Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18
Send Topic Print
In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy (Read 17639 times)
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 60724
Here
Gender: male
Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #90 - Feb 7th, 2019 at 6:37pm
 
crocodile wrote on Feb 5th, 2019 at 8:26am:
Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 5th, 2019 at 8:00am:
crocodile wrote on Feb 5th, 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.


All that should happen is that the companies should give the option to pay the tax or not resulting in a higher payment for pensioners which is subject to tax. Once the pensioner is a positive tax payer they can then stock the rest of their investment in amputated investment to draw down their income.

The argument for Labor doing this would equally apply to business investment who declare a negative profit it is the identical money for nothing argument only with greater justification.
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 #91 - Feb 7th, 2019 at 6:57pm
 
John Smith wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 6:22pm:
PAYG is the wage earner paying tax, not the company (or employer).



Really? So should a company/employer go belly up the wage earner has to pay?

John Smith wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 6:22pm:
I'd have thought an expert like you would at least understand that. 



I have never said I was an expert.
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 #92 - Feb 7th, 2019 at 7:12pm
 
stunspore wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 5:30pm:
crocodile wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 5:18pm:
stunspore wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 4:23pm:
https://www.theage.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/labor-is-exploiting-misunder...

Interesting to read comments.  Especially other ex-actuaries who counter this ex-actuary writer.

It seems like a company would never have to pay tax to the government at all, if all its shareholders can claim all the franking credits.  Based on the writer's stance.


Sorry, that would leave zero retained earnings in the company which would make it insolvent.

Aside from that, why is it important that the writer and some respondents are actuaries.



Wrong about insolvent.  We are not talking about earnings but profit -> as in after expenses such as paying staff, rent etc.  And then spending money on restocking isn't part of profit but part of expenditure.
We are talking about profit.

As for importance of actuary... they should be considered experts in this field.  As such we should pay some attention.  Based on the article and comments, there are claims and counter claims.  Due to limited info (such as who is the better actuary, etc) up to the individual to decide which is more likely to be considered right.


An actuary is a statistician mainly involved in calculating insurance risk. Experts in the field my arse.
Back to top
 

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
 
IP Logged
 
stunspore
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5097
Gender: male
Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #93 - Feb 7th, 2019 at 7:17pm
 
lee wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 5:25pm:
John Smith wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 5:22pm:
For tax purposes, it's a separate entity to them.


They are the owners. The distribution of profits is to them, the tax is paid on those profits distributed to them.


If they were owners, they would also be responsible for creditors when the business folds.  And that doesn't happen.  Legal definitions are very important and coalition and their supporters are mixing terms up to make it sound reasonable. 
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 #94 - Feb 7th, 2019 at 7:17pm
 
stunspore wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 5:51pm:
Both baron and cap are wrong.  At least based on some of the comments i read.  Such as separate legal entities or responsibility of tax payments.


They own the company. They are not considered separate entities under the current law for distribution of their own money. They are separate under the rules of limited liability.
Back to top
 

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
 
IP Logged
 
stunspore
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5097
Gender: male
Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #95 - Feb 7th, 2019 at 7:18pm
 
crocodile wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 7:12pm:
stunspore wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 5:30pm:
crocodile wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 5:18pm:
stunspore wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 4:23pm:
https://www.theage.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/labor-is-exploiting-misunder...

Interesting to read comments.  Especially other ex-actuaries who counter this ex-actuary writer.

It seems like a company would never have to pay tax to the government at all, if all its shareholders can claim all the franking credits.  Based on the writer's stance.


Sorry, that would leave zero retained earnings in the company which would make it insolvent.

Aside from that, why is it important that the writer and some respondents are actuaries.



Wrong about insolvent.  We are not talking about earnings but profit -> as in after expenses such as paying staff, rent etc.  And then spending money on restocking isn't part of profit but part of expenditure.
We are talking about profit.

As for importance of actuary... they should be considered experts in this field.  As such we should pay some attention.  Based on the article and comments, there are claims and counter claims.  Due to limited info (such as who is the better actuary, etc) up to the individual to decide which is more likely to be considered right.


An actuary is a statistician mainly involved in calculating insurance risk. Experts in the field my arse.


True that.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
stunspore
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5097
Gender: male
Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #96 - Feb 7th, 2019 at 7:19pm
 
Dnarever wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 6:37pm:
crocodile wrote on Feb 5th, 2019 at 8:26am:
Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 5th, 2019 at 8:00am:
crocodile wrote on Feb 5th, 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.


All that should happen is that the companies should give the option to pay the tax or not resulting in a higher payment for pensioners which is subject to tax. Once the pensioner is a positive tax payer they can then stock the rest of their investment in amputated investment to draw down their income.

The argument for Labor doing this would equally apply to business investment who declare a negative profit it is the identical money for nothing argument only with greater justification.


