Australian Politics Forum - In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #15 - Feb 5^th, 2019 at 10:04am

crocodile wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 8:44am:

Bam wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 7:48am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 7:34am:

According to Bowen, giving someone back the tax they didn't need to pay is a subsidy. What a fukkwit.

Name any other country that has this tax subsidy. You can't because there are none.

Shareholders in every other country do just fine without any access to refundable share tax credits. Why should Australia continue to be the only country that subsidises the wealthy in this way?

Horseshit. Many jurisdictions have separate taxing arrangements for distributions. Some even distribute them unfranked leaving the recipient to sort out their own obligations. Some nations have low corporate tax rates and allow no extra tax up to a ceiling. The UK is like this. Some, like the US even allow a deduction for foreign held shares. You're just waffling.

Name them. With links.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Bam Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21905 Gender:	Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy Reply #16 - Feb 5^th, 2019 at 10:05am aquascoot wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 8:32am: rich people dont buy trinkets, play pokies and buy smokes. Bullshit.
Back to top	You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument. IP Logged

aquascoot

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 37016
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #17 - Feb 5^th, 2019 at 10:18am

Bam wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 10:05am:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 8:32am:

rich people dont buy trinkets, play pokies and buy smokes.

Bullshit.

https://edge.alluremedia.com.au/uploads/businessinsider/2014/05/Hockey-cigar.png

since when is a politician a small businessman?

most small business people are pretty calm, pretty grateful and pretty passionate about looking after their staff. giving them tax breaks is how to create value

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30770
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #18 - Feb 5^th, 2019 at 10:24am

issuevoter wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 6:44am:

"If life was fair, Elvis would be alive, and all the impersonators would be dead." David Lee Roth?

But seriously, look at history. Labor, and by association, the Greens, have only one solution to any problem . . . more tax. This would seem justified to some, but the problem is that they will just piss it away like any other level of taxation. And then they will want more to pay for stunts like Universal Income, which is Green policy.

People who hoard property are not paying their fair share of tax. This notion that labor wants to create a new tax when they are not paying their fair share of tax is truly laughable.

Back to top

"All of the arab states have said we will have peace with Israel when there is a state of Palestine as a UN member state and properly constituted." - Jeffrey Sachs.

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #19 - Feb 5^th, 2019 at 11:49am

aquascoot wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 10:18am:

Bam wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 10:05am:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 8:32am:

rich people dont buy trinkets, play pokies and buy smokes.

Bullshit.

https://edge.alluremedia.com.au/uploads/businessinsider/2014/05/Hockey-cigar.png

since when is a politician a small businessman?

Since when are politicians not rich people?

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Its time

Gold Member

Offline

Boot libs out

Posts: 25639
Gender: female

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #20 - Feb 5^th, 2019 at 11:55am

Its time wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 8:45am:

Frankly, I find it perverse that we send cheques to people with big share portfolios that amount to more than we provide a pensioner with no assets and no other income source," he said.

Absolutely, it's good to see the monies redirected back to those who need it most

Back to top

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #21 - Feb 5^th, 2019 at 12:07pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 10:24am:

issuevoter wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 6:44am:

"If life was fair, Elvis would be alive, and all the impersonators would be dead." David Lee Roth?

But seriously, look at history. Labor, and by association, the Greens, have only one solution to any problem . . . more tax. This would seem justified to some, but the problem is that they will just piss it away like any other level of taxation. And then they will want more to pay for stunts like Universal Income, which is Green policy.

People who hoard property are not paying their fair share of tax. This notion that labor wants to create a new tax when they are not paying their fair share of tax is truly laughable.

Correct.

Abolishing a tax rebate is not the same thing as creating a new tax.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #22 - Feb 5^th, 2019 at 12:10pm

Bam wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 10:04am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 8:44am:

Bam wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 7:48am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 7:34am:

According to Bowen, giving someone back the tax they didn't need to pay is a subsidy. What a fukkwit.

Name any other country that has this tax subsidy. You can't because there are none.

Shareholders in every other country do just fine without any access to refundable share tax credits. Why should Australia continue to be the only country that subsidises the wealthy in this way?

Horseshit. Many jurisdictions have separate taxing arrangements for distributions. Some even distribute them unfranked leaving the recipient to sort out their own obligations. Some nations have low corporate tax rates and allow no extra tax up to a ceiling. The UK is like this. Some, like the US even allow a deduction for foreign held shares. You're just waffling.

Name them. With links.

