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

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #225 - Feb 13^th, 2019 at 9:12am

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 9:44pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 9:18pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 9:11pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 9:02pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 8:42pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 8:36pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 8:19pm:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-12/franking-credits-dividend-imputation-reti...

Bravo....

So those who are still working and haven't retired who don't make more than $37K a year will be screwed by this labor policy.

Why is labor slugging these poor people with a new tax, why do leftards support these poor people being slugged with a new tax?

Yeah because someone on $37K a year would have a massive self managed super fund and miss out on millions of $$$ from their franking credits

So you think a 35 year old who is only working part time taking home less than $25K a year should not be entitled to a refund on paying more tax than they should if some of that income is derived from franked shares?

Why are you ignoring those on low incomes who have not retired and a long way from retiring who will be affected by this grubby tax grab from Labor?

Quote:

Dividend imputation

Here's how it would work at today's tax rates.

Jill owns 1,000 Telstra shares
Over the period of a year she gets dividends of $265
To provide them, Telstra made a profit of $379 on which it paid $114 tax
Jill pays tax on the full $379 but gets a credit of $114 that can be taken off any other tax she owes that year
As with other tax credits, it can be used to cut Jill's tax bill as far as zero, but not to turn it negative. It can't be handed to her in cash.

So in that case Jill is below the threshold for paying income tax yet she is not entitlled to a refund on the tax she has already paid because it came from franked shares which idiots like you support.

If she earned that income from any other source she would be entitled to a refund for tax paid with her income tax return.

Why do you support taxing Jill because she made a paltry sum from Telstra shares?

Most people with a modicum of common sense understand this. You're wasting your keyboard strokes on the Neanderthals around here though.

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:	Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy Reply #226 - Feb 13^th, 2019 at 9:18am They're only after the Fat Bastards
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 #227 - Feb 13^th, 2019 at 9:20am

crocodile wrote on Feb 13^th, 2019 at 9:12am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 9:44pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 9:18pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 9:11pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 9:02pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 8:42pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 8:36pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 8:19pm:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-12/franking-credits-dividend-imputation-reti...

Bravo....

So those who are still working and haven't retired who don't make more than $37K a year will be screwed by this labor policy.

Why is labor slugging these poor people with a new tax, why do leftards support these poor people being slugged with a new tax?

Yeah because someone on $37K a year would have a massive self managed super fund and miss out on millions of $$$ from their franking credits

So you think a 35 year old who is only working part time taking home less than $25K a year should not be entitled to a refund on paying more tax than they should if some of that income is derived from franked shares?

Why are you ignoring those on low incomes who have not retired and a long way from retiring who will be affected by this grubby tax grab from Labor?

Quote:

Dividend imputation

Here's how it would work at today's tax rates.

Jill owns 1,000 Telstra shares
Over the period of a year she gets dividends of $265
To provide them, Telstra made a profit of $379 on which it paid $114 tax
Jill pays tax on the full $379 but gets a credit of $114 that can be taken off any other tax she owes that year
As with other tax credits, it can be used to cut Jill's tax bill as far as zero, but not to turn it negative. It can't be handed to her in cash.

So in that case Jill is below the threshold for paying income tax yet she is not entitlled to a refund on the tax she has already paid because it came from franked shares which idiots like you support.

If she earned that income from any other source she would be entitled to a refund for tax paid with her income tax return.

Why do you support taxing Jill because she made a paltry sum from Telstra shares?

Most people with a modicum of common sense understand this. You're wasting your keyboard strokes on the Neanderthals around here though.

If Jill's tax is done correctly and she is below the taxable limit, she will receive a return .... her gross income includes the franked dividend tax.... no problem... can't explain simple things to alarmist Neanderthals here.

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 #228 - Feb 13^th, 2019 at 9:23am

Nobody has yet explained why and how it is that franked dividends even exist, since they comprise part of the shareholders gross income for tax consideration anyway. Far easier to simply abolish it entirely, companies pay full dividend without argument, and let each sort out their own tax.

It is not company tax being paid on behalf of a shareholder - it is the shareholder's tax being paid.
company taxes are entirely separate, so no 'double taxation' exists other than in the fevered minds of Howardophiles and the like.

