News Melbourne player accused of sexual assault

Status
Not open for further replies.

(Log in to remove this ad.)

demondavey

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2005
20,606
15,938
AFL Club
Melbourne
Yup agreed. It's become socially normal to blame anyone else but yourself
Dude, it’s 2018, no one is responsible for anything anymore, not even politicians. Chris Bowen on the 7:30 report tried to blame the Howard government on the reason why there is a budget deficit as a way to tax dividends from SMSF even after franking credits had been applied. Maybe not the thread but if you manage to get yourself an 80k a year salary from your SMSF upon retirement you SHOULD NOT BE TAXED!
 

harry000

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 9, 2015
8,160
12,519
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
New England Patriots
Dude, it’s 2018, no one is responsible for anything anymore, not even politicians. Chris Bowen on the 7:30 report tried to blame the Howard government on the reason why there is a budget deficit as a way to tax dividends from SMSF even after franking credits had been applied. Maybe not the thread but if you manage to get yourself an 80k a year salary from your SMSF upon retirement you SHOULD NOT BE TAXED!
I don't think politicians have ever been responsible for anything.
 

ponsdale

Premiership Player
Sep 20, 2012
4,011
4,354
Sydney
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
Dude, it’s 2018, no one is responsible for anything anymore, not even politicians. Chris Bowen on the 7:30 report tried to blame the Howard government on the reason why there is a budget deficit as a way to tax dividends from SMSF even after franking credits had been applied. Maybe not the thread but if you manage to get yourself an 80k a year salary from your SMSF upon retirement you SHOULD NOT BE TAXED!
Yes you should be taxed. That's how the tax system works.

Bowen's policy is not to levy tax on the dividends, its to stop the recipient of the dividend claiming a cash refund for the imputation credits attached to those dividends when that recipient has paid no other tax. Which I think is pretty fair.
 

demondavey

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2005
20,606
15,938
AFL Club
Melbourne
Yes you should be taxed. That's how the tax system works.

Bowen's policy is not to levy tax on the dividends, its to stop the recipient of the dividend claiming a cash refund for the imputation credits attached to those dividends when that recipient has paid no other tax. Which I think is pretty fair.
They shouldn’t need to pay tax though? It’s superannuation. In that case change the legislation around franking credits.
 

ponsdale

Premiership Player
Sep 20, 2012
4,011
4,354
Sydney
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
They shouldn’t need to pay tax though? It’s superannuation. In that case change the legislation around franking credits.
Superannuation should be taxed. Super is just an investment made to provide an income at a later date. Same as buying and selling shares, or a house, or rental property. Each provide revenue to you at a later date and each is be taxed at the time of receiving that revenue stream.

The proposal, as I understand it, is that the recipient would not be required to pay any additional tax. They would simply not get a free cash tax refund in that year for tax that they haven't paid.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

demondavey

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2005
20,606
15,938
AFL Club
Melbourne
Superannuation should be taxed. Super is just an investment made to provide an income at a later date. Same as buying and selling shares, or a house, or rental property. Each provide revenue to you at a later date and each is be taxed at the time of receiving that revenue stream.

The proposal, as I understand it, is that the recipient would not be required to pay any additional tax. They would simply not get a free cash tax refund in that year for tax that they haven't paid.
That’s an inefficient viewpoint. Superannuation is designed to provide individuals an income post retirement. Taxing superannuation and levying taxes on individuals who have established their own SMSF, taken risks, sought and paid for advice, and developed an income stream completely independent of government intervention is a deterrent to hard work and economic independence.

The application of a tax on an asset in a capital sense is fair, but taxing superannuation is a joke. I have shares, and I don’t have them in an SMSF, but I know people who do, no super is untouchable, that’s your retirement, your living. This is yet another way to bring the equilibrium back to the market which adversely affects people who build up their own investments, you’re taking a clip off the top and redistributing it back to the government.

If people have their SMSF taxed, the imputation or franking credits taxed, then some need to draw from the pension. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul and just soaking up government capital to fund retirees when in fact if they’d let them take dividends tax free then they’d have more reserves in their coffers.

As far as franking credits go? Well if it’s sitting under the title of Superannuation you can’t touch it until a certain age anyway, so you can’t use it to build your assets tax free, you use post work life to live off. Franking credits come in the form of rebates from taxable income companies pay, now that’s how they work, if you’ve pushed into the SMSF path and said companies issue franking credits, then that’s your gain.

Most people owning SMSF are high income earners anyway, some paying 48 cents in the dollar, over the course of their lives they’ve paid hundreds of thousands if not more in tax. Whacking then again is just typical labour propping up the low income earners.
 

Tempy Tiger

Premiership Player
Sep 18, 2006
4,321
3,395
AFL Club
Melbourne
That’s an inefficient viewpoint. Superannuation is designed to provide individuals an income post retirement. Taxing superannuation and levying taxes on individuals who have established their own SMSF, taken risks, sought and paid for advice, and developed an income stream completely independent of government intervention is a deterrent to hard work and economic independence.

The application of a tax on an asset in a capital sense is fair, but taxing superannuation is a joke. I have shares, and I don’t have them in an SMSF, but I know people who do, no super is untouchable, that’s your retirement, your living. This is yet another way to bring the equilibrium back to the market which adversely affects people who build up their own investments, you’re taking a clip off the top and redistributing it back to the government.

If people have their SMSF taxed, the imputation or franking credits taxed, then some need to draw from the pension. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul and just soaking up government capital to fund retirees when in fact if they’d let them take dividends tax free then they’d have more reserves in their coffers.

As far as franking credits go? Well if it’s sitting under the title of Superannuation you can’t touch it until a certain age anyway, so you can’t use it to build your assets tax free, you use post work life to live off. Franking credits come in the form of rebates from taxable income companies pay, now that’s how they work, if you’ve pushed into the SMSF path and said companies issue franking credits, then that’s your gain.

Most people owning SMSF are high income earners anyway, some paying 48 cents in the dollar, over the course of their lives they’ve paid hundreds of thousands if not more in tax. Whacking then again is just typical labour propping up the low income earners.
Yeah. We should just let those low income earners eat cake.
 

demondavey

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2005
20,606
15,938
AFL Club
Melbourne
Yeah. We should just let those low income earners eat cake.
No, but high income earners who have geverated income from a SMSF shouldn’t be clipped with tax from a rebate from a franking credit. Superannuation and tax needn’t be aligned.

Not the right thread anyway.

Go Demons.
 

mrmonkey

Premiership Player
Dec 3, 2010
3,246
3,092
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
Sort of reminds me when Aaron Davey made the segregation claim a bout Neeld on the eve of 2012. Was this ever clarified or was it just swept under the carpet. Maybe because of Jim Stynes passing the media moved on. But if it wasn't clarified then either Davey lied or Neeld actually did segregate or was there just a whole misunderstanding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom