Australian Politics Forum - Good Bye Surplus

crocodile Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6683 Gender:	Re: Good Bye Surplus Reply #90 - 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
Back to top	Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes. IP Logged

Captain Nemo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14935
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #91 - 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.

Do you get it yet? Wink

Back to top

The 2025 election WAS a shocker.

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 61506
Here
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #92 - Mar 14^th, 2020 at 9:14am

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.

Do you get it yet? Wink

You seem to miss the part where they didn't pay the tax ? Or in fact didn't pay any tax.

While I think it was stupid to try to change it the way that they did and that I personally voted against them partially over this I do still understand.

I also get that the first person to publicly say that this is unaffordable and has to go was Tony Abbott when he was PM.

Both political party's understand that this is flawed and not long term sustainable.

Back to top

IP Logged

Captain Nemo Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 14935 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Good Bye Surplus Reply #93 - Mar 14^th, 2020 at 9:52am Oi Vey. If they didn't pay the tax ... how come the Tax Office returns the tax to them after June 30th each year?
Back to top	The 2025 election WAS a shocker. IP Logged

Bam Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21905 Gender:	Re: Good Bye Surplus Reply #94 - Mar 14^th, 2020 at 10:11am Captain Nemo wrote on Mar 14^th, 2020 at 9:52am: Oi Vey. If they didn't pay the tax ... how come the Tax Office returns the tax to them after June 30th each year? Because it is an unsustainable tax rort.
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 #95 - 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.

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

Captain Nemo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14935
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #96 - Mar 14^th, 2020 at 10:26am

Bam wrote on Mar 14^th, 2020 at 10:11am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Mar 14^th, 2020 at 9:52am:

Oi Vey.

If they didn't pay the tax ... how come the Tax Office returns the tax to them after June 30th each year? Cheesy

Because it is an unsustainable tax rort.

You're saying the Tax Free Threshold system is a rort?

You reckon people with a total annual income of $18,000 should pay income tax? Cheesy

You were happy with Shorten/ Bowen / Chalmers plan to rip away on average $5,000 per annum from those on total incomes of under $18,000 but continue to allow rich people to have the pre-paid share income tax deducted from their tax bill?

Really? Shocked

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 14^th, 2020 at 10:32am by Captain Nemo »

The 2025 election WAS a shocker.

IP Logged

Bobby. Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 118920 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Good Bye Surplus Reply #97 - Mar 14^th, 2020 at 10:34am ScoMo will have to borrow more money for the cash handouts. I suspect the national Govt debt will now be $800 billion. That's 4 times Rudd's debt of $200 billion.
Back to top	IP Logged

Captain Nemo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14935
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #98 - Mar 14^th, 2020 at 10:39am

Bobby. wrote on Mar 14^th, 2020 at 10:34am:

ScoMo will have to borrow more money
for the cash handouts.
I suspect the national Govt debt
will now be $800 billion.

That's 4 times Rudd's debt of $200 billion.

Yes, it's a big debt.

Either have a higher debt or face even more massive job losses than would be the case without the stimulus package.

Back to top

The 2025 election WAS a shocker.

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26588
Australia

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #99 - Mar 14^th, 2020 at 10:40am

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.

How cuold that possibly work when theres no profit for pollies or thier mates in the idea?

Spot

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

Captain Nemo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14935
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #100 - 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.

Back to top

The 2025 election WAS a shocker.

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 118920
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #101 - Mar 14^th, 2020 at 10:56am

Captain Nemo wrote on Mar 14^th, 2020 at 10:39am:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 14^th, 2020 at 10:34am:

ScoMo will have to borrow more money
for the cash handouts.
I suspect the national Govt debt
will now be $800 billion.

That's 4 times Rudd's debt of $200 billion.

Yes, it's a big debt.

Either have a higher debt or face even more massive job losses than would be the case without the stimulus package.

I'm not an economist but it seems that every country in the world
is in massive debt that they will never pay off.
Who do we owe all that money to?

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26588
Australia

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #102 - Mar 14^th, 2020 at 11:01am

Bobby. wrote on Mar 14^th, 2020 at 10:56am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Mar 14^th, 2020 at 10:39am:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 14^th, 2020 at 10:34am:

ScoMo will have to borrow more money
for the cash handouts.
I suspect the national Govt debt
will now be $800 billion.

That's 4 times Rudd's debt of $200 billion.

Yes, it's a big debt.

Either have a higher debt or face even more massive job losses than would be the case without the stimulus package.

I'm not an economist but it seems that every country in the world
is in massive debt that they will never pay off.
Who do we owe all that money to?

the poor

Spot

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

Captain Nemo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14935
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #103 - Mar 14^th, 2020 at 11:02am

Bobby. wrote on Mar 14^th, 2020 at 10:56am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Mar 14^th, 2020 at 10:39am:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 14^th, 2020 at 10:34am:

ScoMo will have to borrow more money
for the cash handouts.
I suspect the national Govt debt
will now be $800 billion.

That's 4 times Rudd's debt of $200 billion.

Yes, it's a big debt.

Either have a higher debt or face even more massive job losses than would be the case without the stimulus package.

I'm not an economist but it seems that every country in the world
is in massive debt that they will never pay off.
Who do we owe all that money to?

Think of it as a very long term mortgage.

As long as you can service the debt, things are OK.

The money is owed to the various money funds where borrowings come from. Pension funds, and the like.

Back to top

The 2025 election WAS a shocker.

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 118920
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #104 - Mar 14^th, 2020 at 11:08am

Captain Nemo wrote on Mar 14^th, 2020 at 11:02am:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 14^th, 2020 at 10:56am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Mar 14^th, 2020 at 10:39am:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 14^th, 2020 at 10:34am:

ScoMo will have to borrow more money
for the cash handouts.
I suspect the national Govt debt
will now be $800 billion.

That's 4 times Rudd's debt of $200 billion.

Yes, it's a big debt.

Either have a higher debt or face even more massive job losses than would be the case without the stimulus package.

I'm not an economist but it seems that every country in the world
is in massive debt that they will never pay off.
Who do we owe all that money to?

Think of it as a very long term mortgage.

As long as you can service the debt, things are OK.

The money is owed to the various money funds where borrowings come from. Pension funds, and the like.

What if we default? - what then?

Back to top

IP Logged