Captain Nemo
Gold Member
Online
Australian Politics
Posts: 14983
Melbourne
Gender: 
|
Bam wrote on Mar 14 th, 2020 at 2:23pm: Captain Nemo wrote on Mar 14 th, 2020 at 10:50am: Bam wrote on Mar 14 th, 2020 at 10:25am: Captain Nemo wrote on Mar 14 th, 2020 at 8:14am: crocodile wrote on Mar 14 th, 2020 at 7:40am: John Smith wrote on Mar 13 th, 2020 at 5:38pm: Captain Nemo wrote on Mar 13 th, 2020 at 5:26pm: Please, not that old erroneous "argument" again. nothing erroneous about it. Company's taxes are not the shareholders refund. It can't be that hard to understand Obviously you don't If a taxpayer pays tax for income received and then is assessed as having paid tax that is due to be refunded, then they receive a tax return. e.g. A person works for 2 months and is paid at a rate of income incurring tax at a top marginal rate of 37c in the doallar. They then become unemployed. The tax that they have already paid will be returned to them as a tax refund at tax return time. A self-funded retiree receives income from share dividends paying tax at 30c in the dollar. At tax assessment time, their total annual income is under $18,000. The tax that they have paid already is returned to them at tax return time. Why discriminate against the dividend recipient but not the person who worked only 2 months? Both are assessed as being under the tax free threshold but had already paid tax that is now due to be refunded. It's only "due to be refunded" because the law currently allows it. The law could just as easily be changed so that dividend franking was scrapped entirely and the proceeds used to lower the corporate tax rate on profits, perhaps to 20%. The income from dividends would still be the same overall but without the imputation paperwork. The law could also be changed so that self-funded retirees paid tax like everyone else. It's quite ridiculous to allow some people to enjoy six-figure incomes while others bear a larger tax burden, especially when these retirees consume a higher amount of publicly-funded health care than others due to age-related morbidities. Change is needed to equalise the taxation rules and broaden the tax base. This extra tax could be used to pay everyone of pension age the aged pension, thus saving the need for expensive and time-consuming paperwork, particularly by part pensioners. The extra tax revenue can be used to improve health and aged care. Err ... six figure incomes?  Shorten's plan was to rip away $5,000 from people on $18,000 total annual income.We are talking about Mum and Dad self-funded retirees who are living below the poverty line. In many cases, taking their total annual income from $18,000 down to $13,000 The minimum wage in this country is about $38,000 Why punish retirees who are trying to live with interest rates down at 0.75% ? What bastard would do that? Obviously, you are clueless about the policy. You're clueless about the difference between gross income and taxable income. That little distinction is important and it has gone over your head. That's what happens when you believe the Libs too much, you get fooled. The Libs talk about "taxable income" all the time, deliberately blurring the distinction between that and gross income, and hope gullible idiots miss the distinction. They also do this with negative gearing. The Libs were NOT talking about gross income with franking credits. They were talking about taxable income. Why pretend otherwise? For thousands of self-funded retirees Bam, their Gross income equals their taxable income. That was the problem with Shorten / Bowen / Chamlers plan to rip off $5,000 on average from people who have an income below $18,000. That is gross income as well as taxable income in thousands of cases. At the same time, those NONGS were going to allow the rich folk to write off Franking Credits against very large incomes. It was a discriminatory policy that actually hurt those on the lowest incomes the most.  Is that the Labor way?  In addition, it was a foolish hit of about $5 Billion per annum to the consumer sector. That at a time of low growth!Luckily, those NONGS lost the election. 
|
Forum
Pages: 