It seems the same... but it isn't.  Paying workers is a form of expense and deducted from costs before calculating profit.  Dividends are not expenses.
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 #97 - Feb 7th, 2019 at 7:20pm
 
Dnarever wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 6:37pm:
crocodile wrote on Feb 5th, 2019 at 8:26am:
Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 5th, 2019 at 8:00am:
crocodile wrote on Feb 5th, 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.


All that should happen is that the companies should give the option to pay the tax or not resulting in a higher payment for pensioners which is subject to tax. Once the pensioner is a positive tax payer they can then stock the rest of their investment in amputated investment to draw down their income.

The argument for Labor doing this would equally apply to business investment who declare a negative profit it is the identical money for nothing argument only with greater justification.

Some companies have thousands of shareholders. Who is going to administrate this and look after all the changes in status.
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 #98 - Feb 7th, 2019 at 7:22pm
 
stunspore wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 7:17pm:
lee wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 5:25pm:
John Smith wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 5:22pm:
For tax purposes, it's a separate entity to them.


They are the owners. The distribution of profits is to them, the tax is paid on those profits distributed to them.


If they were owners, they would also be responsible for creditors when the business folds.  And that doesn't happen.  Legal definitions are very important and coalition and their supporters are mixing terms up to make it sound reasonable. 

That comes under limited liability rules. Nothing to do with ownership.
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 #99 - Feb 7th, 2019 at 7:24pm
 
stunspore wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 7:19pm:
Dnarever wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 6:37pm:
crocodile wrote on Feb 5th, 2019 at 8:26am:
Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 5th, 2019 at 8:00am:
crocodile wrote on Feb 5th, 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.


All that should happen is that the companies should give the option to pay the tax or not resulting in a higher payment for pensioners which is subject to tax. Once the pensioner is a positive tax payer they can then stock the rest of their investment in amputated investment to draw down their income.

The argument for Labor doing this would equally apply to business investment who declare a negative profit it is the identical money for nothing argument only with greater justification.


It seems the same... but it isn't.  Paying workers is a form of expense and deducted from costs before calculating profit.  Dividends are not expenses.

Why shouldn't they be counted as an expense. Paying for the use of one's labour is an expense but paying for the use of one's capital is not.
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 #100 - Feb 7th, 2019 at 7:47pm
 
Bam wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 3:21pm:
crocodile wrote on Feb 6th, 2019 at 10:17pm:
stunspore wrote on Feb 6th, 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
http://i1.wp.com/www.prosper.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ScreenHunter_97-S...

I don't trust this chart only because it doesn't list some common taxes. Stamp duty, land tax, fuel excise, road tolls - these should be listed too. I wouldn't list all taxes, just those that raise over $1 billion in revenue in Australia annually or are likely to if implemented.

I agree that payroll tax is a bad tax. Why tax jobs?


I can't make you trust the data even though it is direct from treasury. The deadweight losses of various taxes are already well known.

http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/html/commissioned_work/downloads/kpmg_e...

http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/FinalReport.aspx?doc=html/publications/...

https://static.treasury.gov.au/uploads/sites/1/2017/06/TWP2015-01.pdf
Back to top
 

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
 
IP Logged
 
stunspore
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5097
Gender: male
Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #101 - Feb 7th, 2019 at 8:04pm
 
Why are dividends not counted as expenses?  Because it is form of profit sharing...and Profit = Revenue - Expenses. 

It's on the wrong side of the equation.  Wages/salaries should always be paid.  Dividends not so...especially if company strategy is to use retained earnings for further capital growth and investment.
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 #102 - Feb 7th, 2019 at 8:22pm
 
stunspore wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 8:04pm:
Dividends not so...especially if company strategy is to use retained earnings for further capital growth and investment.



And because dividends are not always paid they should never be?

Further capital growth? If capital grows share price generally follows as the company is worth more. So that when share price increases and the shares are sold, CGT relief is available if held more than 12 months?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 78083
Gender: male
Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #103 - Feb 7th, 2019 at 8:22pm
 
lee wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 6:57pm:
Really? So should a company/employer go belly up the wage earner has to pay?



of course the employee pays his tax. Don't tell me you actually thought the company paid your taxes with their money? Grin Grin Grin

It's your money the employer uses to pay PAYE. That's why you have a gross v's nett wage. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
crocodile
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male
Re: In Many Cases, Its Welfare For The Wealthy
Reply #104 - Feb 7th, 2019 at 8:23pm
 
stunspore wrote on Feb 7th, 2019 at 8:04pm:
Why are dividends not counted as expenses?  Because it is form of profit sharing...and Profit = Revenue - Expenses. 

It's on the wrong side of the equation.  Wages/salaries should always be paid.  Dividends not so...especially if company strategy is to use retained earnings for further capital growth and investment.


No point arguing the toss any further. You don't see dividends as ordinary income and I do and so does the law as it stands today. Trouble with Silly Billy is that it is ordinary income for some but not for others depending on what other taxes they've paid from other income streams. If you can't see the stupidity in that I can't convince you anyway.
Back to top
 

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18
Send Topic Print