Australian Politics Forum - Good Bye Surplus

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 90127
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #120 - Mar 15^th, 2020 at 2:46pm

Captain Nemo wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 11:47am:

It's really simple to ... err ... grapple with ... Wink

If the company includes Imputation Credits with the dividend, then that divided payment to my bank is reduced by the amount of the Imputation Credit ... which is paid to the Tax Office on my behalf.

If my total annual income comes in under the tax free threshold .... and BTW this is not the case for me personally ... but I have empathy for the approx. 850,000 self-funded retirees who do actually live below the poverty line whose sole source of income is their dividend income... Then that TAX already paid on my behalf is then due to be returned to me as a Tax Refund ... just like any other over-payment of TAX is returned as a Tax Return Refund after June 30th each year.

If you are going to do away with the Tax Free Threshold ... then do so ... but don't pick on the least wealthy retirees. Angry

You are deeply confused about what I said..... try again.

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: 90127
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #121 - Mar 15^th, 2020 at 3:29pm

Let's grapple with this simply -

Sherry Cher Holder gets $33,000 dividend - the company pays $10,000 DI to the ATO on her behalf, and she receives initially, $23,000

Her gross income from shares remains $33,000.

She then calculates her income taxes correctly, and probably receives a part of the DI tax paid on her behalf back via return.

So tell me again - what possible difference does it make to either have DI or not have it? The shareholder loses nothing either way, nothing changes in any way with gross income remaining the same regardless.

Far simpler to not confuse poor little accountants in their rorting and some shareholders by NOT having it at all.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 15^th, 2020 at 6:51pm by Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM »

“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

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #122 - Mar 15^th, 2020 at 9:53pm

crocodile wrote on Mar 14^th, 2020 at 9:55pm:

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? Roll Eyes

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?

Tax is only paid on taxable income. Don't be a goose all your life.

As usual, you're missing the point.

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

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #123 - Mar 15^th, 2020 at 9:57pm

Captain Nemo wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 10:48am:

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? Roll Eyes

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.

I find it really hard to believe that "thousands" of self-funded retirees are surviving on "an income below $18,000" derived solely from franking credits when the aged pension is greater than this.

Links please.

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: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #124 - Mar 15^th, 2020 at 11:04pm

Bam wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 9:53pm:

crocodile wrote on Mar 14^th, 2020 at 9:55pm:

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? Roll Eyes

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?

Tax is only paid on taxable income. Don't be a goose all your life.

As usual, you're missing the point.

No, it is you that doesn't get it. You just can't get it through your skull that only taxable income is actually taxed. You're just whinging as to the reasons why some forms of income aren't taxed.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

Captain Nemo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14925
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #125 - Mar 15^th, 2020 at 11:07pm

Share dividends are taxable income. Share dividends are taxed.

But if someone's total income is below $18,000 they pay no tax.

That's the point, it doesn't matter what the source of income is, if you are under the tax free threshold, you pay no tax, and in the case of Imputation Credits, the tax paid is returned after June 30th as a refund, except that bastard Shorten wanted to hit the lowest income retirees by swiping their refund. Angry

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 15^th, 2020 at 11:17pm by Captain Nemo »

The 2025 election WAS a shocker.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #126 - Mar 15^th, 2020 at 11:08pm

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 3:29pm:

Let's grapple with this simply -

Sherry Cher Holder gets $33,000 dividend - the company pays $10,000 DI to the ATO on her behalf, and she receives initially, $23,000

Her gross income from shares remains $33,000.

She then calculates her income taxes correctly, and probably receives a part of the DI tax paid on her behalf back via return.

So tell me again - what possible difference does it make to either have DI or not have it? The shareholder loses nothing either way, nothing changes in any way with gross income remaining the same regardless.

Far simpler to not confuse poor little accountants in their rorting and some shareholders by NOT having it at all.

Her nett income from the shares is $33000. The gross income is $43000
Buy yourself an accounting textbook.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #127 - Mar 15^th, 2020 at 11:13pm

Captain Nemo wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 11:07pm:

Share dividends are taxable income. Share dividends are taxed. Roll Eyes

But the poor little Bamster doesn't quite like the idea that a refund is due if the prepaid tax is above the taxpayers obligation. He thinks the gummint should keep it. Still thinks that the gummint owns all the money and by some generous act of benevolence we're allowed to keep some for ourselves. Quite frightening really since there are many more just like him.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

Captain Nemo Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 14925 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Good Bye Surplus Reply #128 - Mar 15^th, 2020 at 11:14pm See above. Shorten's plan was to confiscate the tax return from those earning less than $18,000 total income. They stood to lose $5,000 per annum.
Back to top	The 2025 election WAS a shocker. IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #129 - Mar 15^th, 2020 at 11:19pm

Captain Nemo wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 11:07pm:

Share dividends are taxable income. Share dividends are taxed.

But if someone's total income is below $18,000 they pay no tax.

That the point, it doesn't matter what the source of income is, if you are under the tax free threshold, you pay no tax, and in the case of Imputation Credits, the tax paid is returned after June 30th as a refund, except that bastard Shorten wanted to hit the lowest income retirees by swiping their refund. Angry

It would have also affected people with incomes above $18k where tax doesn't apply such as drawing down from super for those above age 60.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 90127
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #130 - Mar 16^th, 2020 at 8:23am

crocodile wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 11:08pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 3:29pm:

Let's grapple with this simply -

Sherry Cher Holder gets $33,000 dividend - the company pays $10,000 DI to the ATO on her behalf, and she receives initially, $23,000

Her gross income from shares remains $33,000.

She then calculates her income taxes correctly, and probably receives a part of the DI tax paid on her behalf back via return.

So tell me again - what possible difference does it make to either have DI or not have it? The shareholder loses nothing either way, nothing changes in any way with gross income remaining the same regardless.

Far simpler to not confuse poor little accountants in their rorting and some shareholders by NOT having it at all.

Her nett income from the shares is $33000. The gross income is $43000
Buy yourself an accounting textbook.

Nonsense - read again and clearly. If her total revenue from dividends is 33,000 and DI is taken - her total income from dividends remains $33,000 - not $43,000 - you want to tax her on an extra $10,000?

No wonder accountants are so confused over DI and get it wrong all the time.

You really know nothing about this, do you? Grin

And all this time you had me bluffed into thinking you did.

Go ahead - add DI twice - or learn to read.

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

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #131 - Mar 16^th, 2020 at 10:07am

crocodile wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 11:04pm:

Bam wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 9:53pm:

crocodile wrote on Mar 14^th, 2020 at 9:55pm:

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? Roll Eyes

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?

Tax is only paid on taxable income. Don't be a goose all your life.

As usual, you're missing the point.

No, it is you that doesn't get it. You just can't get it through your skull that only taxable income is actually taxed. You're just whinging as to the reasons why some forms of income aren't taxed.

That is weapons-grade bullshit. I understand the concept very well. What you cannot understand with your inflexible conservative mind is that it's this "Captain Nemo" person who does not. Hence, you're missing the point. Maybe if you were smarter you would realise this.

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

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #132 - Mar 16^th, 2020 at 10:08am

Captain Nemo wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 11:07pm:

Share dividends are taxable income. Share dividends are taxed.

But if someone's total income is below $18,000 they pay no tax.

WRONG!!!

If their TAXABLE
income is below $18,200 they pay no tax.

Captain Nemo wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 11:07pm:

That's the point, it doesn't matter what the source of income is, if you are under the tax free threshold, you pay no tax, and in the case of Imputation Credits, the tax paid is returned after June 30th as a refund, except that bastard Shorten wanted to hit the lowest income retirees by swiping their refund.

You still do not get it. Despite several attempts to explain it to you, you still do not get it.

You still do not understand that it is not TOTAL INCOME (also known as gross income) that tax is assessed on, it is TAXABLE INCOME. Stop conflating the two and learn the difference.

You're posting crap that assumes that they are the same. They are NOT.

Don't take my word for it though. Any accountant will tell you the same. Even the croc is whining (to the wrong person as usual) about this difference.

Once again, because you seem to be a little slow: TOTAL INCOME is not the same as TAXABLE INCOME.

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

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #133 - Mar 16^th, 2020 at 10:18am

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 3:29pm:

Let's grapple with this simply -

Sherry Cher Holder gets $33,000 dividend - the company pays $10,000 DI to the ATO on her behalf, and she receives initially, $23,000

Her gross income from shares remains $33,000.

She then calculates her income taxes correctly, and probably receives a part of the DI tax paid on her behalf back via return.

So tell me again - what possible difference does it make to either have DI or not have it? The shareholder loses nothing either way, nothing changes in any way with gross income remaining the same regardless.

Far simpler to not confuse poor little accountants in their rorting and some shareholders by NOT having it at all.

Which is why it would be a good idea to scrap dividend imputation entirely and use the proceeds to cut company taxes. If done right, the overall tax would be about the same. The benefit would be significant savings throughout the economy by way of lower taxation compliance costs.

Dividend imputation was a good idea when the corporate tax rate on taxable profits was 49% but it is now a handbrake on lowering company taxes.

It seems to me that dividend imputation is little more than a rort to fatten the wallets of accountants.

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

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #134 - Mar 16^th, 2020 at 11:59am

crocodile wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 11:19pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Mar 15^th, 2020 at 11:07pm:

Share dividends are taxable income. Share dividends are taxed.

But if someone's total income is below $18,000 they pay no tax.

That the point, it doesn't matter what the source of income is, if you are under the tax free threshold, you pay no tax, and in the case of Imputation Credits, the tax paid is returned after June 30th as a refund, except that bastard Shorten wanted to hit the lowest income retirees by swiping their refund. Angry

It would have also affected people with incomes above $18k where tax doesn't apply such as drawing down from super for those above age 60.

if tax doesn't apply then it is not taxable income

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged