The investment helping millionaires live tax free   :(

New research shows wealthiest people in Australia are forking out big bucks to ensure they pay no tax. This is how they do it.

news.com.au February 23, 2019


Frydenberg accuses Labor of a tax grab for retirees

It’s called “the art of deduction” and it is making sure multi-millionaires pay less tax than ordinary wage earners.   :(

Research by the Australia Institute released today shows some Australian earners pay more than $170,000 a year on tax advice, and that it is a lucrative investment.

The research says that in 2011-2012, 75 individuals who earned more than $1 million in pre-tax, gross income paid no tax.

They had deployed deductions so large their taxable income was reduced to below the tax-free threshold.   :(

And among the deductions were claims for excess franking credits, a so-called tax refund the ALP wants to eliminate.

Also among their deductions was the bill for getting someone to manage their tax affairs. Labor wants to cap such deductions at $3000.

They spent around $174,201 on this management, and the research says this was managing 23 times more than fellow wealth earners whose taxable income stayed above $1 million.

The research figures make clear most of us might spend at most a few hundred dollars on advice and end up paying more tax than the very well off who exploit what the Australia Institute calls “unfair loopholes”.   :(

“What these taxation statistics show us is that most people who pay for help managing their tax affairs spend a few hundred dollars, but there is a very small minority who are spending considerable sums of money to manage their tax affairs,” says Matt Grudnoff, senior economist at the Australia Institute.

“These people are more likely to have large gross incomes and some of them have been very successful in reducing the amount of tax they pay.

“When these unfair tax loopholes, such as refunding excess franking credits are rorted by wealthy individuals they should be closed as soon as possible.

“Doing so will not only make the taxation system fairer and more progressive, it will also discourage the largely unproductive industry focusing on finding and using complex tax loopholes.”

The AI uses the findings to brand the tax advice industry as “problematic not only because it undermines our progressive income tax system, but also because it is highly inefficient”.

“Money spent avoiding tax could be more productively spent elsewhere and some of our brightest people spend their energies on unproductive work when they could be producing more socially desirable goods and services,” say the findings.

The research found those with both a gross and taxable income over $1 million spent on average $7,476 on managing their tax affairs.

Those with a gross income over $1 million but had reduced their taxable income to under $1 million spent $26,124.

Those with a gross income over $1 million but enough deductions to

reduce their taxable income below the tax-free threshold and paid zero tax, paid $174,201 on managing their tax affairs.

This is 23 times more than those whose taxable income stayed above $1 million.

Of course it does - they feel an absolute entitlement to pay no taxes since they are investing and thus creating jobs and such... not  only that, but since they 'own' the company by investing, they feel that the company already paying company taxes (if it ever does) means they should not pay income tax on their personal earnings because that's 'double taxation'.

No wonder Shorten is gunning for them .. and rightly so.

Abolish dividend franking entirely for a start... no need for it anyway since it is part of the shareholder's gross income and should be included.  I have to wonder if it is even included.

Family companies and trusts are in the firing line, too - blatant tax evasion strategies and utter nonsense to be able to spread your income around your family  etc and thus pay no tax.  No PAYE person can do that - hand the son or daughter X amount of earnings and claim it off tax....

Well said Ye Grappler. Good on Mr Shorten.  Time for the millionaire club to start paying fair taxes.   :)

whiteknight wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 4:13pm:

“What these taxation statistics show us is that most people who pay for help managing their tax affairs spend a few hundred dollars, but there is a very small minority who are spending considerable sums of money to manage their tax affairs,” says Matt Grudnoff, senior economist at the Australia Institute.

So for this small minority we will target those on low incomes.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 4:23pm:

Family companies and trusts are in the firing line, too - blatant tax evasion strategies and utter nonsense to be able to spread your income around your family  etc and thus pay no tax.

You must explain how this happens. Because I would really like to know.

How does spreading your income around your family allow you to pay no tax? You mean like 10 people over 18 in your family and you spread around $182,000 among them? Only $18,200 each so no tax to pay?

lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 4:41pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 2nd, 2019 at 4:23pm: Family companies and trusts are in the firing line, too - blatant tax evasion strategies and utter nonsense to be able to spread your income around your family  etc and thus pay no tax.  You must explain how this happens. Because I would really like to know. How does spreading your income around your family allow you to pay no tax? You mean like 10 people over 18 in your family and you spread around $182,000 among them? Only $18,200 each so tax to pay?

Earnings go into a trust - not to the individual who worked - the trust then 'incurs costs' of handling those earnings, and thus claims a tax deduction...... it owns the family vehicles used for 'business and cops a deduction ... the trust disburses money sufficient to each beneficiary to keep that beneficiary below the taxable limit... the kid going to school is paid (on paper) sufficient to not pay tax and no more.... the pater familias receives from the trust the same .... the non-working wife does.... the daughter does... the second son or daughter does at age 1 .... I've even heard of the family dog but that probably apocryphal...the trust then invests in superannuation for each family member and cops a tax deduction.  The trust trades in shares using available left over money, and incurs a tax deduction for shares trading... then gets dividend imputation.....

So - individual family members pay zero tax but live well.... the trust writes off everything under the sun and based on the income spread around, does not have sufficient left over to pay tax after the dreadful costs of handling that money earned by family trust member(s) and beneficiaries.. and the trust continues to accrue wealth without paying a single cent in tax, or as very little as possible...

Pay each family member/beneficiary $18,200, deduct costs of home office etc for the trust... say a family of five = $91,000 cash tax free pa.

He who earns the bread must pay the piper - simple rule..... and no trust must be permitted to accumulate superannuation and its perks and thus reduce taxation and then receive tax-free in perpetuity.

Easy!!

Same applies to family company......

The ATO should have been gunning for them long before Shorten got into the act.... and should have a list of law changes required sitting and ready so that the very rich cannot continue to live the life of Reilly - private jets, a million bucks to bet at the races every Saturday and all - without paying a single cent in income or fringe benefits tax.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 4:55pm:

Pay each family member/beneficiary $18,200, deduct costs of home office etc for the trust... say a family of five = $91,000 cash tax free pa.

You do realise distributions from trusts to people under 18 are taxed at special rates? They are allowed $1307 pa from the trust tax free otherwise they pay 45c in the dollar for every dollar.

So now you have say 3 kids under 18 and the 2 adults that means they get $3921 tax free the other $87k gets taxed at the adult rates.


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 4:55pm:

Same applies to family company.....

Yes. Any distribution from shares to minors under $1307 is tax free. If they pay more than $1307 and it is all taxable at 45c in the dollar.

https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Investing/In-detail/Children-and-under-18s/Your-income-if-you-are-under-18-years-old/?page=3#Summary_of_how_income_is_taxed_if_you_are_under__160_18

lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 4:41pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 2nd, 2019 at 4:23pm: Family companies and trusts are in the firing line, too - blatant tax evasion strategies and utter nonsense to be able to spread your income around your family  etc and thus pay no tax.  You must explain how this happens. Because I would really like to know.

are you pretending trusts aren't used to avoid tax?  ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 5:29pm:

are you pretending trusts aren't used to avoid tax?

Are you saying all trusts are used to avoid tax? ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 5:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 2nd, 2019 at 5:29pm: are you pretending trusts aren't used to avoid tax?  Are you saying all trusts are used to avoid tax? ;D ;D ;D

why didn't you answer my question instead of pretending I said something else?  ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 5:45pm:

why didn't you answer my question instead of pretending I said something else?

