John Smith wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 8:34pm:

Changed way back in the Keating days.

crocodile wrote on Feb 9^th, 2019 at 8:24pm:


Other options - move to aussie investments that don't do franking credits for those "retirees"
- companies change from franking to non-franking dividends
- companies restructuring their returns to shareholders

stunspore wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 9:20am:


Theoretically that should create no tax burden on the shareholder, since franked dividend tax is part of their gross income...

So why is there a problem here?  Some not paying tax?

Well - let's look at an example - Joe Rich has his nice $20m shares portfolio tucked in his 'superannuation fund' (and this after a lifetime of being able to earn enough to even have such a fund).  Every year his shares return him around $1m - now under any fair reckoning that is a pretty good 'super fund'... so Joe 're-invests' a significant portion of his $1M return in more shares, thus incurring a tax concession for 'business expenditure'...... all without paying any tax.... next year his income rises to $1.1M due to the extra shares..........

Does Joe then pay tax on the extra 10%?  NO!  Because it is in his 'super fund'.

So Joe's 'super fund' can continue to increase in dollar value year after year while he actually continues to trade, and never pay any tax on income earned.

Is that right?  That's an example of how rising income can be hidden.

miketrees wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 10:11am:



Abolish dividend imputation then and let all pay their own tax.... no difference if it is done correctly.  Since imputed dividend tax is part of gross income, WHY is there any difference at all?  Easier to abolish it, and that way the small fry will not lose a cent, but maybe the big fry will have to pay some tax.

I can see ways in which this is currently being rorted.... let's await the full policy with full details....

Let's say Joe Rich simply writes his income down to under taxable limit by re-investing immediately - I can see the flaw there already - tax should be paid first before re-investment.

The rules need to be tightened up on business overall.  It's not punishing anyone to make them pay tax due...... perhaps we should just allow the same deductions to all worker who, after all, are in the business of earning.... same thing.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 9:43am:



If anyone has $20 mill in shares then why are they even working?
They should be retired and have retirement homes all around the world.

miketrees wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 10:11am:


Yes lots of simple minded leftists in this forum this thread has exposed their idiocy.

The lunacy from Labor will increase taxes for those who own shares who use the dividends for income and become unemployed who might not be able to claim the dole because they have a few thousand dollars in the bank. If they don't make the threshold for paying income tax they cannot claim a refund for the 30% tax they have paid on income from franked shares.


This idiotic policy from Labor means the franked dividends will be taxed at 30% regardless of their income and the unfranked shares will be tax free if they don't make income thresholds for tax.


When i put in a tax return i don't get a return i get a tax bill because of investment income. If companies don't give franked dividends then the tax dept has to wait until the end of the financial year for my payment.
The CBA usually pays my franked dividends around March and September every year, the tax dept will have to wait until i lodge tax returns if they change it to unfranked.


All this deflection with super which is really a separate topic, it's the employed on low incomes and unemployed who own shares that give franked dividends who will be slugged with greater taxes due to this idiocy from labor.

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 5:06pm:

Low taxable incomes. Don't confuse the two. That's what the Liberals are trying to do - mislead by conflating the two. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME!

This case study illustrates why the difference is important. $160,000 per year, paying no tax, and getting a tax subsidy of $12,000 a year.

lee wrote on Feb 10^th, 2019 at 9:02pm:

Bam has his fist wrapped hard around his ol' fella. There is no subsidy. Super for retirees over 60 has no tax applicable in pension phase. The non pension earnings are under the tax free threshold. The tax payer is fully entitled to have the overpaid tax refunded. It doesn't get any simpler.