodebt - sting the bastards and then let those who want to argue the point attack a brick wall...

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 10:17pm:

Yup - and many such are in desperate need of overhaul to reflect reality, especially those pertaining to business and company and accounting - the fact remains that anyone with a genuine income lower than the tax-free threshold will continue to get a return, and some above get a part return... but they will have to put their whole income structure up for analysis first...

That's what they do. Interest, dividends, other income. :-?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 9:57pm:

No, they do not - the owners own the company - you know .... the big shareholders?  Ask them sometime... go tell Gina she doesn't own the joint... the little people are shareholders, not owners, and they are buying shares for an investment and to earn income.

All owners are shareholders.

Gina may have say 50 million shares, others 2000 shares. They all own the company. At the AGM resolutions are passed on the back of the the number of votes. The number of votes depends on the shareholding. The dividends are paid on the back of the shareholding.

lee wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 10:23pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:57pm: No, they do not - the owners own the company - you know .... the big shareholders?  Ask them sometime... go tell Gina she doesn't own the joint... the little people are shareholders, not owners, and they are buying shares for an investment and to earn income. All owners are shareholders. Gina may have say 50 million shares, others 2000 shares. They all own the company. At the AGM resolutions are passed on the back of the the number of votes. The number of votes depends on the shareholding. The dividends are paid on the back of the shareholding.

Yes - but you need to be a majority shareholder before you can say you own the company... the rest are just useful cash donors...

The fact that votes are carried on the back of shareholding shows that.... takes a hell of a lot of small shareholders working together to make a difference... and even then with Gina etc, they can't ever get a majority vote...

The silly idea, based on this furphy of shareholders owning the company, that somehow shareholders shouldn't pay income tax on income earned, since the company has paid company tax, is a nonsense - companies are liable for company tax and fees etc, individuals are liable for income tax.

Furthermore companies don;t pay income tax.. if they did their tax bill would be massively higher, and their deductions severely limited.

Be content with what you've got - don't go stirring the sleeping dragon... you won't lose under Shorten's reversion unless you are already cheating.

You must know, by now, my simple view that DI is the same as tax withheld for a PAYE earner... and some can be refunded depending on income.

The real problem of course, is that too many hide income in too many ways... ways that the PAYE earner cannot. As I said -n this is a kind of Robodebt approach - with ShortenCo seeking to take first and then force any complainants to come forward with their tax details in full....

I wonder how many will just not bother???

Interesting times.. very interesting.

Thank you for your courteous discussion as opposed to dick-face down there...... start on me, will he.... he'd better smile like it's a joke when he calls me a dope when he's raving his limited theory on the subject...  >:(

The Extremist Greeny controlled Labor will tax the backsides off of every Australian to pay for their ridiculous Socialist destruction of Australia.

Why doesn't Labor just borrow endlessly like they did last time and leave a gigantic debt ?

There is a tremendous backlash against the Extremist Greeny controlled Labor by retirees and pensioners and small business.

lee wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 10:20pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 10:17pm: Yup - and many such are in desperate need of overhaul to reflect reality, especially those pertaining to business and company and accounting - the fact remains that anyone with a genuine income lower than the tax-free threshold will continue to get a return, and some above get a part return... but they will have to put their whole income structure up for analysis first... That's what they do. Interest, dividends, other income. :-?

When you can have a big income and apparently toss off any tax on concessions - something is very wrong with the way this is done... told you - been arguing with a guy with the family company and salary and share receipts who pays not ax, and nor does his 'family company'.....

Someone has to pay tax somewhere in all that money changing hands.. and that kind of rorting is causing problems with the budget and also is undermining real business people who are honest in their dealings.  Too many loop-holes and bolt holes for the unscrupulous... I can foresee the day when a responsible government will just shut the whole thing down, and many innocents will suffer along with the scum.

juliar wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 10:40pm:

The Extremist Greeny controlled Labor will tax the backsides off of every Australian to pay for their ridiculous Socialist destruction of Australia. Why doesn't Labor just borrow endlessly like they did last time and leave a gigantic debt ? There is a tremendous backlash against the Extremist Greeny controlled Labor by retirees and pensioners and small business.

Thanks for the laugh... not worth commenting on...

Dnarever wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 9:20pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:19pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 8:20pm: lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:36pm: They have paid dividend imputation tax. no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing. The shareholders own the company you colostomy bag. They still payed no tax on their income

Horseshit. The company profit is their income.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 10:32pm:

The silly idea, based on this furphy of shareholders owning the company, that somehow shareholders shouldn't pay income tax on income earned, since the company has paid company tax, is a nonsense - companies are liable for company tax and fees etc, individuals are liable for income tax.

Perhaps you should tell Bill the shareholders haven't paid tax on the
Dividend income.  He will be pleased another tax on the horizon. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 10:32pm:

Be content with what you've got - don't go stirring the sleeping dragon... you won't lose under Shorten's reversion unless you are already cheating.

I own no shares petal.


Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 10:32pm:

You must know, by now, my simple view that DI is the same as tax withheld for a PAYE earner... and some can be refunded depending on income.

yahoo. And if your deductions fall below the tax free threshold you get ALL your PAYE back. ;)

crocodile wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 10:46pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:20pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:19pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 8:20pm: lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:36pm: They have paid dividend imputation tax. no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing. The shareholders own the company you colostomy bag. They still payed no tax on their income Horseshit. The company profit is their income.

The company profit is the company income - the shareholder's income is their dividend payment - two totally separate things.  Try reading - companies don't pay income tax - they pay company taxes and fees etc - shareholders pay income tax on thee income they derive from investing in the company.

Dope.

lee wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 10:50pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 10:32pm: The silly idea, based on this furphy of shareholders owning the company, that somehow shareholders shouldn't pay income tax on income earned, since the company has paid company tax, is a nonsense - companies are liable for company tax and fees etc, individuals are liable for income tax. Perhaps you should tell Bill the shareholders haven't paid tax on the Dividend income.  He will be pleased another tax on the horizon. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 10:32pm: Be content with what you've got - don't go stirring the sleeping dragon... you won't lose under Shorten's reversion unless you are already cheating. I own no shares petal. Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 10:32pm: You must know, by now, my simple view that DI is the same as tax withheld for a PAYE earner... and some can be refunded depending on income. yahoo. And if your deductions fall below the tax free threshold you get ALL your PAYE back. ;)

It's simply tax withheld and comprises part of their gross income as per the ATO, and is included in  calculation of their tax liability.  Simple...

Couldn't care less - then why are you arguing the point?  You own no shares, petal, so what's your beef?

You may or may not, provided your income structure is legit and has no black holes of rorting... I've always said that genuine low income recipients will receive a part of full return on DI - and the ATO says so too.  Shortenco is simply making you run at the guns if you are a DI recipient and forcing you to lay out your reasons for getting a return... since at most one in ten is put on a list and remains there for three years for scrutiny, it is likely that many are getting away with a lot right now, but if they appeal, all will be revealed...

Governments love to play stupid, but they are cunning...... you may argue the merits of either of those as you wish.... I simply don't trust them at all and every clod in government has a yen for a silver lining from somewhere.... they will have planned this out over long sessions in a smoke-filled room ..... they know the next moves in this game of chess already.... and are ready for it ....