Poor little Johnny.

let's recap. -


John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 5:29pm:

are you pretending trusts aren't used to avoid tax?

Trusts can be used to avoid tax. That does not mean all, the majority or any specific percentage of trusts are used to avoid tax.

So perhaps you have inside information and would like to spread the word?

Or perhaps not.

How about those dodgy individual taxpayers, eh?

"Are you and I to blame for $8.7b a year in ‘missing’ revenue?"

https://www.smh.com.au/money/tax/are-you-and-i-to-blame-for-8-7b-a-year-in-missing-revenue-20180730-p4zuez.html

lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 6:04pm:

let's recap.

no need, I know what i said


lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 6:04pm:

Trusts can be used to avoid tax.

that's all you had to say.  ::) ::)

John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 6:06pm:

that's all you had to say.

No petal. Because you would have jumped all over it and said all trusts did that. That is why I try to be specific. You like to use open ended questions. ;)

lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 6:22pm:

Because you would have jumped all over it and said all trusts did that.

Absolute rubbish.


lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 6:22pm:

That is why I try to be specific.

avoiding the question and pretending I said something else is 'being specific'? ::) ::)


lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 6:22pm:

You like to use open ended questions. Wink

If you struggle with the simple questions, why would I endeavour to try more complicated ones?

John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 6:25pm:

Absolute rubbish.

of course you wouldn't petal. You are above that. ;D ;D ;D


John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 6:25pm:

avoiding the question and pretending I said something else is 'being specific'?

Exactly where did I avoid the question? I provided an answer. I might not have been the one you wanted. Too bad.


John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 6:25pm:

If you struggle with the simple questions, why would I endeavour to try more complicated ones?

You try complicated. But you continually trip yourself up. ;)

If they weren't tax effective they wouldn't be used.... same as dividend imputation which is advertised as 'tax beneficial'.. simple rules - one income recipient - one tax...

lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 6:35pm:

of course you wouldn't petal. You are above that

So now you're making up more lies to cover up your previous lies? Ohh What a a tangled web we weave. :D :D


lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 6:35pm:

Exactly where did I avoid the question? I provided an answer.

only after I prompted you on it a second time.  ::)


lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 6:35pm:

You try complicated. But you continually trip yourself up

I haven't even gotten anywhere near complicated. Although I can understand why you might find them so......... ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 7:32pm:

Ohh What a a tangled web we weave.

You do petal.


John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 7:32pm:

only after I prompted you on it a second time.

No petal. Asking a clarification isn't avoidance. ;)


John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 7:32pm:

I haven't even gotten anywhere near complicated.

You try though petal. ;)

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 7:29pm:

If they weren't tax effective they wouldn't be used.

They are used to protect assets. Anyone can do that.


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 7:29pm:

same as dividend imputation which is advertised as 'tax beneficial'.. simple rules - one income recipient - one tax...

Yes petal. Sharehholders are owners. The tax is paid on their behalf by the company. That is why they are entitled to DI. But we have gone over that so many times and you still can't comprehend.

lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 7:48pm:

You do petal.

no prizes for second dopey


lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 7:48pm:

No petal. Asking a clarification isn't avoidance.

answering the question you ask isn't 'asking for clarification', deary.


lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 7:48pm:

You try though petal.

refer to my first answer

lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 7:55pm:

The tax is paid on their behalf by the company.

no, tax is paid by the company for the company. After all, it's not called shareholders tax, it's called company tax

John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 8:49pm:

lee wrote on Mar 2nd, 2019 at 7:55pm: The tax is paid on their behalf by the company. no, tax is paid by the company for the company. After all, it's not called shareholders tax, it's called company tax

Company is a separate legal entity which has a duty to pay company tax - a highly concessional tax to begin with  at maybe 30% of net, which most companies don't pay anyway - the shareholder is another totally separate legal entity with a duty to pay personal income tax... never the twain shall meet....

Frack the dividend imputation - get rid of it and pay your taxes as due you loafers..

John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 8:49pm:

no, tax is paid by the company for the company. After all, it's not called shareholders tax, it's called company tax

We know you have cognitive dissonance.

It is called company tax and is paid by the company, on the profit, on behalf of the owners, the shareholders. The profit is then distributed either in full or in part to the shareholders, with the tax paid attached.

If you disagree, you better tell Bill, because he has got it wrong too.  Because that would mean there is no dividend imputation. And we know that's not right; don't we?;)

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:02pm:

the shareholder is another totally separate legal entity with a duty to pay personal income tax...

Nope. The shareholders are the owners of the company. They are in the company minutes as part owners.

The shareholders do need to pay tax. Some may be liable for personal tax and some may be company tax as all the shareholders may not be individuals.

lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:13pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 2nd, 2019 at 9:02pm: the shareholder is another totally separate legal entity with a duty to pay personal income tax... Nope. The shareholders are the owners of the company. They are in the company minutes as part owners. The shareholders do need to pay tax. Some may be liable for personal tax and some may be company tax as all the shareholders may not be individuals.

Employees that work for the company should be seen similarly. They are a part of the machinery. They should not be taxed.

Setanta wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:16pm:

Employees that work for the company should be seen similarly. They are a part of the machinery. They should not be taxed.

So the company should not be taxed either?

lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:20pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 2nd, 2019 at 9:16pm: Employees that work for the company should be seen similarly. They are a part of the machinery. They should not be taxed. So the company should not be taxed either?

No, the company should be taxed. The workers are but machinery. Taxing them is double taxation, they should be a tax write off. Workers should not be taxed.

lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:13pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 2nd, 2019 at 9:02pm: the shareholder is another totally separate legal entity with a duty to pay personal income tax... Nope. The shareholders are the owners of the company. They are in the company minutes as part owners. The shareholders do need to pay tax. Some may be liable for personal tax and some may be company tax as all the shareholders may not be individuals.

You're grasping - that interpretation is totally incorrect.

Setanta wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:23pm:

Taxing them is double taxation, they should be a tax write off.

How is it double taxation?

John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 8:48pm:

no prizes for second dopey

you could kiss my A*rse and try for third ;)


John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 8:48pm:

answering the question you ask isn't 'asking for clarification', deary.

only in your bizarro world.


John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 8:48pm:

refer to my first answer

perhaps you want to try for fourth?

Company pays PAYE tax in advance of EOFY for workers - workers should reasonably have the same deductions as a company since they are both in the business of earning income - the car, the home base, the power bill, the loans .... and then when the worker's net income falls below minimum, they get a full refund... easy as pie.

lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:26pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 2nd, 2019 at 9:23pm: Taxing them is double taxation, they should be a tax write off. How is it double taxation?

Is the company taxed? Is it's machinery having a tax imposed on it after it's company tax? Does a company pay tax on robots?

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:31pm:

Company pays PAYE tax in advance of EOFY for workers - workers should reasonably have the same deductions as a company since they are both in the business of earning income - the car, the home base, the power bill, the loans .... and then when the worker's net income falls below minimum, they get a full refund... easy as pie.

PAYE workers are not "in the business of earning income".

lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:34pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 2nd, 2019 at 9:31pm: Company pays PAYE tax in advance of EOFY for workers - workers should reasonably have the same deductions as a company since they are both in the business of earning income - the car, the home base, the power bill, the loans .... and then when the worker's net income falls below minimum, they get a full refund... easy as pie. PAYE workers are not "in the business of earning income".

What are they doing?

Setanta wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:31pm:

Is the company taxed?

Yes.


Setanta wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:31pm:

Is it's machinery having a tax imposed on it after it's company tax?

If you are alluding to the workers - They're not part of the income earning structure of the company. They are at a leel below the company structure.


Setanta wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:31pm:

Does a company pay tax on robots?

yes GST, possibly import duties, set up costs.

Setanta wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:36pm:

What are they doing?

They may be working, that doesn't make them a business. If they were subcontractors they may be a business. But subcontractors get paid for work done, not doing 9 to 5.

lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:38pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 2nd, 2019 at 9:31pm: Is the company taxed? Yes. Setanta wrote on Mar 2nd, 2019 at 9:31pm: Is it's machinery having a tax imposed on it after it's company tax? If you are alluding to the workers - They're not part of the income earning structure of the company. They are at a leel below the company structure. Setanta wrote on Mar 2nd, 2019 at 9:31pm: Does a company pay tax on robots? yes GST, possibly import duties, set up costs.

Workers are robots made of flesh. Do companies pay payroll tax for real robots? They are workers. This is why our tax income is falling. People did not pay income tax 100 years ago, tax was collected at the top. It makes sense and is simpler. Those who make money pay tax. Income tax was introduced to pay for war, a war that killed the people that paid it.

Setanta wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:43pm:

Workers are robots made of flesh.

Nope. Robots aren't sentient.


Setanta wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:43pm:

People did not pay income tax 100 years ago, tax was collected at the top.

So because that was done 100 yearsago is a eason to do it now? ::)


Setanta wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:43pm:

Those who make money pay tax.

But workers make money, otherwise they can't afford a Friday night p*ssup. Therefore workers pay tax.

lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:46pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 2nd, 2019 at 9:43pm: Workers are robots made of flesh. Nope. Robots aren't sentient. Setanta wrote on Mar 2nd, 2019 at 9:43pm: People did not pay income tax 100 years ago, tax was collected at the top. So because that was done 100 yearsago is a eason to do it now? ::) Setanta wrote on Mar 2nd, 2019 at 9:43pm: Those who make money pay tax. But workers make money, otherwise they can't afford a Friday night p*ssup. Therefore workers pay tax.

Neither are many people that work as robots.

If all tax was paid at the top it would simplify things, don't you think?

Double taxation. They paid tax and now they are taxed on their piss up.

Setanta wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:49pm:

If all tax was paid at the top it would simplify things, don't you think?

For whom?


Setanta wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:49pm:

Double taxation. They paid tax and now they are taxed on their piss up.

Oh GST and income tax.

I am on a part pension. So according to you I should not pay GST on my consumption. And I should not pay income tax on my income.

BTW - You shuld check the Income Tax Assessment Act 1915-1918

lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:55pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 2nd, 2019 at 9:49pm: If all tax was paid at the top it would simplify things, don't you think? For whom? Setanta wrote on Mar 2nd, 2019 at 9:49pm: Double taxation. They paid tax and now they are taxed on their piss up. Oh GST and income tax. I am on a part pension. So according to you I should not pay GST on my consumption. And I should not pay income tax on my income.

For everyone. One point of collection is far more efficient than billions.

Yep, the point of making the money should be taxed. Once.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:31pm:

Company pays PAYE tax in advance of EOFY for workers - workers should reasonably have the same deductions as a company since they are both in the business of earning income - the car, the home base, the power bill, the loans .... and then when the worker's net income falls below minimum, they get a full refund... easy as pie.

I wish -
as an ordinary wage earner how can I rort my tax return so that
I can pay no tax like the millionaires?
I want to join their club.

whiteknight wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 4:13pm:

The investment helping millionaires live tax free   :( New research shows wealthiest people in Australia are forking out big bucks to ensure they pay no tax. This is how they do it. news.com.au February 23, 2019 Frydenberg accuses Labor of a tax grab for retirees It’s called “the art of deduction” and it is making sure multi-millionaires pay less tax than ordinary wage earners.   :( Research by the Australia Institute released today shows some Australian earners pay more than $170,000 a year on tax advice, and that it is a lucrative investment. The research says that in 2011-2012, 75 individuals who earned more than $1 million in pre-tax, gross income paid no tax. They had deployed deductions so large their taxable income was reduced to below the tax-free threshold.   :( And among the deductions were claims for excess franking credits, a so-called tax refund the ALP wants to eliminate. Also among their deductions was the bill for getting someone to manage their tax affairs. Labor wants to cap such deductions at $3000. They spent around $174,201 on this management, and the research says this was managing 23 times more than fellow wealth earners whose taxable income stayed above $1 million. The research figures make clear most of us might spend at most a few hundred dollars on advice and end up paying more tax than the very well off who exploit what the Australia Institute calls “unfair loopholes”.   :( “What these taxation statistics show us is that most people who pay for help managing their tax affairs spend a few hundred dollars, but there is a very small minority who are spending considerable sums of money to manage their tax affairs,” says Matt Grudnoff, senior economist at the Australia Institute. “These people are more likely to have large gross incomes and some of them have been very successful in reducing the amount of tax they pay. “When these unfair tax loopholes, such as refunding excess franking credits are rorted by wealthy individuals they should be closed as soon as possible. “Doing so will not only make the taxation system fairer and more progressive, it will also discourage the largely unproductive industry focusing on finding and using complex tax loopholes.” The AI uses the findings to brand the tax advice industry as “problematic not only because it undermines our progressive income tax system, but also because it is highly inefficient”. “Money spent avoiding tax could be more productively spent elsewhere and some of our brightest people spend their energies on unproductive work when they could be producing more socially desirable goods and services,” say the findings. The research found those with both a gross and taxable income over $1 million spent on average $7,476 on managing their tax affairs. Those with a gross income over $1 million but had reduced their taxable income to under $1 million spent $26,124. Those with a gross income over $1 million but enough deductions to reduce their taxable income below the tax-free threshold and paid zero tax, paid $174,201 on managing their tax affairs. This is 23 times more than those whose taxable income stayed above $1 million.

""According to the 2015-16 Federal Budget, Australians paid around A$176 billion in personal income taxation in the 2014-15 financial year (Table 5 of Budget Paper 1). The Treasurer, Joe Hockey, claims that around 50% of this taxation is paid by the top 10% of the working age population as ranked by their income.""


It would appear that all those little people out there are not pulling their weight Mr Knight



Hard n Fast

BigP wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 8:23am:

It would appear that all those little people out there are not pulling their weight Mr Knight

That figure is misleading.

the problem with it is that the 'top 10%' is determined AFTER they spend their $170,000 a year on tax advice and claim all their deductions, rebates and franking credits ::) ::)

lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:40pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 2nd, 2019 at 9:36pm: What are they doing? They may be working, that doesn't make them a business. If they were subcontractors they may be a business. But subcontractors get paid for work done, not doing 9 to 5.

Mr Lee, No relation to Bruce im thinking, Contractors get paid for the hours they book the company, This should not be mistaken for contact  price to do proved  a service


Hard n Fast

lee wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 9:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 2nd, 2019 at 8:49pm: no, tax is paid by the company for the company. After all, it's not called shareholders tax, it's called company tax We know you have cognitive dissonance. It is called company tax and is paid by the company, on the profit, on behalf of the owners, the shareholders. The profit is then distributed either in full or in part to the shareholders, with the tax paid attached. If you disagree, you better tell Bill, because he has got it wrong too.  Because that would mean there is no dividend imputation. And we know that's not right; don't we?;)

blah blah blah. If you think making dumb comments about Bill will help you then you couldn't be more wrong. Once again, Company tax is paid by the company on the companys profits.It's NOT paid by the company for the shareholders.

John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 8:27am:

BigP wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 8:23am: It would appear that all those little people out there are not pulling their weight Mr Knight That figure is misleading. the problem with it is that the 'top 10%' is determined AFTER they spend their $170,000 a year on tax advice and claim all their deductions, rebates and franking credits ::) ::)

And that $170,000 will have a GST portion to it and  the person it is being paid to will be liable for tax on any profit they make .

The circle of life, Dont fool yourselves that its the little guys paying all the tax


Hard n Fast

BigP wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 8:32am:

And that $170,000 will have a GST portion to it and  the person it is being paid to will be liable for tax on any profit they make .

Everyone pays GST. I don't care that they pay GST on it.
You think that because they're paying GST on that portion they shouldn't pay income taxes on their profits?

John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 8:34am:

BigP wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 8:32am: And that $170,000 will have a GST portion to it and  the person it is being paid to will be liable for tax on any profit they make . Everyone pays GST. I don't care that they pay GST on it. You think that because they're paying GST on that portion they shouldn't pay income taxes on their profits?

And thats exactly why they bought in GST, its a tax you cant escape, so when some "rich prick" as the left like to call them buys a Lamborghini for $500,000 he pays $40,000 odd GST on it,,



Hard n Fast

John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 8:34am:

BigP wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 8:32am: And that $170,000 will have a GST portion to it and  the person it is being paid to will be liable for tax on any profit they make . Everyone pays GST. I don't care that they pay GST on it. You think that because they're paying GST on that portion they shouldn't pay income taxes on their profits?

a company claims back all the GST on materials and services they use to conduct their business, Then put it on the finished product or service,  That company may then go to make a loss, If so they do not pay tax and can carry that loss through to the following years,


Hard n Fast

BigP wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 9:44am:

a company claims back all the GST on materials and services they use to conduct their business, Then put it on the finished product or service,  That company may then go to make a loss, If so they do not pay tax and can carry that loss through to the following years,

yes, thankyou for stating the obvious. But we were talking about individuals not companies.

John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 9:51am:

BigP wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 9:44am: a company claims back all the GST on materials and services they use to conduct their business, Then put it on the finished product or service,  That company may then go to make a loss, If so they do not pay tax and can carry that loss through to the following years, yes, thankyou for stating the obvious. But we were talking about individuals not companies.

It would appear that somene needs to lol


Hard n Fast

John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 9:51am:

BigP wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 9:44am: a company claims back all the GST on materials and services they use to conduct their business, Then put it on the finished product or service,  That company may then go to make a loss, If so they do not pay tax and can carry that loss through to the following years, yes, thankyou for stating the obvious. But we were talking about individuals not companies.

When that individual owns the company you cant separate the two,, They could pay themselves a big salary and run the business at a loss or give themselves no income and claim a benefit  lol 


Hard n Fast

BigP wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 9:57am:

When that individual owns the company you cant separate the two,

of course you can. Companies are under the law considered to be a separate legal entity to their owners.


BigP wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 9:57am:

They could pay themselves a big salary and run the business at a loss or give themselves no income and claim a benefit  lol

the could. But not if they wanted to attract other investors. ::)

Setanta wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2019 at 10:00pm:

lee wrote on Mar 2nd, 2019 at 9:55pm: Setanta wrote on Mar 2nd, 2019 at 9:49pm: If all tax was paid at the top it would simplify things, don't you think? For whom? Setanta wrote on Mar 2nd, 2019 at 9:49pm: Double taxation. They paid tax and now they are taxed on their piss up. Oh GST and income tax. I am on a part pension. So according to you I should not pay GST on my consumption. And I should not pay income tax on my income. For everyone. One point of collection is far more efficient than billions. Yep, the point of making the money should be taxed. Once.

If we take that to its logical conclusion workers should get a massive pay cut as they will no longer have to pay tax.

Further, as they no longer pay tax, they are no longer "invested" in the outcomes. As  they are no longer "invested" in the outcomes, they should exert no control. As they no longer exert no control they should be disenfranchised.

We wouldn't want to make it too complex for them.

John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 8:30am:

If you think making dumb comments about Bill will help you then you couldn't be more wrong.

Sorry petal. But it has been long established that the tax is paid on behalf of shareholders. Even back to the days of Keating. He implemented it. You are now saying that since Keating everyone, bar you, has got it wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 8:30am:

Once again, Company tax is paid by the company on the companys profits.It's NOT paid by the company for the shareholders.

The company profit is the profit that is due the shareholders (owners), separately and severally. The tax paid on it is for the benefit of the shareholders (owners), separately and severally.

John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 8:34am:

You think that because they're paying GST on that portion they shouldn't pay income taxes on their profits?

Jumping to conclusions again? ;)

I wish - that as an ordinary wage earner -

that I could rort my tax return so that
I can pay no tax like the millionaires.

I want to join their club.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 11:27am:

I wish - that as an ordinary wage earner - that I could rort my tax return so that I can pay no tax like the millionaires. I want to join their club.

Mr Bob, The richest people through their graft and the organisations they own, pay the biggest portion of tax, If you dont make enough money, start a company or get a better job



Hard n Fast

BigP wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 11:32am:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 11:27am: I wish - that as an ordinary wage earner - that I could rort my tax return so that I can pay no tax like the millionaires. I want to join their club. Mr Bob, The richest people through their graft and the organisations they own, pay the biggest portion of tax, If you dont make enough money, start a company or get a better job Hard n Fast

I would start my own business if I could.
It's not that easy.
I did once before - a long time ago -
and although I didn't lose money -
I have made more money just working in a job.

lee wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 11:22am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 8:30am: If you think making dumb comments about Bill will help you then you couldn't be more wrong. Sorry petal. But it has been long established that the tax is paid on behalf of shareholders. Even back to the days of Keating. He implemented it. You are now saying that since Keating everyone, bar you, has got it wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D John Smith wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 8:30am: Once again, Company tax is paid by the company on the companys profits.It's NOT paid by the company for the shareholders. The company profit is the profit that is due the shareholders (owners), separately and severally. The tax paid on it is for the benefit of the shareholders (owners), separately and severally.

Let's get this perfectly clear right now - you are discussing franked dividend tax paid on behalf of shareholders - NOT company tax.

Company tax is owed by the company as a separate legal entity, and don't bother arguing that.  Company tax is NOT tax paid on behalf of shareholders - it is tax paid by the company on its profits (allegedly) - don't bother arguing that.

As for DI tax paid on behalf of shareholders - it is supposed to be part of their gross income for taxation of their personal income tax, same as PAYE.  Since there appears to be so much confusion and outright rorting of this privilege going on, the best way is to abolish it and get everyone to pay their own taxes.  Not only that, but the way some people structure their income so they pay no tax must be the focus of legislation changes to ensure that people who earn income for personal use (not re-investment - you cannot persuade me those people live on nothing)* pay taxes on it, and not just the workers of the world.

Furthermore - since most companies do NOT ever pay the highly concessional on net income 30% tax - a minimum tax is very much on the cards, a la Trump.

* no person or company can run aroundin a flash car and live in a mansion and enjoy holiday galore etc without having income and thus having an obligation to pay tax.  that clearly points to a need for total oversight of some people's taxes.  It's not hard given that most people work for a living and are PAYE - and end up being the ones who pay most of the tax.  You may trot out the old worn-out argument that the rich pay more tax - I refer you to the reality that AWE is around $80,000 and gross company earnings around $977Bn ... the fat can afford to pay taxes yet still don't.

