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 #45 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 10:25am

Bam wrote on 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?

I can. I just don't give enough of a fukk about it.

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 #46 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 11:29am

Bam wrote on 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 can look up Bowen's own statements.

He is targeting 850,000 people who are not on a pension and on average he will rip off $5,000 per year from those who would have received a tax return on their Franking Credits.

They're his figures.

Go look up the amount he claims to raise from this tax grab.

Back to top

The 2025 election WAS a shocker.

IP Logged

stunspore Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5097 Gender:	Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy Reply #47 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 5:18pm We shouldn't really on the wealthy donating money to help socially disadvantaged - especially when they do so through tax evasion/minimisation. Any tax raised by the government goes back into the economy.
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 #48 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 7:17pm

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 11:29am:

Bam wrote on 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 can look up Bowen's own statements.

He is targeting 850,000 people who are not on a pension and on average he will rip off $5,000 per year from those who would have received a tax return on their Franking Credits.

They're his figures.

Go look up the amount he claims to raise from this tax grab.

Tax grab? Really? When they're not even paying any tax? Roll Eyes

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 #49 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 7:29pm

Bam wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 7:17pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 11:29am:

Bam wrote on 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 can look up Bowen's own statements.

He is targeting 850,000 people who are not on a pension and on average he will rip off $5,000 per year from those who would have received a tax return on their Franking Credits.

They're his figures.

Go look up the amount he claims to raise from this tax grab.

Tax grab? Really? When they're not even paying any tax? Roll Eyes

Of course they did. The company withheld 30% of the dividend before passing the remainder on to the shareholder.

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 #50 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 7:45pm

crocodile wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 7:29pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 7:17pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 11:29am:

Bam wrote on 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 can look up Bowen's own statements.

He is targeting 850,000 people who are not on a pension and on average he will rip off $5,000 per year from those who would have received a tax return on their Franking Credits.

They're his figures.

Go look up the amount he claims to raise from this tax grab.

Tax grab? Really? When they're not even paying any tax? Roll Eyes

Of course they did. The company withheld 30% of the dividend before passing the remainder on to the shareholder.

Yes, and they should get some or all back if warranted by genuine income etc. Shorten has the right idea but is not selling it well, or is being mis-reported.

Say it again - just cancel DI and let everyone settle their own tax from dividends. Is no imputation- is no problem!

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

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 19663 Gender:	Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy Reply #51 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 7:57pm Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 7:45pm: Shorten has the right idea but is not selling it well, or is being mis-reported. So his right idea is to hit everyone with a big tax hit? Or even the ABC is misreporting him? Damn - he must be bloody unpopular.
Back to top	IP Logged

stunspore Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5097 Gender:	Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy Reply #52 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 8:40pm Just trying to reverse Howard's structural deficits, difficult that it was. The baby bonus itself took ages to get rid off. Actually not sure if it is still there. So much giving away money but not collecting it back, especially when things go bad.
Back to top	IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #53 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 10:08pm

stunspore wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 8:40pm:

Just trying to reverse Howard's structural deficits, difficult that it was.

The baby bonus itself took ages to get rid off. Actually not sure if it is still there. So much giving away money but not collecting it back, especially when things go bad.

Fukk off the ridiculous private health rebate and child care subsidies. Around 12 billion for these two useless programs.

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 #54 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 10:10pm

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 7:45pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 7:29pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 7:17pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 11:29am:

Bam wrote on 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 can look up Bowen's own statements.

He is targeting 850,000 people who are not on a pension and on average he will rip off $5,000 per year from those who would have received a tax return on their Franking Credits.

They're his figures.

Go look up the amount he claims to raise from this tax grab.

Tax grab? Really? When they're not even paying any tax? Roll Eyes

Of course they did. The company withheld 30% of the dividend before passing the remainder on to the shareholder.

Yes, and they should get some or all back if warranted by genuine income etc. Shorten has the right idea but is not selling it well, or is being mis-reported.

Say it again - just cancel DI and let everyone settle their own tax from dividends. Is no imputation- is no problem!

So in Grappler's world, return on investment is somehow not genuine.

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 #55 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 10:17pm

stunspore wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 5:18pm:

We shouldn't really on the wealthy donating money to help socially disadvantaged - especially when they do so through tax evasion/minimisation.

Any tax raised by the government goes back into the economy.

That's only true up to a point. Taxes have marginal excess burden otherwise known as deadweight losses. Unfortunately, corporate and payroll tax have one of the highest.

Basically, ever dollar taxed returns only 60c

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 #56 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 10:17pm

crocodile wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 10:10pm:

So in Grappler's world, return on investment is somehow not genuine.

What are you talking about - I said that they may get some or all of their return bazsed on their taxable income - the proviso is that the taxable income must be genuine.

Nobody said that money from investment wasn't genuine... it is the way it can be manipulated by some to evade tax that is not genuine.

Still doesn't change the fact that it is far better to abolish DI entirely and simply have everyone do their own tax without all this nonsense.

You seem to simply not want to come to grips with the reality of DI. I've explained it a thousand times. Last time - it is simply tax withheld - part of your gross income, and what you get out of the tax man should be scrutinised since some are getting away with a heap.

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 #57 - Feb 6^th, 2019 at 10:28pm

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 10:17pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 10:10pm:

So in Grappler's world, return on investment is somehow not genuine.

What are you talking about - I said that they may get some or all of their return bazsed on their taxable income - the proviso is that the taxable income must be genuine.

Nobody said that money from investment wasn't genuine... it is the way it can be manipulated by some to evade tax that is not genuine.

Still doesn't change the fact that it is far better to abolish DI entirely and simply have everyone do their own tax without all this nonsense.

You seem to simply not want to come to grips with the reality of DI. I've explained it a thousand times. Last time - it is simply tax withheld - part of your gross income, and what you get out of the tax man should be scrutinised since some are getting away with a heap.

So what are you arguing about. I completely understand DI as well. Shorten's idea is that he wants to cancel rebates to those people who are assessed as no tax payable due to situations such as under the TFF or income from super despite the fact that the paying company has already withheld 30% of it.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

stunspore Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5097 Gender:	Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy Reply #58 - Feb 7^th, 2019 at 6:10am Not all companies give franking credits. Doesn't stop investments there.
Back to top	IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #59 - Feb 7^th, 2019 at 6:34am

stunspore wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 6:10am:

Not all companies give franking credits. Doesn't stop investments there.

That would have precisely zero impact on investment choices as the tax burden to the shareholder doesn't change. Under Silly Billy's brain fart, the unfranked varieties are likely to be more popular as they don't have an attached credit to steal.

Absolutely hilarious.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged