Bill Shorten - how long?

[Carn The Berries]

Absolutely loving this stuff from Shorten: https://www.theguardian.com/austral...sh-refunds-for-wealthy-investors-saving-114bn

My favorite thing about Rudd was his addressing of middle class rorts and attacking the FBT. If Shorten is a mk2 government of this he'll be getting my vote no matter what!

So the solution is to increase the impost on those who have paid tax for their entire working life more? Pretty disingenuous from Bill... He's technically right that those affected won't pay any more tax, but they will end up with less cash in their pocket. If you're going to stiff people be honest about it and don't try and hide it.

And weren't we meant to be in the middle of a crisis where all the big corporates were making mega profits and paying no tax? Wonder how they are able to provide fully franked credits then...

 

[HairyO]

Absolutely loving this stuff from Shorten: https://www.theguardian.com/austral...sh-refunds-for-wealthy-investors-saving-114bn

My favorite thing about Rudd was his addressing of middle class rorts and attacking the FBT. If Shorten is a mk2 government of this he'll be getting my vote no matter what!

Voting for the party that wants to take money away from hundreds of thousands of pensioners. Truly the party of the people !

 

[Pessimistic]

Voting for the party that wants to take money away from hundreds of thousands of pensioners. Truly the party of the people !

Compared to the one which actually did

And pensioners aren’t exactly self funded retirees. But that’s not a great scare tactic line is it?

 

[Carn The Berries]

Compared to the one which actually did

And pensioners aren’t exactly self funded retirees. But that’s not a great scare tactic line is it?

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/03/winners-losers-franking-credit-changes/

This is the most balanced assessment of this situation that I have seen... Funny how the ALP have failed to make any acknowledgement of the fact that there will be detrimental effects on ALL retirees because these rules apply to credits that sit within super (Not just SMSF though they will be a large amount of the total wealth being impacted). There will be plenty who get the part pension but also have some income from their super (which at their stage in life would be heavily reliant on dividend income - this is a basic premise of their stage in the investment timeline).

"Getting poor investors to pay more tax is probably not good policy" - Seems a pretty fair point doesn't it?

 

[Maggie5]

Fact check on policy:

Scott Morrison has declared Labor is stealing tax refunds from pensioners and low-income retirees, and Malcolm Turnbull says Bill Shorten “is going after the
So how do these terrifying-sounding claims stack up?
Let’s bring in the respected economist Saul Eslake, who has no political dog in this race. Eslake is blunt. He says the government’s posturing is “misleading in the same way that most of what Scott Morrison said about Labor’s policy on negative gearing was misleading”.
To understand precisely what is misleading – the first thing to know is when we are talking about Australian retirees having low incomes, often what that means is people have low taxable incomes.
Income from superannuation funds is tax free once people turn 60. Eslake says the decision to make income from super tax free is “top of my list of the dumbest tax policy decisions of the last 25 years”.

It means people with substantial assets, and big super balances – millionaires in fact – are in a position to report low taxable income, and in fact structure their affairs to ensure they have low taxable income.

He says that change has conferred a “huge benefit” on people with significant assets and a big whack of non-taxable income. The practical effect is people are getting a tax refund despite the fact they pay no income tax.

The economist says there will be a small subset of self-funded retirees with low total incomes (as opposed to taxable income) negatively affected by what Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen are proposing.

Labor has quantified this group. It says the decision to end the cash payments will affect 14,000 full pensioners and 200,000 part-pensioners.
But Eslake says if people end up losing a modest income stream they might be eligible for a larger part pension, or a part pension for the first time, because they might meet the relevant income test.

More people becoming eligible for the pension might have implications for Labor’s budget savings ($11.4bn over the forward estimates and $59bn over the medium term) – but that’s another story.

So what’s the bottom line?

Labor’s proposal looks entirely sensible at the pure policy level, particularly in a climate where the budget is in structural deficit.

The country simply can’t afford a concession put together in the political circumstances Eslake describes, which was supposed to cost taxpayers $500m yet now runs into the billions, and largely benefits people fully capable of looking after their own interests.

In its rush to set up a class war, and paint Labor as the wild-eyed tax-and-spend merchants, the Coalition is deliberately over-egging the impact of the change, hoping to amplify the inevitable outrage from self-managed super funds and seniors groups.

 

[HairyO]

Compared to the one which actually did

And pensioners aren’t exactly self funded retirees. But that’s not a great scare tactic line is it?

You dont know much about the pension system. Which is understandable as most dont.