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 9:57pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:19pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 8:20pm: lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:36pm: They have paid dividend imputation tax. no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing. The shareholders own the company you colostomy bag. No, they do not - the owners own the company - you know .... the big shareholders?  Ask them sometime... go tell Gina she doesn't own the joint... the little people are shareholders, not owners, and they are buying shares for an investment and to earn income. You know full well that companies and shareholders are totally separate operating entities - and each is liable for their own tax.. the company pays its taxes, the recipient of income from shareholding pays his/her taxes. Abolish dividend imputation and no more arguments... company pays it taxes and the shareholder pays his/her without all this nonsense going around and around.

What a lot of fukking horseshit. Gina's is a private company. All shareholders own the company according to their weighted share amount. That's why they're called shares.

Companies and shareholders are only separate in your feeble brain. The shareholders are the owners. The company pays its taxes and since the shareholders own the company, the shareholder paid the taxes.

Waste of time explaining. You're too thick to understand it.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 10:52pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 10:46pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:20pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:19pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 8:20pm: lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:36pm: They have paid dividend imputation tax. no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing. The shareholders own the company you colostomy bag. They still payed no tax on their income Horseshit. The company profit is their income. The company profit is the company income - the shareholder's income is their dividend payment - two totally separate things.  Try reading - companies don't pay income tax - they pay company taxes and fees etc - shareholders pay income tax on thee income they derive from investing in the company. Dope.

It doesn't matter what you call it. The company earned money with shareholder capital. It doesn't matter, some people are just too stupid for typing. I give up. You can go and cry in your beer as much as you want and whinge a bit more.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 10:54pm:

You own no shares, petal, so what's your beef?

Because I get sick of people making inane arguments who have no idea.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 10:54pm:

You may or may not, provided your income structure is legit and has no black holes of rorting... I've always said that genuine low income recipients will receive a part of full return on DI - and the ATO says so too.

yes that;s current law as I said. When and if Bill changes the law they will say something that follows the updated law. ::)


Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 10:54pm:

Shortenco is simply making you run at the guns if you are a DI recipient and forcing you to lay out your reasons for getting a return..

Rubbish. If I were to be earning $60K it wouldn't make any difference.


Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 10:54pm:

Governments love to play stupid, but they are cunning.

And Labor are in government? ;D ;D ;D ;D

crocodile wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 10:56pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:57pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:19pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 8:20pm: lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:36pm: They have paid dividend imputation tax. no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing. The shareholders own the company you colostomy bag. No, they do not - the owners own the company - you know .... the big shareholders?  Ask them sometime... go tell Gina she doesn't own the joint... the little people are shareholders, not owners, and they are buying shares for an investment and to earn income. You know full well that companies and shareholders are totally separate operating entities - and each is liable for their own tax.. the company pays its taxes, the recipient of income from shareholding pays his/her taxes. Abolish dividend imputation and no more arguments... company pays it taxes and the shareholder pays his/her without all this nonsense going around and around. What a lot of fukking horseshit. Gina's is a private company. All shareholders own the company according to their weighted share amount. That's why they're called shares. Companies and shareholders are only separate in your feeble brain. The shareholders are the owners. The company pays its taxes and since the shareholders own the company, the shareholder paid the taxes. Waste of time explaining. You're too thick to understand it.

Your language and intelligence are failing you again, dick-head.

Nobody cares how a company is structured - it is the reality of shareholding that counts... and the little fish have no ownership in the decisions or policies... an even if you allow that the shareholders are somehow the owners, they are still liable for personal income tax and the company liable for company taxes as two separate operating legal entities ... perhaps companies should pay income tax like everyone else does....that'd be a hoot...

You really know nothing do you?  Just spout some spoon-fed line over and over and hope to somehow get a change so that the poor widdle shareholder doesn't have to pay income tax on income... Jesus.... if you had one iota of accounting or economic sense you'd know the truth of all I say, so obviously you don't have any training at all but are repeating some half-baked nonsense someone fed to you.

Poor little fellow... and keep a civil tongue in your head, moron.. I won't warn you again.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 11:05pm:

an even if you allow that the shareholders are somehow the owners, they are still liable for personal income tax and the company liable for company taxes as two separate operating legal entities

yes and the owners (shareholders) pay their tax on their profits from the company as per their shareholding. The company is liable for tax that's the tax paid on profits on behalf of the owners (shareholders).


Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 11:05pm:

perhaps companies should pay income tax like everyone else does..

They do. Haven't you learnt anything?


Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 11:05pm:

if you had one iota of accounting or economic sense you'd know the truth of all I say, so obviously you don't have any training at all but are repeating some half-baked nonsense someone fed to you.

it is obvious you have no accounting or economic sense.


Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 11:05pm:

I won't warn you again.

Threats? Is that against site rules? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 11:05pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 10:56pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:57pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:19pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 8:20pm: lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:36pm: They have paid dividend imputation tax. no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing. The shareholders own the company you colostomy bag. No, they do not - the owners own the company - you know .... the big shareholders?  Ask them sometime... go tell Gina she doesn't own the joint... the little people are shareholders, not owners, and they are buying shares for an investment and to earn income. You know full well that companies and shareholders are totally separate operating entities - and each is liable for their own tax.. the company pays its taxes, the recipient of income from shareholding pays his/her taxes. Abolish dividend imputation and no more arguments... company pays it taxes and the shareholder pays his/her without all this nonsense going around and around. What a lot of fukking horseshit. Gina's is a private company. All shareholders own the company according to their weighted share amount. That's why they're called shares. Companies and shareholders are only separate in your feeble brain. The shareholders are the owners. The company pays its taxes and since the shareholders own the company, the shareholder paid the taxes. Waste of time explaining. You're too thick to understand it. Your language and intelligence are failing you again, dick-head. Nobody cares how a company is structured - it is the reality of shareholding that counts... and the little fish have no ownership in the decisions or policies... an even if you allow that the shareholders are somehow the owners, they are still liable for personal income tax and the company liable for company taxes as two separate operating legal entities ... perhaps companies should pay income tax like everyone else does....that'd be a hoot... You really know nothing do you?  Just spout some spoon-fed line over and over and hope to somehow get a change so that the poor widdle shareholder doesn't have to pay income tax on income... Jesus.... if you had one iota of accounting or economic sense you'd know the truth of all I say, so obviously you don't have any training at all but are repeating some half-baked nonsense someone fed to you. Poor little fellow... and keep a civil tongue in your head, moron.. I won't warn you again.

