Australian Politics Forum - Good Bye Surplus

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #135 - Mar 16^th, 2020 at 12:02pm

Bam wrote on 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.

Nemo gets it. He knows that total income is completely irrelevant. Only taxable income gets taxed so for tax purposes the rest doesn't even deserve a mention. That's the bit you don't like.

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 #136 - Mar 16^th, 2020 at 12:04pm

John Smith wrote on 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

That's the whole point. No need to be doofus forever.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #137 - Mar 16^th, 2020 at 12:07pm

crocodile wrote on Mar 16^th, 2020 at 12:04pm:

John Smith wrote on 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

That's the whole point. No need to be doofus forever.

now, now .... lick your wounds and try again

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #138 - Mar 16^th, 2020 at 9:53pm

crocodile wrote on Mar 16^th, 2020 at 12:02pm:

Nemo gets it. He knows that total income is completely irrelevant. Only taxable income gets taxed so for tax purposes the rest doesn't even deserve a mention. That's the bit you don't like.

No, he doesn't get it. You've not realised that he's conflating total income with taxable income. Somehow he's asserting that there are self-funded retirees with "incomes" below $18,000 [sic] paying no tax. If that's their total income, why aren't they receiving a part pension? They would surely qualify because there is no way that $18,000 a year from shares would be enough to wipe out a $20,000 pension. Something's not right here, which you would realise if you knew anything about social security law (which you obviously don't).

Also notice how he's not backed up this assertion with a link despite being asked to do so.

Now, instead of repeating your baseless assertion, open your eyes and think about this. Are you able to figure this out? Or are you going to waffle on about how he "gets it" when there's no evidence of that but your wishful thinking. Are you even capable of independent reasoning?

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 #139 - Mar 16^th, 2020 at 10:15pm

Bam wrote on Mar 16^th, 2020 at 9:53pm:

crocodile wrote on Mar 16^th, 2020 at 12:02pm:

Nemo gets it. He knows that total income is completely irrelevant. Only taxable income gets taxed so for tax purposes the rest doesn't even deserve a mention. That's the bit you don't like.

No, he doesn't get it. You've not realised that he's conflating total income with taxable income. Somehow he's asserting that there are self-funded retirees with "incomes" below $18,000 [sic] paying no tax. If that's their total income, why aren't they receiving a part pension? They would surely qualify because there is no way that $18,000 a year from shares would be enough to wipe out a $20,000 pension. Something's not right here, which you would realise if you knew anything about social security law (which you obviously don't).

Also notice how he's not backed up this assertion with a link despite being asked to do so.

Now, instead of repeating your baseless assertion, open your eyes and think about this. Are you able to figure this out? Or are you going to waffle on about how he "gets it" when there's no evidence of that but your wishful thinking. Are you even capable of independent reasoning?

You're just so fukking stupid. Any other income not subject to tax is completely irrelevant. It isn't even worth mentioning. It doesn't enter the calculations. You're waffling on about something that doesn't even matter.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

Captain Nemo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14916
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #140 - Mar 16^th, 2020 at 11:05pm

Bam wrote on Mar 16^th, 2020 at 9:53pm:

crocodile wrote on Mar 16^th, 2020 at 12:02pm:

Nemo gets it. He knows that total income is completely irrelevant. Only taxable income gets taxed so for tax purposes the rest doesn't even deserve a mention. That's the bit you don't like.

No, he doesn't get it. You've not realised that he's conflating total income with taxable income. Somehow he's asserting that there are self-funded retirees with "incomes" below $18,000 [sic] paying no tax. If that's their total income, why aren't they receiving a part pension? They would surely qualify because there is no way that $18,000 a year from shares would be enough to wipe out a $20,000 pension. Something's not right here, which you would realise if you knew anything about social security law (which you obviously don't).

Also notice how he's not backed up this assertion with a link despite being asked to do so.