 

[Power Raid]

just one of the many emails received by Bill. This one was from a president of a charity who is a self funded retiree.


Mr Shorten

My husband and I have been hard working Labour voters all our lives, but NO longer.

We worked hard to give ourselves a comfortable life in retirement. We had just ordinary jobs, my husband starting as a driver and working his way up to area manager. I worked part time while raising our two children. We both also took on other part time jobs to increase our income and ensure we didn’t lean on the taxpayer.

We didn’t smoke or drink and only took the odd camping holiday while we worked on paying off our home and eventually buying shares. We were first punished for our hard work by the Liberal Government who ensured we could not access the aged pensions even though we had paid our taxes year after year. Now you want to shaft us even further by eating into our meagre income. We are hugely under the $18000 tax free limit and just live on our allocated pension.

Please reconsider. I know you are talking of helping pensioners in some way but what about those of us that are self funded retirees? We are left feeling sorry we didn’t squander our money!

My thoughts on the matter are the franking credits are paid for by the owners' share of company earnings - its the owners' money , The company does not pay tax on the owners earning, the company only pays tax on retained earning and withholds part of the owners earning (30% ) and forwards the same to the tax office, then forwards the remainder (70%) of owners earning to the owner as a dividend and issues a payment advise (dividend statement) to the owner that advises how much earning are dividends and how much of their earning are withheld as franking credits.

Shareholders ARE the owners of listed companies, not in any abstract sense, but in every literal and legal sense.

Your plan has a low income owner of shares or a pension phase retiree being taxed once at 30% of the total income with no tax free threshold regardless that their tax liability is assessed at $0 or nearly $0.

Franking credits are essentially the same as PAYE withholding which is the employees' earnings held in trust by the ATO for future tax liabilities or refunded when the tax liabilities are less then the PAYE amount. You are considering making low income and pension phase retirees pay a single 30% flat tax on all their earning as owners of a company. This would be treating all the above as foreign shareholders and denying the tax free threshold and progressive tax rates / tax free concessions given to individuals & pension phase retirees and passing it off as fixing a tax rort .

You are hurting those that have had the foresight to look after themselves in retirement.

Is it any wonder that the Australian people are looking beyond the two main parties and more and more will vote with Independents.




I guess Bill says sucked in for being a low income earner

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Surprise, surprise. The person who mentions Franking credits the most on BF doesn't like the removal of the credits (note deductions will still be allowed).

 

[Power Raid]

I think this is a great tax reform initiative from Bill

Bill’s franking credit policy wouldn’t affect those whinging low income earners if they only knew and accepted their station in life. Why should low income earners be saving, let alone buying shares? These types need to be put back in their place and appreciate buying shares is the domain of the wealthy (who aren’t effected by Labor’s changes).

Further it is a well established fact the low income earners are free loaders and Bill’s policy finally addresses this issue. The tax free thresholds are way too generous and people should be taxed 30% from the very first dollar they earn. If peasants feel aggrieved by this policy, then just earn an extra $100+k per annum and this policy wouldn’t affect them. The age of welfare has come to an end.

Bill’s policy on negative gearing is also excellent. This overly generous allowance to offset bona fide costs of investment against income has ordinary workers thinking they are the same class as wealthy people. The only people that should be allowed to negative gear as per Labor’s policy is, the wealthy, the beneficiaries of daddy’s trust fund or those who can transform wages into dividends like business owners. After all, it’s hard being wealthy with endless management and consideration of investments. So they deserve special Labor tax treatment and retain the right to negative gear.

 

[GreyCrow]

Robo-email

just one of the many emails received by Bill. This one was from a president of a charity who is a self funded retiree.


Mr Shorten

My husband and I have been hard working Labour voters all our lives, but NO longer.

We worked hard to give ourselves a comfortable life in retirement. We had just ordinary jobs, my husband starting as a driver and working his way up to area manager. I worked part time while raising our two children. We both also took on other part time jobs to increase our income and ensure we didn’t lean on the taxpayer.

We didn’t smoke or drink and only took the odd camping holiday while we worked on paying off our home and eventually buying shares. We were first punished for our hard work by the Liberal Government who ensured we could not access the aged pensions even though we had paid our taxes year after year. Now you want to shaft us even further by eating into our meagre income. We are hugely under the $18000 tax free limit and just live on our allocated pension.

Please reconsider. I know you are talking of helping pensioners in some way but what about those of us that are self funded retirees? We are left feeling sorry we didn’t squander our money!

My thoughts on the matter are the franking credits are paid for by the owners' share of company earnings - its the owners' money , The company does not pay tax on the owners earning, the company only pays tax on retained earning and withholds part of the owners earning (30% ) and forwards the same to the tax office, then forwards the remainder (70%) of owners earning to the owner as a dividend and issues a payment advise (dividend statement) to the owner that advises how much earning are dividends and how much of their earning are withheld as franking credits.

Shareholders ARE the owners of listed companies, not in any abstract sense, but in every literal and legal sense.

Your plan has a low income owner of shares or a pension phase retiree being taxed once at 30% of the total income with no tax free threshold regardless that their tax liability is assessed at $0 or nearly $0.

Franking credits are essentially the same as PAYE withholding which is the employees' earnings held in trust by the ATO for future tax liabilities or refunded when the tax liabilities are less then the PAYE amount. You are considering making low income and pension phase retirees pay a single 30% flat tax on all their earning as owners of a company. This would be treating all the above as foreign shareholders and denying the tax free threshold and progressive tax rates / tax free concessions given to individuals & pension phase retirees and passing it off as fixing a tax rort .

You are hurting those that have had the foresight to look after themselves in retirement.

Is it any wonder that the Australian people are looking beyond the two main parties and more and more will vote with Independents.




I guess Bill says sucked in for being a low income earner

 

[Carn The Berries]

Surprise, surprise. The person who mentions Franking credits the most on BF doesn't like the removal of the credits (note deductions will still be allowed).

And what income exactly is the person who wrote the letter meant to use those unclaimed credits on? Their tax free income?

 

[NSWCROW]

Just watchin Q&A

Tell ya what , he's gonna have to come up with a simple(r) way to explain this tax or he's gonna " Hewson " the election.

 

[JackOutback]

Just watchin Q&A

Tell ya what , he's gonna have to come up with a simple(r) way to explain this tax or he's gonna " Hewson " the election.

Bowen already nailed it; you don't get a tax refund if you don't pay tax. Simples.

 

[Pessimistic]

just one of the many emails received by Bill. This one was from a president of a charity who is a self funded retiree.


Mr Shorten

My husband and I have been hard working Labour voters all our lives, but NO longer.

We worked hard to give ourselves a comfortable life in retirement. We had just ordinary jobs, my husband starting as a driver and working his way up to area manager. I worked part time while raising our two children. We both also took on other part time jobs to increase our income and ensure we didn’t lean on the taxpayer.

We didn’t smoke or drink and only took the odd camping holiday while we worked on paying off our home and eventually buying shares. We were first punished for our hard work by the Liberal Government who ensured we could not access the aged pensions even though we had paid our taxes year after year. Now you want to shaft us even further by eating into our meagre income. We are hugely under the $18000 tax free limit and just live on our allocated pension.

Please reconsider. I know you are talking of helping pensioners in some way but what about those of us that are self funded retirees? We are left feeling sorry we didn’t squander our money!

My thoughts on the matter are the franking credits are paid for by the owners' share of company earnings - its the owners' money , The company does not pay tax on the owners earning, the company only pays tax on retained earning and withholds part of the owners earning (30% ) and forwards the same to the tax office, then forwards the remainder (70%) of owners earning to the owner as a dividend and issues a payment advise (dividend statement) to the owner that advises how much earning are dividends and how much of their earning are withheld as franking credits.

Shareholders ARE the owners of listed companies, not in any abstract sense, but in every literal and legal sense.

Your plan has a low income owner of shares or a pension phase retiree being taxed once at 30% of the total income with no tax free threshold regardless that their tax liability is assessed at $0 or nearly $0.

Franking credits are essentially the same as PAYE withholding which is the employees' earnings held in trust by the ATO for future tax liabilities or refunded when the tax liabilities are less then the PAYE amount. You are considering making low income and pension phase retirees pay a single 30% flat tax on all their earning as owners of a company. This would be treating all the above as foreign shareholders and denying the tax free threshold and progressive tax rates / tax free concessions given to individuals & pension phase retirees and passing it off as fixing a tax rort .

You are hurting those that have had the foresight to look after themselves in retirement.

Is it any wonder that the Australian people are looking beyond the two main parties and more and more will vote with Independents.




I guess Bill says sucked in for being a low income earner

Did the Libs get a letter cos they actually DID shaft these people?

 

[GreyCrow]

Just watchin Q&A

Tell ya what , he's gonna have to come up with a simple(r) way to explain this tax or he's gonna " Hewson " the election.