You can keep dreaming as much as you want. No point wasting my time on someone who has the mental capacity of a flea. You only think you know. That's OK because an ignorant ass doesn't really know enough to realise what they don't know. Kind of a blissful life in a way. Have a nice glass of warm milk before bed.

crocodile wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 11:33pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 11:05pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 10:56pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:57pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:19pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 8:20pm: lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:36pm: They have paid dividend imputation tax. no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing. The shareholders own the company you colostomy bag. No, they do not - the owners own the company - you know .... the big shareholders?  Ask them sometime... go tell Gina she doesn't own the joint... the little people are shareholders, not owners, and they are buying shares for an investment and to earn income. You know full well that companies and shareholders are totally separate operating entities - and each is liable for their own tax.. the company pays its taxes, the recipient of income from shareholding pays his/her taxes. Abolish dividend imputation and no more arguments... company pays it taxes and the shareholder pays his/her without all this nonsense going around and around. What a lot of fukking horseshit. Gina's is a private company. All shareholders own the company according to their weighted share amount. That's why they're called shares. Companies and shareholders are only separate in your feeble brain. The shareholders are the owners. The company pays its taxes and since the shareholders own the company, the shareholder paid the taxes. Waste of time explaining. You're too thick to understand it. Your language and intelligence are failing you again, dick-head. Nobody cares how a company is structured - it is the reality of shareholding that counts... and the little fish have no ownership in the decisions or policies... an even if you allow that the shareholders are somehow the owners, they are still liable for personal income tax and the company liable for company taxes as two separate operating legal entities ... perhaps companies should pay income tax like everyone else does....that'd be a hoot... You really know nothing do you?  Just spout some spoon-fed line over and over and hope to somehow get a change so that the poor widdle shareholder doesn't have to pay income tax on income... Jesus.... if you had one iota of accounting or economic sense you'd know the truth of all I say, so obviously you don't have any training at all but are repeating some half-baked nonsense someone fed to you. Poor little fellow... and keep a civil tongue in your head, moron.. I won't warn you again. You can keep dreaming as much as you want. No point wasting my time on someone who has the mental capacity of a flea. You only think you know. That's OK because an ignorant ass doesn't really know enough to realise what they don't know. Kind of a blissful life in a way. Have a nice glass of warm milk before bed.

It is obviously you who know nothing but think you know everything.... oh, well - can't help your kind.  Jeez you remind me of longie sometimes.... I wonder...

All your mindless ranting and personal insults will never change the reality that the company is one entity liable for taxes and shareholders are another set of entities liable for taxes separately.... only a total flea-brain would even begin to think otherwise...

You're never going to get out of owing income tax for dividend money handed to you, sonny - so stop trying that line... it won't work.

At least ShortenCo is coming after some of you.... now for revamping the ATO to ensure revenue capture..... as legally required....

That'll get you running.... there's no reason for you to persist in pushing your ridiculous line of trying to suggest that a company paying its very limited taxes somehow means the shareholders have paid all theirs and should not be taxed, unless you are on the verge of losing rort money.....

Goodie!!!

The original scheme was designed to stop double taxation and offer a tax credit of 30%....It has now been exploited to allow a tax credit of 30% from taxpayers on top of their dividend despite the fact there is no tax to refund....The scheme allows capital to be invested for a 30% bonus on top of the dividend and has nothing to do with eliminating double taxation....Only a complete dickhead would accept that this arrangement is not income support for the wealthy....Pay your taxes you sponging bastards!!!

>:( >:( >:(   

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 7:12am:

The original scheme was designed to stop double taxation and offer a tax credit of 30%....It has now been exploited to allow a tax credit of 30% from taxpayers on top of their dividend despite the fact there is no tax to refund....The scheme allows capital to be invested for a 30% bonus on top of the dividend and has nothing to do with eliminating double taxation....Only a complete dickhead would accept that this arrangement is not income support for the wealthy....Pay your taxes you sponging bastards!!! >:( >:( >:(

I was about to say something along those lines.. more like "Get a job and pay some taxes, ya dopey bludger!"

Welfare for the rich...... more sinisterly, government sponsored handover of public funding to rich mates - couldn't be done better in a Central American Banana Republic dictatorship.... and it's not the only activity of that kind going on.. it's endless...

"Get a job and pay some taxes, ya dopey bludger!"


Err ... you do know this Franking Credit change by Shorten / Bowen is for self-funded retirees don't you?  :D

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 8:48am:

"Get a job and pay some taxes, ya dopey bludger!" Err ... you do know this Franking Credit change by Shorten / Bowen is for self-funded retirees don't you?  :D

Shhhh ! The old Grapples might actually get it one day. For some reason he thinks that the suppliers of capital rather than labour are dopey bludgers. Says it all really.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 7:12am:

.It has now been exploited to allow a tax credit of 30% from taxpayers on top of their dividend despite the fact there is no tax to refund

So the dividend imputation tax paid on behalf of shareholders is not real? ;D ;D ;D ;D


philperth2010 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 7:12am:

The scheme allows capital to be invested for a 30% bonus on top of the dividend and has nothing to do with eliminating double taxation.

Really? BS seems to disagree. He only wants to remove the excess credit of those below 37K. ;)

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 8:48am:

Err ... you do know this Franking Credit change by Shorten / Bowen is for self-funded retirees don't you?

Perhaps you missed this -


lee wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 6:10pm:

philperth2010 wrote Yesterday at 4:02pm: Impact: The biggest impact will be felt by self funded retirees who structured their investment portfolios so they pay no tax, plus super funds in the pension phase that also pay no tax. You notice it doesn't say just SMSF's? That would mean each and every super fund that has a portion of their money in the pension phase will miss out. That means even industry funds will be hit.

That means their payments out will be hit.

lee wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 12:55pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 8:48am: Err ... you do know this Franking Credit change by Shorten / Bowen is for self-funded retirees don't you? Perhaps you missed this - lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 6:10pm: philperth2010 wrote Yesterday at 4:02pm: Impact: The biggest impact will be felt by self funded retirees who structured their investment portfolios so they pay no tax, plus super funds in the pension phase that also pay no tax. You notice it doesn't say just SMSF's? That would mean each and every super fund that has a portion of their money in the pension phase will miss out. That means even industry funds will be hit. That means their payments out will be hit.

An industry fund should also have a healthy number of people still in the accumulation phase. They can use the credits to offset these ones. SMSFs on the other hand only have a single member or perhaps two. Anybody who can't see the unfairness in this is a blithering fukkwit.

It was never meant to be a cash bonus on top of your dividend....It was meant to prevent double taxation....Anyone who cannot see this is a blithering idiot!!!

::) ::) ::)

crocodile wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 9:19pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 8:20pm: lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:36pm: They have paid dividend imputation tax. no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing. The shareholders own the company you colostomy bag.

bravo ... glad to see you've worked that out.

Still, the company paid the tax, not the shareholders. The company is a separate legal entity.

lee wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 9:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 8:20pm: no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing. So if that is the case then shareholders who declare income over $37K haven't paid imputation tax either. But that is clearly not the case as Bill has specifically said they have, as they are allowed that imputation credit. ;)

so now you're arguing he shouldn't allow the imputation credit? OK. I'll agree with you there.

crocodile wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 10:46pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:20pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:19pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 8:20pm: lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:36pm: They have paid dividend imputation tax. no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing. The shareholders own the company you colostomy bag. They still payed no tax on their income Horseshit. The company profit is their income.

What a load of poo. Their dividend payment is their income, not the company profit

John Smith wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 4:33pm:

Their dividend payment is their income, not the company profit

As they're SHAREholders their income is their share of the company profits, as distributed. ::)

John Smith wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 4:30pm:

so now you're arguing he shouldn't allow the imputation credit?

No.


John Smith wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 4:30pm:

OK. I'll agree with you there.

It is Bill S who you have to get to agree with you. Good luck with that.

lee wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 5:23pm:

As they're SHAREholders their income is their share of the company profits, as distributed. Roll Eyes

You're either a liar or you're an idiot. Not all profits are distributed as dividend payments so the argument that the profits ARE their income is FALSE.

lee wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 5:25pm:

No.

you sound confused :D :D


lee wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 5:25pm:

It is Bill S who you have to get to agree with you. Good luck with that.