Start paying yer taxes, ya loafers!  Big Bad Bill will ensure that some of you do.... but that hardly makes his entire policy platform palatable, but at least it's better than the LNP.

Poor Fellow - My Country.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 11:36am:

Let's get this perfectly clear right now - you are discussing franked dividend tax paid on behalf of shareholders - NOT company tax.

From whence do the franked dividend taxes come?


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 11:36am:

Company tax is NOT tax paid on behalf of shareholders - it is tax paid by the company on its profits (allegedly) - don't bother arguing that.

Why not? That is precisely what Keating argued.


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 11:36am:

As for DI tax paid on behalf of shareholders - it is supposed to be part of their gross income for taxation of their personal income tax, same as PAYE.

And it is precisely that. They have to input their dividends into the personal tax return.


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 11:36am:

Since there appears to be so much confusion and outright rorting of this privilege going on, the best way is to abolish it and get everyone to pay their own taxes.

That would mean the companies would no longer have to pay tax.


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 11:36am:

Not only that, but the way some people structure their income so they pay no tax must be the focus of legislation changes to ensure that people who earn income for personal use (not re-investment - you cannot persuade me those people live on nothing)* pay taxes on it, and not just the workers of the world.

Why do you think the Australian Tax Legislation now runs to more than 1,000 pages? The more complex the law, the greater chance of circumventing that law.


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 11:36am:

Furthermore - since most companies do NOT ever pay the highly concessional on net income 30% tax - a minimum tax is very much on the cards, a la Trump.

So what is this tax on profits not being paid? Examples would be good. Capital allowances, depreciation what?


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 11:36am:

You may trot out the old worn-out argument that the rich pay more tax - I refer you to the reality that AWE is around $80,000 and gross company earnings around $977Bn ... the fat can afford to pay taxes yet still don't.

So companies should pay taxes on earnings not profit? ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 11:22am:

Sorry petal. But it has been long established that the tax is paid on behalf of shareholders. Even back to the days of Keating. He implemented it. You are now saying that since Keating everyone, bar you, has got it wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yes, if they're claiming company tax is paid on behalf of shareholder shten they are wrong. I think you'll find that the only ones to make that claim were shareholders themselves.


lee wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 11:22am:

The company profit is the profit that is due the shareholders (owners), separately and severally.

what is due to shareholders, and even then not always, is a dividend payout that is paid OUT of company profits. The profits do not, nor have they ever, belonged to the shareholder, they belong to the company.


lee wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 11:26am:

Jumping to conclusions again?

i wasn't the one who presented GST as an alternative to income tax  ::) ::)

John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 12:42pm:

Yes, if they're claiming company tax is paid on behalf of shareholder shten they are wrong. I think you'll find that the only ones to make that claim were shareholders themselves.

Even though Keating said it was to stop "double taxation"? ;)


John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 12:42pm:

what is due to shareholders, and even then not always, is a dividend payout that is paid OUT of company profits. The profits do not, nor have they ever, belonged to the shareholder, they belong to the company.

No petal. It is paid out of the companies after tax profit, te tax having been paid on behalf ot the owners. Rather like a Sole Trader, he pays tax on his business profits, as he goes, they are then his profits. And the profits and tax paid go onto his indivuidual tax return. He then has to acquit other income earnesd outside the business structure.


John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 12:42pm:

i wasn't the one who presented GST as an alternative to income tax

But you still jumeped to the conclusion. ;)

lee wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 12:47pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 12:42pm: Yes, if they're claiming company tax is paid on behalf of shareholder shten they are wrong. I think you'll find that the only ones to make that claim were shareholders themselves. Even though Keating said it was to stop "double taxation"? ;) John Smith wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 12:42pm: what is due to shareholders, and even then not always, is a dividend payout that is paid OUT of company profits. The profits do not, nor have they ever, belonged to the shareholder, they belong to the company. No petal. It is paid out of the companies after tax profit, te tax having been paid on behalf ot the owners. Rather like a Sole Trader, he pays tax on his business profits, as he goes, they are then his profits. And the profits and tax paid go onto his indivuidual tax return. He then has to acquit other income earnesd outside the business structure. John Smith wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 12:42pm: i wasn't the one who presented GST as an alternative to income tax  But you still jumeped to the conclusion. ;)

"Dividend imputation was introduced by the Hawke-Keating Labor government in 1987, to prevent so-called double taxation of company profits. ... Without franking credits, companies would be taxed on their profits, and individual shareholders would then be taxed on those same profits."

A false reading of company and shareholder individual tax obligations - for the obvious reasons of self-interest.

Companies are obliged to be taxed on their net profits (let's make that clear right now - not their 'gross profits") - shareholders are taxed on THEIR profits.... two different things entirely.  Again - company tax and personal income tax are not one and the same, and this whole idea should never have seen the light of day.  IF, as you seek to say, these are one and the same - why then is it mandatory to include shareholder franking in shareholder gross income?

No wonder the nation is going broke and splitting up along economic lines - and headed for revolution.

Easy - abolish dividend imputation... company pays its company tax as required by Law - shareholder pays his/her personal income tax as required by Law.

Let's get this back on the straight and level... there was NO double taxation - and the only reason the LNP didn't scream 'economic illiterates' was because they benefited from this silliness as well.  Hawke/Keating WERE, over this, and remain, over this - economic illiterates and legal illiterates.

Pay your taxes, you loafers.... how dare you expect and demand a free ride?  Dole bludgers....

lee wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 12:47pm:

Even though Keating said it was to stop "double taxation"? Wink

yes.


lee wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 12:47pm:

No petal. It is paid out of the companies after tax profit, te tax having been paid on behalf ot the owners

it's paid out of after tax profits for a reason. If the profits were the shareholders why bother? Let the individuals pay their own taxes. They all have to do their tax return anyway. it would save the company thousands in accounting fee's and increase the 'owners' profits. :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 12:56pm:

Topic Summary - Displaying 15 post(s). Click here to show all Posted by: John Smith        Posted on: Today at 10:56am lee wrote Today at 10:47am: Even though Keating said it was to stop "double taxation"? Wink yes.

So you don't believe keating and all those Labor Treasurerers since. ;D ;D ;D ;D


John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 12:56pm:

Let the individuals pay their own taxes.

They are petal. hey just get it at an earlier point in time than relying on end of year tax recepts


John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 12:56pm:

it would save the company thousands in accounting fee's and increase the 'owners' profits.

No petal. One set of acounts is cheaper than multiple sets of account.

lee wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 1:02pm:

So you don't believe keating and all those Labor Treasurerers since. Grin Grin Grin Grin

are you that stupid that you need to ask the same thing over and over again?


lee wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 1:02pm:

They are petal. hey just get it at an earlier point in time than relying on end of year tax recepts

not according to you they don't. Apparently the company pays if for them ... you can't have it both ways :D :D :D


lee wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 1:02pm:

No petal. One set of acounts is cheaper than multiple sets of account.

the 'multiple sets' have to go and do their individual tax returns anyway. We're talking about tax returns here, not P&L reports or balance sheets.

John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 12:56pm:

lee wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 12:47pm: Even though Keating said it was to stop "double taxation"? Wink yes. lee wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 12:47pm: No petal. It is paid out of the companies after tax profit, te tax having been paid on behalf ot the owners it's paid out of after tax profits for a reason. If the profits were the shareholders why bother? Let the individuals pay their own taxes. They all have to do their tax return anyway. it would save the company thousands in accounting fee's and increase the 'owners' profits. :D :D :D

Coooorrect - Keating hoodwinked an unknowing public for his own benefit... we all know no honourable politician would do such a thing ...

Abolish franked dividends entirely and streamline the whole process - the reason many don't want that is that they might have to actually pay tax... what a shame.

No wonder the country's going broke fast - diminishing workforce with wages under constant attack and hours of work being chopped left and right - and vultures not paying their way.

We need a total overhaul of Parliament and a new regime... and totally new and fair rules that cover all and not just prefer some for no reason.

Pay your taxes, you loafing dole bludgers!

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 1:28pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 12:56pm: lee wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 12:47pm: Even though Keating said it was to stop "double taxation"? Wink yes. lee wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 12:47pm: No petal. It is paid out of the companies after tax profit, te tax having been paid on behalf ot the owners it's paid out of after tax profits for a reason. If the profits were the shareholders why bother? Let the individuals pay their own taxes. They all have to do their tax return anyway. it would save the company thousands in accounting fee's and increase the 'owners' profits. :D :D :D Coooorrect - Keating hoodwinked an unknowing public for his own benefit... we all know no honourable politician would do such a thing ... Abolish franked dividends entirely and streamline the whole process - the reason many don't want that is that they might have to actually pay tax... what a shame. No wonder the country's going broke fast - diminishing workforce with wages under constant attack and hours of work being chopped left and right - and vultures not paying their way. We need a total overhaul of Parliament and a new regime... and totally new and fair rules that cover all and not just prefer some for no reason. Pay your taxes, you loafing dole bludgers!

""No wonder the country's going broke fast - diminishing workforce with wages under constant attack and hours of work being chopped left and right - and vultures not paying their way.""



Mr Monkey ,The country is going broke because successive governments have turned the place into a welfare state on the back of mineral wealth, when it runs out we are farked



Hard n Fast

BigP wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 1:38pm:

The country is going broke because successive governments have turned the place into a welfare state

I suspect that we pay far more in wealthfare than we do welfare.

John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 1:41pm:

BigP wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 1:38pm: The country is going broke because successive governments have turned the place into a welfare state I suspect that we pay far more in wealthfare than we do welfare.

Mr Smith this is where you show your ignorance, Not taxing the rich is not wealthfare, It amounts to stealing less of their money than you think the system should, Australia has one of the most comprehensive welfare systems in the world,


Hard n Fast

BigP wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 1:56pm:

Not taxing the rich is not wealthfare,

who said anything about 'not taxing the rich'?  ::) ::) ::)

John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 1:57pm:

BigP wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 1:56pm: Not taxing the rich is not wealthfare, who said anything about 'not taxing the rich'?  ::) ::) ::)

And what part of the welfare teat are you suckling on Mr Smith




Hard n Fast

BigP wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 2:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 1:57pm: BigP wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 1:56pm: Not taxing the rich is not wealthfare, who said anything about 'not taxing the rich'?  ::) ::) ::) And what part of the welfare teat are you suckling on Mr Smith Hard n Fast

none........... I do get some wealthfare though.  :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 1:14pm:

are you that stupid that you need to ask the same thing over and over again?

No petal but you are for sayiing the same thing again and again.


John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 1:14pm:

not according to you they don't.

Poor John

That was in reply to -  "Let the individuals pay their own taxes." Which is of course what they do - along with the difference between the 30% rate and their marginal rate. The dividends are taxed in the hands of the company and passed along.


John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 1:14pm:

the 'multiple sets' have to go and do their individual tax returns anyway.

No petal they get a dividend statement they don't need to do another accounting of company profits individually.

lee wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 2:03pm:

No petal but you are for sayiing the same thing again and again.

the evidence suggests otherwise.

How many times did you ask about Keating now? Go on, ask again, I'm sure that'll do your credibility wonders  ;D ;D ;D



lee wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 2:03pm:

That was in reply to -  "Let the individuals pay their own taxes." Which is of course what they do - along with the difference between the 30% rate and their marginal rate. The dividends are taxed in the hands of the company and passed along.

what you mean to say is that the company is taxed and the after tax profit is then passed on in the form of dividends :D


lee wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 2:03pm:

No petal they get a dividend statement they don't need to do another accounting of company profits individually.

No one suggested they do the company accounting individually. What part did you fail to understand when I said 'We're talking about tax returns here, not P&L reports or balance sheets'. 

John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 2:13pm:

lee wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 2:03pm: No petal but you are for sayiing the same thing again and again. the evidence suggests otherwise. How many times did you ask about Keating now? Go on, ask again, I'm sure that'll do your credibility wonders  ;D ;D ;D lee wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 2:03pm: That was in reply to -  "Let the individuals pay their own taxes." Which is of course what they do - along with the difference between the 30% rate and their marginal rate. The dividends are taxed in the hands of the company and passed along. what you mean to say is that the company is taxed and the after tax profit is then passed on in the form of dividends :D lee wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 2:03pm: No petal they get a dividend statement they don't need to do another accounting of company profits individually. No one suggested they do the company accounting individually. What part did you fail to understand when I said 'We're talking about tax returns here, not P&L reports or balance sheets'.

I think he may have got it this time lol


Hard n Fast

BigP wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 2:15pm:

I think he may have got it this time lol

i got it the first time. That comment from me is a copy /paste of my earlier comment.  It's you lot who seem to be struggling.  ::) ::)

John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 2:20pm:

BigP wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 2:15pm: I think he may have got it this time lol i got it the first time. That comment from me is a copy /paste of my earlier comment.  It's you lot who seem to be struggling.  ::) ::)

Im just struggling to keep a straight face mate lol

BigP wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 2:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 2:20pm: BigP wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 2:15pm: I think he may have got it this time lol i got it the first time. That comment from me is a copy /paste of my earlier comment.  It's you lot who seem to be struggling.  ::) ::) Im just struggling to keep a straight face mate lol

I'm sure you are. But there is no need for you to be embarrassed. You'll learn eventually

John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 2:24pm:

BigP wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 2:23pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 2:20pm: BigP wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 2:15pm: I think he may have got it this time lol i got it the first time. That comment from me is a copy /paste of my earlier comment.  It's you lot who seem to be struggling.  ::) ::) Im just struggling to keep a straight face mate lol I'm sure you are. But there is no need for you to be embarrassed. You'll learn eventually

Embarrassment is not a condition that torments  me

Hard n Fast

BigP wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 2:28pm:

Embarrassment is not a condition that torments  me

so you've become accustomed to it then. Good for you! ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 2:13pm:

Go on, ask again, I'm sure that'll do your credibility wonders

Por Petal. Still trying to convince himself that Keating's interpretation was wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D


John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 2:13pm:

what you mean to say is that the company is taxed and the after tax profit is then passed on in the form of dividends

ooh a point of difference with no difference. ;D ;D ;D ;D


John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 2:13pm:

What part did you fail to understand when I said 'We're talking about tax returns here, not P&L reports or balance sheets'.