Look it up yourself. I'm not your handmaiden. I assume you know how to use Google.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

Captain Nemo Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 13413 Melbourne Gender:	Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy Reply #23 - Feb 5^th, 2019 at 1:08pm
Back to top	The 2025 election WAS a shocker. IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #24 - Feb 5^th, 2019 at 2:30pm

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 1:08pm:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dydq6SxV4AAABUj.jpg

It's all just a money grab since Billy can't pay for his wastrel ways. The amusing bit is these affected people can earn rental money from a property, receive interest payments or even receive unfranked dividends. Somehow, shares that pay a franked divvy are different.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

Redmond Neck

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 22580
ACT
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #25 - Feb 5^th, 2019 at 3:38pm

crocodile wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 8:26am:

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 8:00am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 7:34am:

According to Bowen, giving someone back the tax they didn't need to pay is a subsidy. What a fukkwit.

Get the fact correct fwit they didnt pay the tax at all!

You infantile idiot. The company paid tax on the dividend before distribution. No different to a company paying tax on your wages before distribution. Another clueless wanker.

Like I said THEY didnt pay any tax moron!

Back to top

BAN ALL THESE ABO SITES RECOGNITIONS.

ALL AUSTRALIA IS FOR ALL AUSTRALIANS!

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #26 - Feb 5^th, 2019 at 3:49pm

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 3:38pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 8:26am:

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 8:00am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 7:34am:

According to Bowen, giving someone back the tax they didn't need to pay is a subsidy. What a fukkwit.

Get the fact correct fwit they didnt pay the tax at all!

You infantile idiot. The company paid tax on the dividend before distribution. No different to a company paying tax on your wages before distribution. Another clueless wanker.

Like I said THEY didnt pay any tax moron!

Fukk me dead, what a dipstick. The company that they own shares in already took the tax out for them before paying the dividend. With your logic, nobody who is an employee pays tax. The employer takes it out before payment. Idiot.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 89127
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #27 - Feb 5^th, 2019 at 3:55pm

As long as it is carefully balanced against real incomes, Labor's tax plan is not a bad thing..... but they need to be very careful about who they get into over the abolition of imputed dividends.... we all KNOW that some of the fattest cats have a taxable income that is laughable given their spending and lifestyle - but there are countless others nearthe bottom of income who are shareholders as well.....

Each case needs to be carefully reviewed fully - and frankly the ATO does not have the staff, so this is a furphy. I suppose the approach will be the old 'slam-dunk the lot' and then wait for those who are prepared to appeal. All that is still a costly exercise and my view is that the ATO would be far better served employing more and more capable people to handle these things.

Then Labor needs to look at other forms of welfare/wealthfare (social security is NOT welfare), such as ppl, childcare subsidy, private health subsidy, and maybe a few others I can't name at the moment (help me out here, genuine contributors to this site)...

THESE are a serious impost on the budget..... and in my view cannot be justified for a number of reasons, not least of which is that they are distinctly unfair to anyone who does not enjoy those benefits for whatever reason. Women with no children do not receive ppl or childcare, neither do gays without children etc.... single men never... and paying ppl is actually paying someone more per hour worked for the same job, and is thus against Labor's principles. Childcare subsidies impact on the employment market and are an underlying cause of real inflation and rises in costs of living v incomes, and thus are a contributor to upward pressure on wages/salaries, while placing those excluded on the unemployment junk pile in an increasingly difficult position, which is frankly untenable into the future.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 89127
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #28 - Feb 5^th, 2019 at 4:01pm

crocodile wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 3:49pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 3:38pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 8:26am:

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 8:00am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 7:34am:

According to Bowen, giving someone back the tax they didn't need to pay is a subsidy. What a fukkwit.

Get the fact correct fwit they didnt pay the tax at all!

You infantile idiot. The company paid tax on the dividend before distribution. No different to a company paying tax on your wages before distribution. Another clueless wanker.

Like I said THEY didnt pay any tax moron!

Fukk me dead, what a dipstick. The company that they own shares in already took the tax out for them before paying the dividend. With your logic, nobody who is an employee pays tax. The employer takes it out before payment. Idiot.

Now, now, boys.. just view it in the same group as PAYE tax withheld in the ATO on your behalf, and include it in your gross income as required. It's a lot easier that way.. but puh-lease - let us not say that the company has paid tax for us and any reckoning that does not include a refund in full is somehow double taxing.... any refund is determined on your taxable income, and an automatic refund of that 30% is nonsense.

If you doubt me, look up the ATO on this issue....

Let me add this - DI is a way for the ATO/government to safeguard 30% of dividend payment in the event the company does a Titanic... in the event it hits the iceberg at least 30% of dividend is secured, and if the company goes belly-up, you get the full 30% back. Better than nothing. Stupid to look at it in any other way.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

stunspore

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5097
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #29 - Feb 5^th, 2019 at 4:54pm

Hmm so companies pay a wage as part of expenses. Revenue subtract costs (such as wages) forms a profit - which is taxed to the government.

Next, this profit is then passed down to either business owners or shareholders. This forms their income.

To be honest this is where I am not quite clear. Company tax is paid, but then somehow, there is some sort of franking thing, of which shareholders can then claim something. But owners won't be able to in that company structure?

Back to top

IP Logged