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

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #229 - Feb 13^th, 2019 at 9:43am

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 13^th, 2019 at 9:20am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 13^th, 2019 at 9:12am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 9:44pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 9:18pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 9:11pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 9:02pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 8:42pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 8:36pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 8:19pm:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-12/franking-credits-dividend-imputation-reti...

Bravo....

So those who are still working and haven't retired who don't make more than $37K a year will be screwed by this labor policy.

Why is labor slugging these poor people with a new tax, why do leftards support these poor people being slugged with a new tax?

Yeah because someone on $37K a year would have a massive self managed super fund and miss out on millions of $$$ from their franking credits

So you think a 35 year old who is only working part time taking home less than $25K a year should not be entitled to a refund on paying more tax than they should if some of that income is derived from franked shares?

Why are you ignoring those on low incomes who have not retired and a long way from retiring who will be affected by this grubby tax grab from Labor?

Quote:

Dividend imputation

Here's how it would work at today's tax rates.

Jill owns 1,000 Telstra shares
Over the period of a year she gets dividends of $265
To provide them, Telstra made a profit of $379 on which it paid $114 tax
Jill pays tax on the full $379 but gets a credit of $114 that can be taken off any other tax she owes that year
As with other tax credits, it can be used to cut Jill's tax bill as far as zero, but not to turn it negative. It can't be handed to her in cash.

So in that case Jill is below the threshold for paying income tax yet she is not entitlled to a refund on the tax she has already paid because it came from franked shares which idiots like you support.

If she earned that income from any other source she would be entitled to a refund for tax paid with her income tax return.

Why do you support taxing Jill because she made a paltry sum from Telstra shares?

Most people with a modicum of common sense understand this. You're wasting your keyboard strokes on the Neanderthals around here though.

If Jill's tax is done correctly and she is below the taxable limit, she will receive a return .... her gross income includes the franked dividend tax.... no problem... can't explain simple things to alarmist Neanderthals here.

That's the whole conundrum. Under Bullshit Bill's proposal what you say is not true. Bill wants to hang on it.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #230 - Feb 13^th, 2019 at 9:48am

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 13^th, 2019 at 9:23am:

Nobody has yet explained why and how it is that franked dividends even exist, since they comprise part of the shareholders gross income for tax consideration anyway. Far easier to simply abolish it entirely, companies pay full dividend without argument, and let each sort out their own tax.

It is not company tax being paid on behalf of a shareholder - it is the shareholder's tax being paid.
company taxes are entirely separate, so no 'double taxation' exists other than in the fevered minds of Howardophiles and the like.

Since franking was introduced by Hawke the Howardophile connection is nonsense. I suspect that the franking comes about rather than gross payments is that company returns are due about 9 months before personal returns. Our fearless leaders just want to use your money a bit sooner. It would also mean foreigners escape taxation.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

Captain Nemo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 13413
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #231 - Feb 13^th, 2019 at 10:25am

What with falling house prices, negative gearing perhaps accelerating the loss in house values, the disruption to the
share market that the Franking Credits change could cause ...

There could be a very serious economic downturn because of all this.

Consumer sentiment is already down.

If people feel less secure financially, the roll-on effects across the economy can be dire.

I think that Labor will win the election, but it's going to be a really troubling time economically. Shocked

Back to top

The 2025 election WAS a shocker.

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 19663 Gender:	Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy Reply #232 - Feb 13^th, 2019 at 11:29am Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 13^th, 2019 at 9:18am: They're only after the Fat Bastards So now less than $37,000 is fat bastards? prepare for more tax increases if that is true.
Back to top	IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19663
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #233 - Feb 13^th, 2019 at 11:36am

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 13^th, 2019 at 9:23am:

company taxes are entirely separate, so no 'double taxation' exists other than in the fevered minds of Howardophiles and the like.

"In 1987 in what he hailed as a world first, Labor treasurer Paul Keating introduced a rebate for each each tax-paying dividend recipient.

Taken off their tax would be the company tax the company had paid on the part of the profit that had been handed to them as a dividend.

It “would greatly reduce the existing bias in the tax system which taxed interest income once, but dividend income twice”.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/franking-credits-dividend-imputation-and-retiree-tax...

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19663
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #234 - Feb 13^th, 2019 at 12:18pm

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 10:28pm:

You must have seen this claim "there is no record of how much each member had paid" somewhere and be able to support it.

Poor petal. What didn't you understand?

lee wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 9:05pm:

Because they promised me the ATO would keep the figures. They didn't.

I talked to the ATO and asked them about my DFRB contributions. They said they had no records before 1976.

You do understand personal approaches to the tax office? They don't "appear" in the records. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

stunspore Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5097 Gender:	Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy Reply #235 - Feb 13^th, 2019 at 3:35pm We can't afford an increasing wealthfare cost.
Back to top	IP Logged

Captain Nemo Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 13413 Melbourne Gender:	Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy Reply #236 - Feb 13^th, 2019 at 4:41pm stunspore wrote on Feb 13^th, 2019 at 3:35pm: We can't afford an increasing wealthfare cost. So ... what happens if a large number of the retirees affected go onto a part pension instead of remaining self-funded?
Back to top	The 2025 election WAS a shocker. IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21097
Perth
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #237 - Feb 13^th, 2019 at 5:13pm

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 9:44pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 9:18pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 9:11pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 9:02pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 8:42pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 8:36pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 12^th, 2019 at 8:19pm:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-12/franking-credits-dividend-imputation-reti...

Bravo....

So those who are still working and haven't retired who don't make more than $37K a year will be screwed by this labor policy.

Why is labor slugging these poor people with a new tax, why do leftards support these poor people being slugged with a new tax?

Yeah because someone on $37K a year would have a massive self managed super fund and miss out on millions of $$$ from their franking credits

So you think a 35 year old who is only working part time taking home less than $25K a year should not be entitled to a refund on paying more tax than they should if some of that income is derived from franked shares?

Why are you ignoring those on low incomes who have not retired and a long way from retiring who will be affected by this grubby tax grab from Labor?

Quote:

Dividend imputation

Here's how it would work at today's tax rates.

Jill owns 1,000 Telstra shares
Over the period of a year she gets dividends of $265
To provide them, Telstra made a profit of $379 on which it paid $114 tax
Jill pays tax on the full $379 but gets a credit of $114 that can be taken off any other tax she owes that year
As with other tax credits, it can be used to cut Jill's tax bill as far as zero, but not to turn it negative. It can't be handed to her in cash.

So in that case Jill is below the threshold for paying income tax yet she is not entitlled to a refund on the tax she has already paid because it came from franked shares which idiots like you support.

If she earned that income from any other source she would be entitled to a refund for tax paid with her income tax return.

Why do you support taxing Jill because she made a paltry sum from Telstra shares?

Were does it say that....Jill can use the credit to reduce her tax to zero which eliminates the double taxation....Jill would be refunded any tax she had paid if her liability was reduced to zero....Jill only pays tax on money she earns and cannot offset like everyone else!!!

Huh

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 78083 Gender:	Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy Reply #238 - Feb 13^th, 2019 at 5:18pm crocodile wrote on Feb 13^th, 2019 at 9:10am: So in that case Jill is below the threshold for paying income tax yet she is not entitlled to a refund on the tax she has already paid can i get a refund on GST I've paid if my taxable income falls below the threshold? Why are shareholders so shppecial?
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19663
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #239 - Feb 13^th, 2019 at 5:29pm

John Smith wrote on Feb 13^th, 2019 at 5:18pm:

can i get a refund on GST I've paid if my taxable income falls below the threshold?

No petal. Because GST is on your purchases completely unrelated to your income.

You could of course spend above your income and claim a GST credit, if in business, but somebody will come after you, if you can't pay the debt.

John Smith wrote on Feb 13^th, 2019 at 5:18pm:

Why are shareholders so shppecial?

They are not as St Paul of Keating said it was to prevent double taxation on dividends.

If a person falls below the tax free threshold that tax was still paid. So that in effect the taxpayer would be paying double taxation and at a higher than normal rate.

Back to top

IP Logged