So the company doesn't make a profit, the owners do. The owners should do their own returns. That way the company doesn't pay tax and it is taxed in the hands of the owners. The owners don't get the benefit of imputation credits. But the company should do the P&L's etc. Right got it.

lee wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 2:37pm:

Por Petal. Still trying to convince himself that Keating's interpretation was wrong

no need to convince myself of anything. I don't agree with Keating's interpretation. You're the one who thinks latching onto Keating might help you.


lee wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 2:37pm:

ooh a point of difference with no difference

there is a big difference. The company is taxed. Not the shareholder.



lee wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 2:37pm:

So the company doesn't make a profit, the owners do. The owners should do their own returns. That way the company doesn't pay tax and it is taxed in the hands of the owners. The owners don't get the benefit of imputation credits. But the company should do the P&L's etc. Right got it.

funny how you ignore the condition I had attached to that statement. The fact that you chose to ignore that condition (which was your claim) to make your point shows your claim had no credibility to start with.  :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 2:29pm:

BigP wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 2:28pm: Embarrassment is not a condition that torments  me so you've become accustomed to it then. Good for you! ;D ;D

LOL Only when the girls laugh at the size of my dick

John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 2:53pm:

I don't agree with Keating's interpretation.

That probably makes you a minority of one, maybe two if you include Grappler. ;D ;D ;D ;D


John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 2:53pm:

The company is taxed. Not the shareholder.

The company is the shareholders petal. No shareholders - no company.


John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 2:53pm:

funny how you ignore the condition I had attached to that statement.

OOh conditions. ;D ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 2:29pm:

BigP wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 2:28pm: Embarrassment is not a condition that torments  me so you've become accustomed to it then. Good for you! ;D ;D

But all this aside it doesnt change the fact that you are a deluded fool..Mr Smith



Hard n Fast

lee wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 3:04pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 2:53pm: I don't agree with Keating's interpretation. That probably makes you a minority of one, maybe two if you include Grappler. ;D ;D ;D ;D John Smith wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 2:53pm: The company is taxed. Not the shareholder. The company is the shareholders petal. No shareholders - no company. John Smith wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 2:53pm: funny how you ignore the condition I had attached to that statement. OOh conditions. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Why then does the company pay its taxes out of net income, then pay dividends, and then why do shareholders have the absolute obligation to add to their gross income any franked dividend pre-paid tax?

Company law needs to be totally overhauled to prevent double dipping - not double taxation.... and all that means is the tax rules need to be straightened out once and for all..

You earn - you pay... company is a separate operating entity.

Pay your taxes you shiftless dole bludgers...

"No shareholders - no company."

Bullshit - countless companies exist without shareholders - you can buy a shelf company 'off the shelf' and no need for shareholders ... shareholders are investors, nothing more.  Keating was a liar and still is, just another thief in Armani...

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 5:52pm:

Why then does the company pay its taxes out of net income, then pay dividends, and then why do shareholders have the absolute obligation to add to their gross income any franked dividend pre-paid tax?

Perhaps you have a better way of doing it?


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 5:52pm:

You earn - you pay... company is a separate operating entity.

It is a separate operating entity from what?


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 5:52pm:

Bullshit - countless companies exist without shareholders - you can buy a shelf company 'off the shelf' and no need for shareholders

Wrong. How would they pay out profits?

"A private company, also known as a proprietary company, is limited in size by its constitution. It must have:

at least one shareholder;
a maximum of 50 non-employee shareholders;
at least one director; and
is not required to have a company secretary."

https://legalvision.com.au/difference-between-public-and-private-company/

So many claims made. So many claims shot down.

lee wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 6:05pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 5:52pm: Why then does the company pay its taxes out of net income, then pay dividends, and then why do shareholders have the absolute obligation to add to their gross income any franked dividend pre-paid tax? Perhaps you have a better way of doing it? Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 5:52pm: You earn - you pay... company is a separate operating entity. It is a separate operating entity from what? Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 5:52pm: Bullshit - countless companies exist without shareholders - you can buy a shelf company 'off the shelf' and no need for shareholders Wrong. How would they pay out profits? "A private company, also known as a proprietary company, is limited in size by its constitution. It must have: at least one shareholder; a maximum of 50 non-employee shareholders; at least one director; and is not required to have a company secretary." https://legalvision.com.au/difference-between-public-and-private-company/ So many claims made. So many claims shot down.

Already laid out for you times many - pay your taxes, you shiftless dole bludgers.  Companies owe and should be made to pay - shareholders owe and should be made to pay - no free rides.  You twist and turn trying to avoid those simple realities - accept them and get your tax claims right before they eat you alive...

So if companies don't pay dividends out of profits - why are they operating? Do you imagine they just keep getting people to buy shares and then pay dividends out of share receipts?   Operating revenue is about as valid as consolidated revenue in government - it is meaningless and a company cannot continue to pay dividends indefinitely without profit which comes from operating.  When the rules are properly fixed confusion will all disappear.

For the last time sonny - a company is a totally separate legal entity from any individual - companies pay company taxes, individuals pay personal income and other taxes.  You just keep going round and round and pretending not to hear - and you are still wrong, Dr Goebbels.

Pay your taxes, you loafer...

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 6:12pm:

Companies owe and should be made to pay - shareholders owe and should be made to pay - no free rides.

They do  - no free rides.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 6:12pm:

For the last time sonny - a company is a totally separate legal entity from any individual - companies pay company taxes, individuals pay personal income and other taxes.

Yes petal. And Shareholders own the company. I know you find that concept difficult to grasp. Dividends are paid to shareholders, then in their capacity as individuals, separately from their being shareholders, they pay tax. ;)


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 6:12pm:

You just keep going round and round and pretending not to hear - and you are still wrong, Dr Goebbels.

You are he one insisted companies did not have to have shareholders. ;)

lee wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2019 at 6:19pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 6:12pm: Companies owe and should be made to pay - shareholders owe and should be made to pay - no free rides.  They do  - no free rides. Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 6:12pm: For the last time sonny - a company is a totally separate legal entity from any individual - companies pay company taxes, individuals pay personal income and other taxes.  Yes petal. And Shareholders own the company. I know you find that concept difficult to grasp. Dividends are paid to shareholders, then in their capacity as individuals, separately from their being shareholders, they pay tax. ;) Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 3rd, 2019 at 6:12pm: You just keep going round and round and pretending not to hear - and you are still wrong, Dr Goebbels. You are he one insisted companies did not have to have shareholders. ;)

Glory be - you finally got it.  ::)  ::)   Well, nearly .... now you imagine that a shareholder and the individual are two different things... and they still don't pay the company tax - the individual called the company does.

Got it?  No double taxation at all.

Government sponsored tax evasion.

Pedro Curevo wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 7:33am:

Government sponsored tax evasion.

Mr Greaser, its about paying your fare share , Dumb laws are made to be ignored


Hard n Fast

BigP wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 8:27am:

Pedro Curevo wrote on Mar 4th, 2019 at 7:33am: Government sponsored tax evasion. Mr Greaser, its about paying your fare share , Dumb laws are made to be ignored Hard n Fast

Tell it to the judge.....

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 8:56am:

BigP wrote on Mar 4th, 2019 at 8:27am: Pedro Curevo wrote on Mar 4th, 2019 at 7:33am: Government sponsored tax evasion. Mr Greaser, its about paying your fare share , Dumb laws are made to be ignored Hard n Fast Tell it to the judge.....

Theres a fine line between avoidance and evasion, most judges dont has the skill sets to know the difference,,



Hard n Fast

BigP wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 9:14am:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 4th, 2019 at 8:56am: BigP wrote on Mar 4th, 2019 at 8:27am: Pedro Curevo wrote on Mar 4th, 2019 at 7:33am: Government sponsored tax evasion. Mr Greaser, its about paying your fare share , Dumb laws are made to be ignored Hard n Fast Tell it to the judge..... Theres a fine line between avoidance and evasion, most judges dont has the skill sets to know the difference,, Hard n Fast

Too true - like any case that relies on forensics in-depth and quantity, the ordinary person simply does not have the expertise to follow most of the argument, and arguments can be twisted and turned like a Kansas tornado... leaving juries and judges totally confused and ready to throw in the towel.