I have no shares so I don't give a crap

John Smith wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 5:39pm:

you sound confused

Really? ;D ;D ;D ;D


John Smith wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 5:39pm:

I have no shares so I don't give a crap

And yet you have posted often about a thing you "don't give a crap" about. Also a thing you've shown you know nothing about. But that is par for the course for you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 5:38pm:

Not all profits are distributed as dividend payments so the argument that the profits ARE their income is FALSE.

Your cognitive problems again?


lee wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 5:23pm:

As they're SHAREholders their income is their share of the company profits, as distributed.

Nowhere did I say all profits were distributed. The company is allowed to retain money for purchases etc.

refer to the second part of my answer above. ;)

lee wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 5:47pm:

Your cognitive problems again?

are you projecting again?


lee wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 5:47pm:

Nowhere did I say all profits were distributed.

so if they're not distributed, how can they be shareholders income?

thanks for proving my point  ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 5:50pm:

lee wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 5:47pm: Your cognitive problems again? are you projecting again? lee wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 5:47pm: Nowhere did I say all profits were distributed. so if they're not distributed, how can they be shareholders income? thanks for proving my point  ;D ;D

WTF? 

Companies only distribute a percentage of total profit as dividends which are obviously income for the recipients for personal tax purposes.

Why is this all so hard for people to understand?  ::)

John Smith wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 5:50pm:

so if they're not distributed, how can they be shareholders income?

That share of profits that are distributed are income. However if you want Bill  to tell people that those distributions are NOT income, I am sure the shareholders will be very pleased. ;)

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 4:22pm:

It was never meant to be a cash bonus on top of your dividend....It was meant to prevent double taxation....Anyone who cannot see this is a blithering idiot!!! ::) ::) ::)

It's not a cash bonus you dumbarse. It's a tax refund for the tax they shouldn't have paid in the first place.

crocodile wrote on Feb 27^th, 2019 at 10:46pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:20pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:19pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 8:20pm: lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:36pm: They have paid dividend imputation tax. no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing. The shareholders own the company you colostomy bag. They still payed no tax on their income Horseshit. The company profit is their income.

They will be in a poo load of trouble when they put the company profit number in their personal tax return ?

But for them to do that you would need to be right ? Your not.

John Smith wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 4:29pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:19pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 8:20pm: lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:36pm: They have paid dividend imputation tax. no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing. The shareholders own the company you colostomy bag. bravo ... glad to see you've worked that out. Still, the company paid the tax, not the shareholders. The company is a separate legal entity.

Keep telling yourself that. I don't wish to argue with a numbskull. They just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Funny how their called shareholders.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 6:36pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 10:46pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:20pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:19pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 8:20pm: lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:36pm: They have paid dividend imputation tax. no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing. The shareholders own the company you colostomy bag. They still payed no tax on their income Horseshit. The company profit is their income. They will be in a poo load of trouble when they put the company profit number in their personal tax return ? But for them to do that you would need to be right ? Your not.

That's why there is an imputed credit attached to it. They just get a share of the profit. That's why they're called shareholders.

lee wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 6:02pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 5:50pm: so if they're not distributed, how can they be shareholders income? That share of profits that are distributed are income. However if you want Bill  to tell people that those distributions are NOT income, I am sure the shareholders will be very pleased. ;)

and yet your earlier argument was that the companies PROFITS are income. The portion that is distributed is not "profit', it's 'dividend' payments. It is simply paid from profits.

This is basic stuff. A 'know it all' genius like you should know this already ::) ::)

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 6:39pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 4:29pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:19pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 8:20pm: lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:36pm: They have paid dividend imputation tax. no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing. The shareholders own the company you colostomy bag. bravo ... glad to see you've worked that out. Still, the company paid the tax, not the shareholders. The company is a separate legal entity. Keep telling yourself that. I don't wish to argue with a numbskull. They just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Funny how their called shareholders.

Is that what you're trying to do? drag me down to your level? It won't work.

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 6:35pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 4:22pm: It was never meant to be a cash bonus on top of your dividend....It was meant to prevent double taxation....Anyone who cannot see this is a blithering idiot!!! ::) ::) ::) It's not a cash bonus you dumbarse. It's a tax refund for the tax they shouldn't have paid in the first place.

They didn't pay it in the first place you dumb arse, the company did. ::)

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 5:57pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 5:50pm: lee wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 5:47pm: Your cognitive problems again? are you projecting again? lee wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 5:47pm: Nowhere did I say all profits were distributed. so if they're not distributed, how can they be shareholders income? thanks for proving my point  ;D ;D WTF?  Companies only distribute a percentage of total profit as dividends which are obviously income for the recipients for personal tax purposes. Why is this all so hard for people to understand?  ::)

It's already been taxed before distribution. Income taxes don't get taxed twice in this country. Unless your name is Bill.

lee wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 6:02pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 5:50pm: so if they're not distributed, how can they be shareholders income? That share of profits that are distributed are income. However if you want Bill  to tell people that those distributions are NOT income, I am sure the shareholders will be very pleased. ;)

and the share of profits that is used to pay wages is called 'wages' and so on  and so on ..... so?
Company profits are NOT income.

John Smith wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 5:38pm:

lee wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 5:23pm: As they're SHAREholders their income is their share of the company profits, as distributed. Roll Eyes You're either a liar or you're an idiot. Not all profits are distributed as dividend payments so the argument that the profits ARE their income is FALSE.

They don't get a refund for undistributed ones either you dopey arsewipe.

John Smith wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 6:42pm:

and yet your earlier argument was that the companies PROFITS are income.

It is petal. They are the profits of the company, which is the body of shareholders.


John Smith wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 6:42pm:

The portion that is distributed is not "profit', it's 'dividend' payments.

The dividend forms that part of the profit that has been distributed. Perhaps you can tell us how they would get paid losses?


John Smith wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 6:42pm:

It is simply paid from profits.

Yes petal to the owners, the shareholders.


John Smith wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 6:42pm:

This is basic stuff. A 'know it all' genius like you should know this already

If it is so basic - how come you don't understand it? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 6:46pm:

Company profits are NOT income.

Well in that case companies shouldn't pay tax. better call Bill. tell him he has been wrong all this time.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 6:41pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 6:36pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 10:46pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:20pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:19pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 8:20pm: lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:36pm: They have paid dividend imputation tax. no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing. The shareholders own the company you colostomy bag. They still payed no tax on their income Horseshit. The company profit is their income. They will be in a poo load of trouble when they put the company profit number in their personal tax return ? But for them to do that you would need to be right ? Your not. That's why there is an imputed credit attached to it. They just get a share of the profit. That's why they're called shareholders.

I guess to you putting words together in this sequence has some meaning. So now the company profit isn't their profit and They still never pay any tax on it  - not one cent.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 7:16pm:

So now the company profit isn't their profit and They still never pay any tax on it  - not one cent.

::)

John Smith wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 6:46pm:

lee wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 6:02pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 5:50pm: so if they're not distributed, how can they be shareholders income? That share of profits that are distributed are income. However if you want Bill  to tell people that those distributions are NOT income, I am sure the shareholders will be very pleased. ;) and the share of profits that is used to pay wages is called 'wages' and so on  and so on ..... so? Company profits are NOT income.

The dividends to the shareholders (people) is income to them.

The whole problem with this Shorten / Bowen tax grab to deny low income recipients of franked dividends their tax return refund if they come in under the tax-free threshold is that it hits the low income retirees the hardest.

Some will lose 30% of their annual income.  :o

It is going to really hurt some retirees.

(Pensioners / part / pensioners) have since been exempted after the initial outcry, but those on low incomes not receiving any pension will be hurt by this.

That's why I am dead against it in its current form.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 7:16pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 6:41pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 6:36pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 10:46pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:20pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:19pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 8:20pm: lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:36pm: They have paid dividend imputation tax. no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing. The shareholders own the company you colostomy bag. They still payed no tax on their income Horseshit. The company profit is their income. They will be in a poo load of trouble when they put the company profit number in their personal tax return ? But for them to do that you would need to be right ? Your not. That's why there is an imputed credit attached to it. They just get a share of the profit. That's why they're called shareholders. I guess to you putting words together in this sequence has some meaning. So now the company profit isn't their profit and They still never pay any tax on it  - not one cent.

You fukkin' brainless twat. They own the company. The company that they own withheld it for them. Income streams in this country don't get taxed twice.

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 6:46pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 5:38pm: lee wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 5:23pm: As they're SHAREholders their income is their share of the company profits, as distributed. Roll Eyes You're either a liar or you're an idiot. Not all profits are distributed as dividend payments so the argument that the profits ARE their income is FALSE. They don't get a refund for undistributed ones either you dopey arsewipe.

i've no idea what your babbling about now. Who said they get a refund for undistributed 'ones' (whatever 'ones' is supposed to be).

John Smith wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 8:02pm:

i've no idea what your babbling about now.

You should have stopped at "I've no idea".

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 7:35pm:

The dividends to the shareholders (people) is income to them.

of course it is. No one is arguing otherwise. Lee however claims that ompany profits is shareholder profit. That is false.


Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 7:35pm:

The whole problem with this Shorten / Bowen tax grab to deny low income recipients of franked dividends their tax return refund if they come in under the tax-free threshold is that it hits the low income retirees the hardest.

the scheme was designed to prevent DOUBLE TAXATION. Because of changes by the libs, the scheme is now being rorted to give refunds to people who aren't paying any tax. It's about time it was stopped. Wealthfare and this entitlement attitude is why we can't balance our budget.

John Smith wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 8:02pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 6:46pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 5:38pm: lee wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 5:23pm: As they're SHAREholders their income is their share of the company profits, as distributed. Roll Eyes You're either a liar or you're an idiot. Not all profits are distributed as dividend payments so the argument that the profits ARE their income is FALSE. They don't get a refund for undistributed ones either you dopey arsewipe. i've no idea what your babbling about now. Who said they get a refund for undistributed 'ones' (whatever 'ones' is supposed to be).

I'm unsurprised. Keep working on it and in a few years you may figure it out.

lee wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 8:05pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 8:02pm: i've no idea what your babbling about now. You should have stopped at "I've no idea".

you struggled after that did you?

Croc is bit false here.  Say you got after-taxed income.  If you had a business, the cost of capital can be GST saved.  More money on return.
If you use money to invest in bank products, you won't get GST savings.

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 8:07pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 8:02pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 6:46pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 5:38pm: lee wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 5:23pm: As they're SHAREholders their income is their share of the company profits, as distributed. Roll Eyes You're either a liar or you're an idiot. Not all profits are distributed as dividend payments so the argument that the profits ARE their income is FALSE. They don't get a refund for undistributed ones either you dopey arsewipe. i've no idea what your babbling about now. Who said they get a refund for undistributed 'ones' (whatever 'ones' is supposed to be). I'm unsurprised. Keep working on it and in a few years you may figure it out.

sorry, i don't plan on taking lessons in gibberish, even in a few years. If you care to explain yourself, go for it, otherwise stop wasting my time.

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 7:36pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 7:16pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 6:41pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 6:36pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 10:46pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:20pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:19pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 8:20pm: lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:36pm: They have paid dividend imputation tax. no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing. The shareholders own the company you colostomy bag. They still payed no tax on their income Horseshit. The company profit is their income. They will be in a poo load of trouble when they put the company profit number in their personal tax return ? But for them to do that you would need to be right ? Your not. That's why there is an imputed credit attached to it. They just get a share of the profit. That's why they're called shareholders. I guess to you putting words together in this sequence has some meaning. So now the company profit isn't their profit and They still never pay any tax on it  - not one cent. You fukkin' brainless twat. They own the company. The company that they own withheld it for them. Income streams in this country don't get taxed twice.

once again, company's and shareholders are separate entities. Why do I have to keep repeating this for you?

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 7:35pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 6:46pm: lee wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 6:02pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 5:50pm: so if they're not distributed, how can they be shareholders income? That share of profits that are distributed are income. However if you want Bill  to tell people that those distributions are NOT income, I am sure the shareholders will be very pleased. ;) and the share of profits that is used to pay wages is called 'wages' and so on  and so on ..... so? Company profits are NOT income. The dividends to the shareholders (people) is income to them. The whole problem with this Shorten / Bowen tax grab to deny low income recipients of franked dividends their tax return refund if they come in under the tax-free threshold is that it hits the low income retirees the hardest. Some will lose 30% of their annual income.  :o It is going to really hurt some retirees. (Pensioners / part / pensioners) have since been exempted after the initial outcry, but those on low incomes not receiving any pension will be hurt by this. That's why I am dead against it in its current form.

Some will lose 30% of their annual income.  :o

For this to be true 100% of their income would need to come directly from fully franked shares. The likelihood of this would be close to zero in fact it may not even be possible.

Estimates have been saying that it could cost an investor up to $3,000 (more likely less than half of that before any mitigation) This figure is not close to 30% of a self funded retirees income and in fact anyone in this position would be getting a substantial part pension to top them up to a normal pension rate.

Yep, that's right, there will be some whose only source of income is fully franked dividends.

I for one, only invest in companies that pay fully franked dividends. It's "Blue Chip" companies for me every time.  8-)

John Smith wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 8:10pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 7:36pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 7:16pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 6:41pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 6:36pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 10:46pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:20pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 9:19pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 8:20pm: lee wrote on Feb 27th, 2019 at 7:36pm: They have paid dividend imputation tax. no, the COMPANY has paid it's taxes. The shareholders have paid nothing. The shareholders own the company you colostomy bag. They still payed no tax on their income Horseshit. The company profit is their income. They will be in a poo load of trouble when they put the company profit number in their personal tax return ? But for them to do that you would need to be right ? Your not. That's why there is an imputed credit attached to it. They just get a share of the profit. That's why they're called shareholders. I guess to you putting words together in this sequence has some meaning. So now the company profit isn't their profit and They still never pay any tax on it  - not one cent. You fukkin' brainless twat. They own the company. The company that they own withheld it for them. Income streams in this country don't get taxed twice. once again, company's and shareholders are separate entities. Why do I have to keep repeating this for you?

You can repeat it forever. Still, you can't get it through your thick, stupid skull that The shareholders own the company

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 8:35pm:

You can repeat it forever. Still, you can't get it through your thick, stupid skull that The shareholders own the company

Who cares - they still owe taxes...... personal income taxes separate from company taxes....

Pay your taxes, you lazy bludgers..... or pick up a shovel...

We could always pursue the idea that companies pay personal income tax rates, same as their workers, and then argue about the 'owners' of the company....

What is that top rate now... ummm.. 48% or 45?  Of gross ........

....and of course they could only cop the same deductions allowable as workers on PAYE...