Now, instead of repeating your baseless assertion, open your eyes and think about this. Are you able to figure this out? Or are you going to waffle on about how he "gets it" when there's no evidence of that but your wishful thinking. Are you even capable of independent reasoning?

There are self-funded retirees who are under the pension age, there are self-funded retirees who choose to support themselves.

But in ALL CASES, Shorten was going to rip away Tax Refunds from those who came in under the Tax Free threshold. That's the simple fact.

On average, ripping away $5,000 tax returns per annum from about 850,000 self-funded retirees.

That was his policy. Suck it up. Real deep.

What a bastard he was.

Luckily he lost the election.

AND

I gave you the link way back on page 5 of this thread ....

Remember this ? :

Shorten hits shareholders with plan for $59 billion revenue grab

By David Crowe
March 12, 2018 — 9.19pm

Labor will target more than 1 million Australian taxpayers who own shares in a $59 billion revenue push that would take its heaviest toll on retirees, as Bill Shorten wages war on “unfair” cash refunds and ramps up attacks on the rich.

In a bold move that hurts wealthier voters, the Opposition Leader will reveal plans to help balance the budget by cancelling cash refunds worth an average of $5000 a year to taxpayers who own shares and claim tax credits on their dividends.

The stunning decision takes aim at more affluent taxpayers in a “hit the rich” policy that is certain to spark a political fight over a group of voters still reeling from Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s move to scale back superannuation tax breaks two years ago.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten will announce another plank in Labor's economic policy on Tuesday.

Photo: Dominic Lorrimer

As Labor fights to hold the marginal seat of Batman against a threat from the Greens this weekend, Mr Shorten will blast the Coalition for creating a “loophole” in 2001 on the tax credits paid on dividends.

Mr Shorten opens the new fight over shareholder credits after his long row with Mr Turnbull over company tax cuts, where he has attacked the “big end of town” for not paying enough tax.

Labor is calculating the political pain from the bold new plan will be worthwhile when it uses the huge revenue gain to pay for policies at the next election - including personal income tax cuts.
The Labor policy, seen by Fairfax Media, is aimed at raising $5.6 billion in 2020 and a similar amount every year, equivalent to about $4,800 on average each year for every taxpayer affected.

This is based on Labor assumptions the reforms would hit about 8 per cent of taxpayers, or around 1.17 million individuals and superannuation funds - including 200,000 self-managed super funds.

In a key pledge, Mr Shorten will promise to continue with dividend imputation for millions of taxpayers and would only change the rules for those whose taxable income is so low they qualify for cash refunds.

“Everyone will still be able to use imputation credits to reduce their tax - but not to claim cash refunds,” he says in a draft of his remarks to a policy summit on Tuesday.
“Reforming the system to eliminate this concession will save the budget $11.4 billion over the final two years of the current forward estimates and $59 billion over the medium term.”
...

www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/shorten-hits-shareholders-with-plan-for-59-bi...

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 16^th, 2020 at 11:14pm by Captain Nemo »

The 2025 election WAS a shocker.

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 90122
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: Good Bye Surplus
Reply #141 - Mar 17^th, 2020 at 1:36am

Bam wrote on 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.

Well - somebody has to be making money out of it - it sure ain't the shareholders.... their gross income remains the same anyway regardless of DI, SINCE DI IS PART OF THEIR OVERALL SHARE DIVIDEND! CAPISCE??

Anyone who argues differently is protecting a rort and theft from the ATO and the people of Australia.

ONLY someone gaining an ILLEGAL advantage from DI would argue that it is a mandatory thing, as opposed to simple dividend payment to the shareholder.

There are no proceeds from Dividend Imputation - it is tax paid - separate from CompanyTaxes - on behalf of the shareholder.... it thus constitutes part of the shareholder's overall income and is considered the same as PAYE tax in consideration.

THAT is why it is totally unnecessary, unless it has become, through deliberate malfeasance, a rort for people who get it.

Pay your taxes honestly and you have no problem with or without dividend imputation, and THAT is the 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