The answer could be a 'commission' of people who know this stuff backwards - but therein always lies the danger of stacking the bench, as usual.

Look at the endless round and round that goes on here to arrive at one point... 'companies pay company tax, individual shareholders pay personal income tax - not the same at all in any way' - it took days to arrive at that simple point.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 4:35am:

now you imagine that a shareholder and the individual are two different things..

But they are no. They merely have different roles and responsibilities. ::)


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 4:35am:

and they still don't pay the company tax - the individual called the company does.

There is no individual called "the company". The company pays tax on behalf of the owners, the shareholders, on the profits. The distribution is of all or part of the tax paid profits to the owner, the shareholders.


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 4:35am:

Got it?  No double taxation at all.

Thta's only as it currently stands. The change you propose would endender double taxation.

You really do have comrehension issues.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 9:32am:

'companies pay company tax, individual shareholders pay personal income tax - not the same at all in any way' - it took days to arrive at that simple point.

But they get their tax paid dividends included in their income, as they should. They get a credit for the tax paid.

lee wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 11:37am:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 4th, 2019 at 9:32am: 'companies pay company tax, individual shareholders pay personal income tax - not the same at all in any way' - it took days to arrive at that simple point. But they get their tax paid dividends included in their income, as they should. They get a credit for the tax paid.

Credit is only in the sense that it is the same as withheld PAYE tax - and it is added to gross income for calculation...

In the same sense, when a PAYE worker claims deductions (and receives them), they have a 'credit' of PAYE tax withheld and may get some back.  Same with shareholders - they may get some or all back depending on their real income.... which IS the problem - too many have an apparent under-tax real income while enjoying many thousands ... just cannot be done in Realityland, and is distinctly unfair to PAYE workers who get very little in the way of deductions.

Again - it's not as if the fat cats are doing a good job with their windfalls.... look at the economy....

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 12:37pm:

In the same sense, when a PAYE worker claims deductions (and receives them), they have a 'credit' of PAYE tax withheld and may get some back.

If they have a credit they get it all of the excess back unless they owe the money elsewhere. Prior year taxes, Child Support.


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 12:37pm:

Same with shareholders - they may get some or all back depending on their real income..

As declared. They should get all the excess back same as PAYE and subject to the same conditions.


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 12:37pm:

which IS the problem - too many have an apparent under-tax real income while enjoying many thousands .

First you have to establish which ones are doing that. No need for a sledgehammer approach to those doing the right thing. 

But you are getting further away from your posted position.

"Of course it does - they feel an absolute entitlement to pay no taxes since they are investing and thus creating jobs and such... not  only that, but since they 'own' the company by investing, they feel that the company already paying company taxes (if it ever does) means they should not pay income tax on their personal earnings because that's 'double taxation'."

"Abolish dividend franking entirely for a start."

Tax evasion is a crime, tax minimisation is legal though its not progressive thinking.

Franking credits has become a tax rort.

lee wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 1:18pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 4th, 2019 at 12:37pm: In the same sense, when a PAYE worker claims deductions (and receives them), they have a 'credit' of PAYE tax withheld and may get some back.  If they have a credit they get it all of the excess back unless they owe the money elsewhere. Prior year taxes, Child Support. Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 4th, 2019 at 12:37pm: Same with shareholders - they may get some or all back depending on their real income.. As declared. They should get all the excess back same as PAYE and subject to the same conditions. Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 4th, 2019 at 12:37pm: which IS the problem - too many have an apparent under-tax real income while enjoying many thousands . First you have to establish which ones are doing that. No need for a sledgehammer approach to those doing the right thing.  But you are getting further away from your posted position. "Of course it does - they feel an absolute entitlement to pay no taxes since they are investing and thus creating jobs and such... not  only that, but since they 'own' the company by investing, they feel that the company already paying company taxes (if it ever does) means they should not pay income tax on their personal earnings because that's 'double taxation'." "Abolish dividend franking entirely for a start."

No - they can get all or part depending on real income - the trouble is whether or not the income declared is real.  My position has been covered in endless comments on this subject, and I covered all that already.  One bit at a time in response to one question, please.  You cannot cherry pick one response and say that was the entirety of my stated position.

What you state is why I advocate expanding the ATO - so it can actually do its job.

Remember that approach they have - they have limited staff so they take a random selection of about one in ten - probably fewer than that these days.  When I worked for the Guv that random selection would remain in play for 1-3 years and then be changed for another... so it stands to reason that any individual business could never be included in the sample scrutinised.

Then on top of that the complexities of multiple income strands and accounting mean that many qualified people could make more money 'on the outside', and so there is a shortage of genuinely talented and trained staff to actually do the job.  The result is that many cases are just rubber-stamped after a shallow look and thus continue forever... too difficult ones are thrown in the too hard basket and just paid out, and the really big ones run the risk of long and drawn-out legal proceedings before a panel or a judge who does not know the ropes anyway, so it's a roll of the dice.

Hence Trump's minimum tax of 30% regardless... not sure how that went over there.  Probably thrown out of the house... also the need for a review of the rules to simplify the whole thing.

By contrast, the ATO has all records of every transaction of a PAYE worker - thus that worker can get nothing without it being for real.  Told yez all before - my last tax returns were auto-filled for me by the tax man - all I had to do was hit the button on the computer and it said  "XXX" for uniform maintenance... and so forth... bank interest and all...

So Jo and Joe Toiler on PAYE don't get away with anything.. only tradies and business do, and that is why that area needs to be cleaned up.

As for 'sledgehammers' - you need to read my posts on Your LifeChoices.... you'll see instantly that I stand up for pensioners and low income SFRs - REAL low income SFRs.... not the cheats.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 3:08pm:

No - they can get all or part depending on real income - the trouble is whether or not the income declared is real.

That's evasion, a completely different topic.




Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 3:08pm:

One bit at a time in response to one question, please.  You cannot cherry pick one response and say that was the entirety of my stated position.

You mean like companies don't have to have shareholders? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 3:08pm:

Remember that approach they have - they have limited staff so they take a random selection of about one in ten - probably fewer than that these days.

So you would expand to what figure? Don't forget the law of dimishing returns.


Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 3:08pm:

When I worked for the Guv that random selection would remain in play for 1-3 years and then be changed for another... so it stands to reason that any individual business could never be included in the sample scrutinised.

Wow. Bold statement. Of course completely fact free but bold.



Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 3:08pm:

Then on top of that the complexities of multiple income strands and accounting mean that many qualified people could make more money 'on the outside', and so there is a shortage of genuinely talented and trained staff to actually do the job.

Pay them more.

Private companies do not have shareholders, publicly listed on the stock exchange companies have share holders.

One only has to see what countries have a flat tax rate to see its fairly negative towards the poor, unless its fairly high rate at between 35 -40% as with Greenland.

Pedro Curevo wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 5:58pm:

Private companies do not have shareholders, publicly listed on the stock exchange companies have share holders.

Wrong.

""A private company, also known as a proprietary company, is limited in size by its constitution. It must have:

at least one shareholder;
a maximum of 50 non-employee shareholders;
at least one director; and
is not required to have a company secretary."

https://legalvision.com.au/difference-between-public-and-private-company/