Hmmm - this idea has merit.....   :P  :P  :P

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 8:35pm:

You can repeat it forever. Still, you can't get it through your thick, stupid skull that The shareholders own the company

No one is disputing who owns the company

You've also in the past argued that we need to cut company tax.

Tell me, according to you, if shareholders pay the tax and not companies ... why bother lowering company tax?  :D :D :D

If I may make a comment about lowering company tax ....

We have been experiencing record employment and record participation rates with the lower company taxes brought in by the Libs.

Companies employ more people when their costs are lower.

In America, where the company tax rates were massively cut ... record jobs growth again.

It's just a simple fact: lower taxes equals higher employment rates.  8-)

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 8:56pm:

We have been experiencing record employment and record participation rates with the lower company taxes brought in by the Libs.

and record underemployment

John Smith wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 8:51pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 8:35pm: You can repeat it forever. Still, you can't get it through your thick, stupid skull that The shareholders own the company No one is disputing who owns the company You've also in the past argued that we need to cut company tax. Tell me, according to you, if shareholders pay the tax and not companies ... why bother lowering company tax?  :D :D :D

Because retained earnings is what drives productivity. Improvements to the capital / labour ratio is good for workers. Taxing it is a tax on wages.

For fukk sake, buy a textbook.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 8:44pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 8:35pm: You can repeat it forever. Still, you can't get it through your thick, stupid skull that The shareholders own the company Who cares - they still owe taxes...... personal income taxes separate from company taxes.... Pay your taxes, you lazy bludgers..... or pick up a shovel... We could always pursue the idea that companies pay personal income tax rates, same as their workers, and then argue about the 'owners' of the company.... What is that top rate now... ummm.. 48% or 45?  Of gross ........ ....and of course they could only cop the same deductions allowable as workers on PAYE... Hmmm - this idea has merit.....   :P  :P  :P

You fukkin' drongo. The shareholders have to make up the difference between their marginal rate and the corporate rate. They still pay their full obligation.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 8:17pm:

Estimates have been saying that it could cost an investor up to $3,000 (more likely less than half of that before any mitigation)

Don't you just love averages. You can get them to mean anything you want. ;D ;D ;D ;D

The scheme was introduced to prevent double taxation....The taxpayer should not be subsidising anyone's personal income above the social security safety net....This must be reigned in!!!


Quote:

Keating introduced dividend imputation in 1987 to prevent the double taxation of dividends, once as company profits and once as personal income, and the Howard government then enhanced the scheme by allowing individuals and super funds to claim cash refunds for any excess imputation credits not used to offset their tax liabilities. In a speech in Sydney on Tuesday, Shorten will characterise the current arrangements as “unsustainable largesse for high-income earners”, which, if left unchecked, will cost the budget “$8bn every single year”. Shorten will argue the Howard government’s extension of the scheme “entirely distorts the original design of the dividend imputation system” and has left Australia as the only country in the OECD with a fully refundable dividend imputation credit system. Australians will continue to be able to use imputation credits to reduce their tax liabilities, “but not to claim cash refunds”.

The age of entitlement is over....Pay your taxes you bastards!!!

>:( >:( >:(

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/13/labor-to-axe-cash-refunds-for-wealthy-investors-saving-114bn

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 10:06pm:

Shorten will argue the Howard government’s extension of the scheme “entirely distorts the original design of the dividend imputation system” and has left Australia as the only country in the OECD with a fully refundable dividend imputation credit system.

The consensus argument. No one but us does it so it must be wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 10:06pm:

The scheme was introduced to prevent double taxation....The taxpayer should not be subsidising anyone's personal income above the social security safety net....This must be reigned in!!! Quote: Keating introduced dividend imputation in 1987 to prevent the double taxation of dividends, once as company profits and once as personal income, and the Howard government then enhanced the scheme by allowing individuals and super funds to claim cash refunds for any excess imputation credits not used to offset their tax liabilities. In a speech in Sydney on Tuesday, Shorten will characterise the current arrangements as “unsustainable largesse for high-income earners”, which, if left unchecked, will cost the budget “$8bn every single year”. Shorten will argue the Howard government’s extension of the scheme “entirely distorts the original design of the dividend imputation system” and has left Australia as the only country in the OECD with a fully refundable dividend imputation credit system. Australians will continue to be able to use imputation credits to reduce their tax liabilities, “but not to claim cash refunds”. The age of entitlement is over....Pay your taxes you bastards!!! >:( >:( >:( https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/13/labor-to-axe-cash-refunds-for-wealthy-investors-saving-114bn

That nails the whole problem ...


"Australians will continue to be able to use imputation credits to reduce their tax liabilities, “but not to claim cash refunds”

Discriminates against the low income self-funded retirees.  >:(

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 10:20pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 10:06pm: The scheme was introduced to prevent double taxation....The taxpayer should not be subsidising anyone's personal income above the social security safety net....This must be reigned in!!! Quote: Keating introduced dividend imputation in 1987 to prevent the double taxation of dividends, once as company profits and once as personal income, and the Howard government then enhanced the scheme by allowing individuals and super funds to claim cash refunds for any excess imputation credits not used to offset their tax liabilities. In a speech in Sydney on Tuesday, Shorten will characterise the current arrangements as “unsustainable largesse for high-income earners”, which, if left unchecked, will cost the budget “$8bn every single year”. Shorten will argue the Howard government’s extension of the scheme “entirely distorts the original design of the dividend imputation system” and has left Australia as the only country in the OECD with a fully refundable dividend imputation credit system. Australians will continue to be able to use imputation credits to reduce their tax liabilities, “but not to claim cash refunds”. The age of entitlement is over....Pay your taxes you bastards!!! >:( >:( >:( https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/13/labor-to-axe-cash-refunds-for-wealthy-investors-saving-114bn That nails the whole problem ... "Australians will continue to be able to use imputation credits to reduce their tax liabilities, “but not to claim cash refunds” Discriminates against the low income self-funded retirees.  >:(

Quote:

“$8bn every single year”

Yeah right!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 10:24pm:

In a speech in Sydney on Tuesday, Shorten will characterise the current arrangements as “unsustainable largesse for high-income earners”, which, if left unchecked, will cost the budget “$8bn every single year”.

That means the product he has to sell he has to "characterise" it. ;D ;D ;D



philperth2010 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 10:24pm:

Quote: “$8bn every single year” Yeah right!!!

Just make it all double taxation that will suit you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Don't know where the $8 Billion figure comes from.

On Bowen's own figures, the hit is on 850,000 accounts averaging $5,000 per year to be grabbed from self-funded retirees.

That's $4.25 Billion per year.

Mind you, Bowen's a nong. His original plan was for $5 Billion per year, but he was forced to cut out pensioners after the initial outcry.

He will probably fall well short of his planned tax grab when lots of investors bail out of shares anyway.

Of course, the recession that he will bring about will further cut his tax revenue stream and it's going to get really ugly really fast.  :o

lee wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 10:17pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 10:06pm: Shorten will argue the Howard government’s extension of the scheme “entirely distorts the original design of the dividend imputation system” and has left Australia as the only country in the OECD with a fully refundable dividend imputation credit system. The consensus argument. No one but us does it so it must be wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Some other countries hang poofters too. Should we follow suit.

How many other countries tax corporations at 30% and then tax the dividends at the marginal income tax rate. To all the fukkwits that don't get it, that's why we have an imputed credit.

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 11:04pm:

lee wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 10:17pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 10:06pm: Shorten will argue the Howard government’s extension of the scheme “entirely distorts the original design of the dividend imputation system” and has left Australia as the only country in the OECD with a fully refundable dividend imputation credit system. The consensus argument. No one but us does it so it must be wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Some other countries hang poofters too. Should we follow suit. How many other countries tax corporations at 30% and then tax the dividends at the marginal income tax rate. To all the fukkwits that don't get it, that's why we have an imputed credit.

The taxpayers are subsidising your income....The scheme was only ever meant to eliminate double taxation not be an income stream for investors....To all the fukkwits that don't get it....The taxpayer should not be subsidising your f@#king income!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 1^st, 2019 at 12:29am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 11:04pm: lee wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 10:17pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 10:06pm: Shorten will argue the Howard government’s extension of the scheme “entirely distorts the original design of the dividend imputation system” and has left Australia as the only country in the OECD with a fully refundable dividend imputation credit system. The consensus argument. No one but us does it so it must be wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Some other countries hang poofters too. Should we follow suit. How many other countries tax corporations at 30% and then tax the dividends at the marginal income tax rate. To all the fukkwits that don't get it, that's why we have an imputed credit. The taxpayers are subsidising your income....The scheme was only ever meant to eliminate double taxation not be an income stream for investors....To all the fukkwits that don't get it....The taxpayer should not be subsidising your f@#king income!!! [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

It's still taxed at their marginal rate you imbecile. Their marginal rate just happens to be zero when they're below the tax free threshold. All of a sudden, just because they happen to be franked shares there's no tax free threshold anymore. It won't affect me anyway. just another one of shortarse's vis and vats poorly thought out money grabs.

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 10:20pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 10:06pm: The scheme was introduced to prevent double taxation....The taxpayer should not be subsidising anyone's personal income above the social security safety net....This must be reigned in!!! Quote: Keating introduced dividend imputation in 1987 to prevent the double taxation of dividends, once as company profits and once as personal income, and the Howard government then enhanced the scheme by allowing individuals and super funds to claim cash refunds for any excess imputation credits not used to offset their tax liabilities. In a speech in Sydney on Tuesday, Shorten will characterise the current arrangements as “unsustainable largesse for high-income earners”, which, if left unchecked, will cost the budget “$8bn every single year”. Shorten will argue the Howard government’s extension of the scheme “entirely distorts the original design of the dividend imputation system” and has left Australia as the only country in the OECD with a fully refundable dividend imputation credit system. Australians will continue to be able to use imputation credits to reduce their tax liabilities, “but not to claim cash refunds”. The age of entitlement is over....Pay your taxes you bastards!!! >:( >:( >:( https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/13/labor-to-axe-cash-refunds-for-wealthy-investors-saving-114bn That nails the whole problem ... "Australians will continue to be able to use imputation credits to reduce their tax liabilities, “but not to claim cash refunds” Discriminates against the low income self-funded retirees.  >:(

Low income and high assets retirees.  Consume your super, not hang onto it to pass it down!

crocodile wrote on Mar 1^st, 2019 at 5:27am:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 1st, 2019 at 12:29am: crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 11:04pm: lee wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 10:17pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 10:06pm: Shorten will argue the Howard government’s extension of the scheme “entirely distorts the original design of the dividend imputation system” and has left Australia as the only country in the OECD with a fully refundable dividend imputation credit system. The consensus argument. No one but us does it so it must be wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Some other countries hang poofters too. Should we follow suit. How many other countries tax corporations at 30% and then tax the dividends at the marginal income tax rate. To all the fukkwits that don't get it, that's why we have an imputed credit. The taxpayers are subsidising your income....The scheme was only ever meant to eliminate double taxation not be an income stream for investors....To all the fukkwits that don't get it....The taxpayer should not be subsidising your f@#king income!!! [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] It's still taxed at their marginal rate you imbecile. Their marginal rate just happens to be zero when they're below the tax free threshold. All of a sudden, just because they happen to be franked shares there's no tax free threshold anymore. It won't affect me anyway. just another one of shortarse's vis and vats poorly thought out money grabs.

You are being refunded by the taxpayer for tax never paid you sponging bastards....It will cost taxpayers $8 billion a year to supplement investors income for no other reason that owning franked shares....You do realise the only reason this scheme was introduced was to eliminate double taxation (something you avoid addressing) not to provide an income stream for wealthy investors who are sponging off the taxpayer....Why should taxpayers supplement investors income you wanker???

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 1^st, 2019 at 7:21am:

crocodile wrote on Mar 1st, 2019 at 5:27am: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 1st, 2019 at 12:29am: crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 11:04pm: lee wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 10:17pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 10:06pm: Shorten will argue the Howard government’s extension of the scheme “entirely distorts the original design of the dividend imputation system” and has left Australia as the only country in the OECD with a fully refundable dividend imputation credit system. The consensus argument. No one but us does it so it must be wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Some other countries hang poofters too. Should we follow suit. How many other countries tax corporations at 30% and then tax the dividends at the marginal income tax rate. To all the fukkwits that don't get it, that's why we have an imputed credit. The taxpayers are subsidising your income....The scheme was only ever meant to eliminate double taxation not be an income stream for investors....To all the fukkwits that don't get it....The taxpayer should not be subsidising your f@#king income!!! [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] It's still taxed at their marginal rate you imbecile. Their marginal rate just happens to be zero when they're below the tax free threshold. All of a sudden, just because they happen to be franked shares there's no tax free threshold anymore. It won't affect me anyway. just another one of shortarse's vis and vats poorly thought out money grabs. You are being refunded by the taxpayer for tax never paid you sponging bastards....It will cost taxpayers $8 billion a year to supplement investors income for no other reason that owning franked shares....You do realise the only reason this scheme was introduced was to eliminate double taxation (something you avoid addressing) not to provide an income stream for wealthy investors who are sponging off the taxpayer....Why should taxpayers supplement investors income you wanker??? :-? :-? :-?

You fukkin dopey colostomy bag. The refund is for tax that should not have been paid in the first place. no different from you getting a tax refund at the end of the year if it turns out you've paid more than you should. Especially if you happen to be under the tax free threshold. The double taxation has already been addressed but a blind idiot like you can't see it. Anyone under the tax free threshold has already been assessed at this marginal rate. They have no tax to pay and are entitled to any tax paid on their behalf. Stop wasting everyone's time you ignorant arsehole.

crocodile wrote on Mar 1^st, 2019 at 5:27am:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 1st, 2019 at 12:29am: crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 11:04pm: lee wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 10:17pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 10:06pm: Shorten will argue the Howard government’s extension of the scheme “entirely distorts the original design of the dividend imputation system” and has left Australia as the only country in the OECD with a fully refundable dividend imputation credit system. The consensus argument. No one but us does it so it must be wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Some other countries hang poofters too. Should we follow suit. How many other countries tax corporations at 30% and then tax the dividends at the marginal income tax rate. To all the fukkwits that don't get it, that's why we have an imputed credit. The taxpayers are subsidising your income....The scheme was only ever meant to eliminate double taxation not be an income stream for investors....To all the fukkwits that don't get it....The taxpayer should not be subsidising your f@#king income!!! [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] It's still taxed at their marginal rate you imbecile. Their marginal rate just happens to be zero when they're below the tax free threshold. All of a sudden, just because they happen to be franked shares there's no tax free threshold anymore. It won't affect me anyway. just another one of shortarse's vis and vats poorly thought out money grabs.