I am ignorant of how this all works and there aint no franking on the dole

But a question arose today and I would love an answer if anybody has it. How does this policy affect superannuations still to come to term? ie my mate sayd his super is being franked , I said I didnt think it was and he lost it. (Lib stooge)

 

[Power Raid]

I am ignorant of how this all works and there aint no franking on the dole

But a question arose today and I would love an answer if anybody has it. How does this policy affect superannuations still to come to term? ie my mate sayd his super is being franked , I said I didnt think it was and he lost it. (Lib stooge)

No franking means fully franked dividends could be effectively taxed at 30% rather than 15%.

This effects anyone with super and not just those drawing on super.


The best thing people can do is set up their super overseas.

 

[NSWCROW]

Bowen already nailed it; you don't get a tax refund if you don't pay tax. Simples.

They need to hammer that line every time they're asked about it the next 7 days

 

[Hawk Dork]

Bit rich the Libs caring for pensioners they want to make the poor wait another 3 years on the dole at $100 less a week before they can get the pension.
They just screwed down hard on the most vulnerable with robo calls to raise $17 mill a year and tried to reduce the aged pension winter subsidy.

 

[Power Raid]

Bowen already nailed it; you don't get a tax refund if you don't pay tax. Simples.

If they’re going to spread a lie, they should at least be consistent in principle with no PAYG refunds where your employer pays too much tax during the year for you.

But in politics lies carry more weight than substance

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

And what income exactly is the person who wrote the letter meant to use those unclaimed credits on? Their tax free income?

When talking about public policy I pay more attention to the policy, rather than to letters of dubious origin being spread in order to try and influence opinion. If people aren't paying tax, then they shouldn't get a tax refund. The company paid 30% tax on it. The superannuant in question then receives it and pays no tax. There is absolutely no need for that person to then get a tax credit. Business should pay tax, just like citizens do, because we all use society.

If the superannuant did pay tax, they could reduce their tax by the difference. So they still get the deduction.

 

[Carn The Berries]

When talking about public policy I pay more attention to the policy, rather than to letters of dubious origin being spread in order to try and influence opinion. If people aren't paying tax, then they shouldn't get a tax refund. The company paid 30% tax on it. The superannuant in question then receives it and pays no tax. There is absolutely no need for that person to then get a tax credit. Business should pay tax, just like citizens do, because we all use society.

If the superannuant did pay tax, they could reduce their tax by the difference. So they still get the deduction.

As shareholders of a company they are being effectively taxed at 30% on funds that they are entitled to as shareholders. If your marginal tax rate is less than 30% shouldn't you be entitled to be compensated for the additional tax that has already been collected on funds you are entitled to?

 

[pazza]

The win in Batman shows the strength in Victorian Labor and I have to admit that Bolt got it right in that it virtually ends Albanese's apparent rumoured takeover of the role for quite some time.

Virtually means we will have a Victorian based Prime Minister sometime in the next 12 months.

 

[Pie eyed]

You dont know much about the pension system. Which is understandable as most dont.

ROFL.
How many people on a part pension will actually qualify for more under the proposed change.
You don't know. You never even considered the fact because you have no idea what you are on about other than Labor proposed the change so you will oppose it.

 

[Todman]

You would think by now that whenever Labor attempt to tax the rich, it is always the not so well off getting slugged with the result. The rich have the ability to restructure quickly and thus avoid paying the so call windfall. I hope Bill hasn't already allocated where this money is going. It is probably another mirage like the "Mining Tax"!

 

[HairyO]

ROFL.
How many people on a part pension will actually qualify for more under the proposed change.
You don't know. You never even considered the fact because you have no idea what you are on about other than Labor proposed the change so you will oppose it.

Labor have admitted that it is around 200,000 people who will be affected by the change and who currently get a pension or part-pension.

In theory it is a good idea, but in practice it is terribly implemented. The obvious solution should have been to ensure that it doesnt affect anyone who qualifies for a pension so that it actually only affects people on large incomes who are taking advantage of a clever tax trick.

But then again, the following is true:

You would think by now that whenever Labor attempt to tax the rich, it is always the not so well off getting slugged with the result. The rich have the ability to restructure quickly and thus avoid paying the so call windfall. I hope Bill hasn't already allocated where this money is going. It is probably another mirage like the "Mining Tax"!

Im sure the financial planners are already working out the next best way to shift funds around to keep rich people paying no tax.

So it will be great when this plan hurts a few hundred thousand poor people as well as fails to reduced the expected expenditures because the next best thing available to rich people sees them able to claim nearly as much money.

But do keep fighting the good fight against the poor, Pie eyed. You know, Party first, country second.