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

Back to OzPolitic.com

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › Federal Politics › In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 18

Send Topic

Print

In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy (Read 17545 times)

Captain Nemo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 13413
Melbourne
Gender: male

male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #30 - Feb 5^th, 2019 at 5:18pm

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on 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.

You either go over the tax free threshold ($20,542) or you don't.

If you are under that threshold, you receive the tax return of the 30% tax that has been paid up front.

Hence: by definition, low income earners are the ones to be hurt the most by Shorty and Bowen.

Some will lose 30% of their annual income. On average, $5,000 per year gone.

That is a massive hit to their annual balance sheet.

The 2025 election WAS a shocker.

WWW

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #31 - Feb 5^th, 2019 at 6:48pm

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 4:01pm:

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.

That is absolute nonsense. The suggestion that imputed credits are set aside in case of liquidation is laughable. The ATO themselves define imputation accordingly:

https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Imputation/

It is quite clear that it is to mitigate double taxation.

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #32 - Feb 5^th, 2019 at 6:57pm

stunspore wrote on 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?

Not quite. This is where the abject stupidity of the mooted system is. If you have another source of income and over the tax free threshold you get a full credit. If you are poor you don't.

Even sillier is if I have income from say a rental property and still under the threshold there is no tax to pay. If I earn interest on savings, no tax to pay but heaven forbid, somehow a franked dividend is different. More hilarious still. If the company pays me the dividend unfranked, no tax to pay.

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

aquascoot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 37016
Gender: male

male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #33 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 6:04am

Bam wrote on 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?

eh gawd,

most of my tradie mates and associated small business owner mates wouldnt consider taking the pay cut required to go "work" in canberra.

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #34 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 7:48am

crocodile wrote on 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.

The burden of proof fallacy.

You made the claims. You prove it. I'm not going to do it for you because you're too lazy to prove your own claims.

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: male

male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #35 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 7:54am

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 5:18pm:

You either go over the tax free threshold ($20,542) or you don't.

If you are under that threshold, you receive the tax return of the 30% tax that has been paid up front.

Hence: by definition, low income earners are the ones to be hurt the most by Shorty and Bowen.

Some will lose 30% of their annual income. On average, $5,000 per year gone.

That is a massive hit to their annual balance sheet.

You have fallen for the big lie that a low "taxable income" implies a low gross income. This is not correct.

Taxable income is not the same thing as gross income.

Many of these people are wealthy retirees who pay little or no tax because they receive massive amounts of tax-free income. Take away the excessively generous tax breaks and they would be paying a fair bit of tax.

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

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 89127
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #36 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 8:27am

crocodile wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 6:48pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 4:01pm:

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.

That is absolute nonsense. The suggestion that imputed credits are set aside in case of liquidation is laughable. The ATO themselves define imputation accordingly:

https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Imputation/

It is quite clear that it is to mitigate double taxation.

That is absolute reality... I'm merely pointing out that it works that way with or without planning...

As I said - there is no divine right of shareholders to make a profit... rather the opposite .. you throw your money down and you take your chances. As for DI, your gross income should be the same with or without it, since it MUST be added to your gross income for calculation.. ergo - it makes NO difference if it exists or not, so why is it there at all?

Pay your own taxes and let the companies pay theirs - much simpler.

Don't worry about the returns - jut abolish dividend imputation. Simple.

“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

Captain Nemo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 13413
Melbourne
Gender: male

male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #37 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 8:39am

Bam wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 7:54am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 5:18pm:

You either go over the tax free threshold ($20,542) or you don't.

If you are under that threshold, you receive the tax return of the 30% tax that has been paid up front.

Hence: by definition, low income earners are the ones to be hurt the most by Shorty and Bowen.

Some will lose 30% of their annual income. On average, $5,000 per year gone.

That is a massive hit to their annual balance sheet.

You have fallen for the big lie that a low "taxable income" implies a low gross income. This is not correct.

Taxable income is not the same thing as gross income.

Many of these people are wealthy retirees who pay little or no tax because they receive massive amounts of tax-free income. Take away the excessively generous tax breaks and they would be paying a fair bit of tax.

It's true that some people work the system to rort it ... but the vast majority don't.

The majority to be hit are retired Mums and Dads who are not receiving a pension but are income poor nonetheless.

A $5,000 hit per year is a serious impact to many.

The 2025 election WAS a shocker.

WWW

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #38 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 9:26am

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 8:39am:

Bam wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 7:54am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 5:18pm:

You either go over the tax free threshold ($20,542) or you don't.

If you are under that threshold, you receive the tax return of the 30% tax that has been paid up front.

Hence: by definition, low income earners are the ones to be hurt the most by Shorty and Bowen.

Some will lose 30% of their annual income. On average, $5,000 per year gone.

That is a massive hit to their annual balance sheet.

You have fallen for the big lie that a low "taxable income" implies a low gross income. This is not correct.

Taxable income is not the same thing as gross income.

Many of these people are wealthy retirees who pay little or no tax because they receive massive amounts of tax-free income. Take away the excessively generous tax breaks and they would be paying a fair bit of tax.

It's true that some people work the system to rort it ... but the vast majority don't.

The majority to be hit are retired Mums and Dads who are not receiving a pension but are income poor nonetheless.

A $5,000 hit per year is a serious impact to many.

Link?

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: male

male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #39 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 9:30am

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 8:27am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 6:48pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 4:01pm:

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.

That is absolute nonsense. The suggestion that imputed credits are set aside in case of liquidation is laughable. The ATO themselves define imputation accordingly:

https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Imputation/

It is quite clear that it is to mitigate double taxation.

That is absolute reality... I'm merely pointing out that it works that way with or without planning...

As I said - there is no divine right of shareholders to make a profit... rather the opposite .. you throw your money down and you take your chances. As for DI, your gross income should be the same with or without it, since it MUST be added to your gross income for calculation.. ergo - it makes NO difference if it exists or not, so why is it there at all?

Pay your own taxes and let the companies pay theirs - much simpler.

Don't worry about the returns - jut abolish dividend imputation. Simple.

Abolishing dividend imputation should be considered as a way to fund company tax cuts. The company tax cuts passed in the last few years have been unfunded and it was irresponsible to do so while the Budget was in deficit. Abolishing dividend imputation can fund company tax cuts to 25% without difficulty.

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

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #40 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 9:38am

aquascoot wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 6:04am:

Bam wrote on 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?

eh gawd,

most of my tradie mates and associated small business owner mates wouldnt consider taking the pay cut required to go "work" in canberra.

COmpletely BS

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #41 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 9:48am

Bam wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 7:48am:

crocodile wrote on 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.

The burden of proof fallacy.

You made the claims. You prove it. I'm not going to do it for you because you're too lazy to prove your own claims.

Maybe if I had the time or inclination. Truth is that I don't give two fukks how other nations manage their affairs enough to spend countless hours analysing the details of 160 countries. In your feeble mind, why is there any difference between income derived from capital investment to income derived from time. Would you be happy if Joe Blow worked for Bam P/L and earns under the TFF while Bam deducts tax for Joe Blow. Joe Blow doesn't need to pay tax so he's entitled to a refund. Under your system, no refund.

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #42 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 9:49am

Bam wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 7:54am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 5:18pm:

You either go over the tax free threshold ($20,542) or you don't.

If you are under that threshold, you receive the tax return of the 30% tax that has been paid up front.

Hence: by definition, low income earners are the ones to be hurt the most by Shorty and Bowen.

Some will lose 30% of their annual income. On average, $5,000 per year gone.

That is a massive hit to their annual balance sheet.

You have fallen for the big lie that a low "taxable income" implies a low gross income. This is not correct.

Taxable income is not the same thing as gross income.

Many of these people are wealthy retirees who pay little or no tax because they receive massive amounts of tax-free income. Take away the excessively generous tax breaks and they would be paying a fair bit of tax.

Time for the Bam trick. Prove it. I say it's nonsense.

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #43 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 10:10am

crocodile wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 9:49am:

Bam wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 7:54am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 5:18pm:

You either go over the tax free threshold ($20,542) or you don't.

If you are under that threshold, you receive the tax return of the 30% tax that has been paid up front.

Hence: by definition, low income earners are the ones to be hurt the most by Shorty and Bowen.

Some will lose 30% of their annual income. On average, $5,000 per year gone.

That is a massive hit to their annual balance sheet.

You have fallen for the big lie that a low "taxable income" implies a low gross income. This is not correct.

Taxable income is not the same thing as gross income.

Many of these people are wealthy retirees who pay little or no tax because they receive massive amounts of tax-free income. Take away the excessively generous tax breaks and they would be paying a fair bit of tax.

Time for the Bam trick. Prove it. I say it's nonsense.

I thought you were smarter than that. I guess I overestimated you.

Meet the 48 millionaires who pay no income tax, not even the Medicare levy

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: male

male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #44 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 10:11am

crocodile wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 9:48am:

Bam wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 7:48am:

crocodile wrote on 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.

The burden of proof fallacy.

You made the claims. You prove it. I'm not going to do it for you because you're too lazy to prove your own claims.

Maybe if I had the time or inclination. Truth is that I don't give two fukks how other nations manage their affairs enough to spend countless hours analysing the details of 160 countries. In your feeble mind, why is there any difference between income derived from capital investment to income derived from time. Would you be happy if Joe Blow worked for Bam P/L and earns under the TFF while Bam deducts tax for Joe Blow. Joe Blow doesn't need to pay tax so he's entitled to a refund. Under your system, no refund.

So you can't prove it then.

Didn't think so. You whine so loudly about demanding proof while refusing to provide it yourself. Hypocrisy much?

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

IP Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 18

Send Topic

Print

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Top of this page

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved.

Valid XHTML

Valid CSS

Powered by Perl

Source Forge