Well said sir!  8-)

Abolish franked dividends - no problem left....

crocodile wrote on Mar 1^st, 2019 at 8:41am:

You fukkin dopey colostomy bag. The refund is for tax that should not have been paid in the first place. no different from you getting a tax refund at the end of the year if it turns out you've paid more than you should. Especially if you happen to be under the tax free threshold. The double taxation has already been addressed but a blind idiot like you can't see it. Anyone under the tax free threshold has already been assessed at this marginal rate. They have no tax to pay and are entitled to any tax paid on their behalf. Stop wasting everyone's time you ignorant arsehole.

That's you argument - not your personal vitriol.... get with it...

Easy way is to not have the company pay the tax in advance and then resolve all your own personal tax issues.  No argument left, easy as pie....

However, your entire income structure(s) will need to be vetted by an enhanced ATO before you get anything.. too many loop-holes and hidey-holes.

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 11:04pm:

lee wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 10:17pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 10:06pm: Shorten will argue the Howard government’s extension of the scheme “entirely distorts the original design of the dividend imputation system” and has left Australia as the only country in the OECD with a fully refundable dividend imputation credit system. The consensus argument. No one but us does it so it must be wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Some other countries hang poofters too. Should we follow suit. How many other countries tax corporations at 30% and then tax the dividends at the marginal income tax rate. To all the fukkwits  that don't get it, that's why we have an imputed credit.

Average company tax is 12% .... and for the last time, company tax and personal income tax of shareholders are two totally different things...

Again - is no dividend imputation, is no problem..... abolish franked dividends entirely.. no argument.

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 9:39pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 8:51pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 8:35pm: You can repeat it forever. Still, you can't get it through your thick, stupid skull that The shareholders own the company No one is disputing who owns the company You've also in the past argued that we need to cut company tax. Tell me, according to you, if shareholders pay the tax and not companies ... why bother lowering company tax?  :D :D :D Because retained earnings is what drives productivity. Improvements to the capital / labour ratio is good for workers. Taxing it is a tax on wages. For fukk sake, buy a textbook.

you're assuming that any money they save in tax is retained and not paid out in dividends. How convenient for you  :D :D

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 11:04pm:

Some other countries hang poofters too. Should we follow suit.

But MOST countries do not ... do you know what consensus means?

crocodile wrote on Mar 1^st, 2019 at 8:41am:

You fukkin dopey colostomy bag. The refund is for tax that should not have been paid in the first place. no different from you getting a tax refund at the end of the year if it turns out you've paid more than you should. Especially if you happen to be under the tax free threshold. The double taxation has already been addressed but a blind idiot like you can't see it. Anyone under the tax free threshold has already been assessed at this marginal rate. They have no tax to pay and are entitled to any tax paid on their behalf. Stop wasting everyone's time you ignorant arsehole.

The vast majority of this rort goes to the wealthy....The company paid the tax you dickhead as all companies do....This rort allows investors to claw back tax the company has paid....Why should taxpayers refund tax not paid ass hole....Now crawl back into your swamp you slimy reptile???


Quote:

They become tax-free for shareholders on a 30 per cent marginal rate, and for those on a lower tax bracket the excess franking credits could be used to offset other taxable income. In 2000, the Howard/Costello government changed the rules so that if the franking credits more than offset an investor’s entire tax bill, they’d receive a cash refund on any excess franking credits. The cost: When the Howard government first changed the rules, the cash refund total was estimated at about $400 million a year. This has now risen to $5 billion a year as investors worked out how to benefit from the change. Proposed ALP changes: To take dividend imputation back to the original rules of simply stopping double taxation of dividends. No cash refunds. If you pay no tax then you don’t need a franking credit because you’re not being double taxed. Pensioners and part-pensioners would be exempt and still receive cash refunds.

;D ;D ;D

Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Unknown, Hanlon's Razor

May as well face it, this thread is full of it.


https://media1.tenor.com/images/d8719707149dfce0b9226caef4e04397/tenor.gif

Captain Nemo wrote on Mar 1^st, 2019 at 5:41pm:

May as well face it, this thread is full of it. https://media1.tenor.com/images/d8719707149dfce0b9226caef4e04397/tenor.gif

This entire board is full of it. Once upon a time it was OK. Not now.

lee wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 9:52pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 28th, 2019 at 8:17pm: Estimates have been saying that it could cost an investor up to $3,000 (more likely less than half of that before any mitigation) Don't you just love averages. You can get them to mean anything you want. ;D ;D ;D ;D

And you can make a comment that means nothing at all ?

crocodile wrote on Mar 1^st, 2019 at 8:41am:

You fukkin dopey colostomy bag. The refund is for tax that should not have been paid in the first place. no different from you getting a tax refund at the end of the year if it turns out you've paid more than you should. Especially if you happen to be under the tax free threshold. The double taxation has already been addressed but a blind idiot like you can't see it. Anyone under the tax free threshold has already been assessed at this marginal rate. They have no tax to pay and are entitled to any tax paid on their behalf. Stop wasting everyone's time you ignorant arsehole.

Quote:

The refund is for tax that should not have been paid

Solution - don't pay it.


Quote:

no different from you getting a tax refund at the end of the year if it turns out you've paid more than you should.

Well the difference is that you paid no tax at all, so yes it is very different. In one case you are getting a refund from tax you paid in the other you are getting a refund from tax you didn't pay.


Quote:

The double taxation has already been addressed

The company payed the correct tax on the profit, there is no second tax involved. Invest in product that will deliver non franked dividends up to the tax free threshold. You get a 30% higher dividend (untaxed) and then you pay no tax on it. (Don't tell anyone).


Quote:

They have no tax to pay and are entitled to any tax paid on their behalf.

No tax has been paid on their behalf, The company payed their tax on their profit. This was optional. They do not forward tax into your tax account at all, they have not paid your tax. The get out of jail is that you can't be taxed twice on the same money which is where the refund comes in but it only stands to reason that you cannot claim a rebate from your tax if you pay no tax.

If the company did pay the tax into your tax account I do not see how the government could prevent a refund of all the tax paid up to the tax free threshold.

While I think this change is a dumb move by Labor it isn't flawed in this area of logic.

Captain Nemo wrote on Mar 1^st, 2019 at 5:41pm:

May as well face it, this thread is full of it. https://media1.tenor.com/images/d8719707149dfce0b9226caef4e04397/tenor.gif

You got that right - just not sure about your personal spin on it....

aaaahhhh, ha, ha, ha, ha ha .....

Quote:

An independent economic think tank is urging the Morrison Government to do the politically unthinkable ahead of an expected May election and back Labor's plans to end unsustainable tax breaks. Key points:     CEDA argues tax breaks on franking credits and capital gains need to be tightened to make future budgets sustainable     The think tank says big savings can also be made in health spending and the PBS     It says without tough decisions now, the tax burden will increasingly fall on workers in future generations The Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) says tough decisions need to be made about controversial tax credits on dividends and capital gains tax to ensure the anticipated return to a budget surplus is long-term instead of a one-off.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-08/ceda-urges-morrison-government-to-back-labor-tax-changes/10882412


:D

It's like getting a $10 on your Woolworths Reward card from spending heaps -> you can't exchange it for cash but it can be used to reduce your shopping bill.