• Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!

To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.

Already a member? Log in here.

Dividend franking credits

Discussion in 'Beginner's Lounge' started by Joel1st, Feb 29, 2012.

  1. sptrawler

    sptrawler

    Posts:
    10,343
    Likes Received:
    1,145
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    The problem is IMO, the way they are doing it, if you can't see that then you are in for some shocks as you go through life.
    They aren't ending it, they are still giving it to those on welfare, so by your definition that's triple dipping.
    If they wanted a sensible effective way of efficiently dealing with it, they would just introduce tax scales to super pensions, then at a certain level of pension the rate goes to 30% which in effect cancels the franking credit.
    But that isn't what this whole thing is about, self funded people do so because they don't trust other people managing their money, Labor want them in the industry funds so they can fatten the gravy train.
    That is all this is about, self interest.
    If you can't see that, well like I said, you will be at the receiving end. IMO
     
    qldfrog and willy1111 like this.
  2. sptrawler

    sptrawler

    Posts:
    10,343
    Likes Received:
    1,145
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
  3. Logique

    Logique Investor

    Posts:
    3,941
    Likes Received:
    365
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    B/S. Spare us the social justice posturing. Electricity Bill and Chris Bowen could still claim the franking credit, but not Nanna on $18k ann. That's Labor's fair society.
     
    CNHTractor likes this.
  4. tinhat

    tinhat Pocket Calculator Operator

    Posts:
    1,271
    Likes Received:
    147
    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    I have a vague recollection of reading somewhere a few years ago an argument that it would be cheaper to just give everyone that is at retirement age the aged pension (without limiting eligibility through an asset or income test) compared to the amount of tax concessions that the government gives to retirees. The entire tax system needs to be reformed but no government has had the nerve to do it.
     
    sptrawler likes this.
  5. sptrawler

    sptrawler

    Posts:
    10,343
    Likes Received:
    1,145
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    That retirement system you are talking about, is the system we used to have, the same as NZ, U.K and Canada, but our pollies screwed it up as usual, from what I've read.
    Everyone pays in, everyone gets a basic pension, if you invest in super it is taxed as income.

    All that is happening now is, the politicians are trying to find any worker with money and take it off them. Dumb $hit.
    How Labor can say with a straight face, they are helping the middle income earner, by stopping negative gearing on established cheap houses and only allowing it on new builds WTF.

    How the hell can a worker pay for their own home, and then build a brand new rental property, what planet are they on? The rich can do that, workers have no chance.

    Then even if the worker could afford to do it, when they sell it, they will get hit with more capital gains? The only ones who could afford that scenario are developers, who work on flipping.
    Then to really take the cake, labor is going to give the developers the money to do it, as long as they give cheaper rent than the market average. So use tax payers money, to put people in the rent trap.
    FFS if the Libs suggested it, there would be an uproar.
    What I can't believe is how people are supporting it, it is mind boggling, the lemming like attitude of people. Is there any wonder our education standards are falling, they have to, so the population can be sold this crap.:xyxthumbs
     
  6. Kremmen

    Kremmen

    Posts:
    367
    Likes Received:
    7
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Currently, any individual earning $35k per year, salaried or from investments, is taxed $3192. The proposed scheme would mean someone earning that from dividends would be taxed $10500.

    Being charged over 3 times as much tax as someone else with the same income, just because of the source, is anything but fair.
     
    qldfrog, Toyota Lexcen and willy1111 like this.
  7. Smurf1976

    Smurf1976

    Posts:
    8,557
    Likes Received:
    1,564
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Someone earning $500K loses nothing at all from the proposed changes.

    Someone earning $100K also loses nothing.

    Someone earning $20K loses quite a bit.

    Assuming in all cases they own shares which pay franked dividends.

    So it's cutting welfare for those in the bottom half but who still have investments whilst keeping it keeping it fully intact for those at the top.

    So if you're upper class then it's business as usual. If you're lower class then you're not affected since you won't own any shares anyway. If you're middle class then you're being given a push toward becoming lower class*

    This is a good idea because?

    If we're considering franking credits, which represent tax already paid, to be a form of welfare and there's an aim to remove that then wouldn't it be more sensible to remove it from high income earners instead of removing it from low income earners? A welfare scheme that only applies to high income earners seems a rather odd approach to me. :2twocents

    *Not that I like the concept of "class" but it seemed the best way to make the point.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2019
    qldfrog and sptrawler like this.
  8. Knobby22

    Knobby22 Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

    Posts:
    4,964
    Likes Received:
    322
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    I'm missing something because that is incorrect.
    You know the guy that's running the online petition collects well over 2 million a year from franking credits which he will lose if the change occurs.
    I don't know if he works for a living, probably not.
     
  9. basilio

    basilio

    Posts:
    6,788
    Likes Received:
    841
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
  10. basilio

    basilio

    Posts:
    6,788
    Likes Received:
    841
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    SirRumpole likes this.
  11. Zaxon

    Zaxon The voice of reason

    Posts:
    248
    Likes Received:
    148
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    "Franking credits" and "franking credit refunds" are not the same thing. If your dividends are pre-taxed at 30%, when it comes to paying your own tax on that money, you're credited for that 30% already paid - franking credits. If your tax rate is lower, you're refunded the difference (currently).

    No millionaire is getting franking credit refunds.
     
    qldfrog and Skate like this.
  12. basilio

    basilio

    Posts:
    6,788
    Likes Received:
    841
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    !!!

    Really Zaxon ? Sorry that is just not the case. In fact the entire case for the Labour party moving on this issue is the realisation that $5b a year is being given as franking credit refunds overwhelmingly to very wealthy people.

    It is true that their nominal taxable income is less than $18k a year. That doesn't change what is behind those carefully constructed figures.

    And guess what ? Older people are now paying far less tax than their peers 20 years ago. Check out the analysis I quoted in my previous post.



    Grattan1a.jpg Grattan2.jpg Grattan3.jpg
    For more than a decade, superannuation tax concessions have been absurdly generous to older people on high incomes. They are one of the major reasons older households pay less income tax in real terms today than they did twenty years ago, even though their workforce participation rates and real wages have jumped.

    These age-based tax breaks help to explain why the proportion of seniors paying tax almost halved in twenty years, from 27 per cent in 1995 to 16 per cent in 2014. The rise of these “taxed-nots” coincides with the introduction of the Senior Australian Tax Offset in 2000, and tax-free super withdrawals in 2007.

    http://insidestory.org.au/the-real-story-of-labors-dividend-imputation-reforms/
     
    Knobby22 likes this.
  13. Toyota Lexcen

    Toyota Lexcen

    Posts:
    417
    Likes Received:
    44
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    would be good if they used data from independent source
     
  14. basilio

    basilio

    Posts:
    6,788
    Likes Received:
    841
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    It is an independent source. It comes from the ABS Survey of Income and Housing 2014-15. They have just used it in their analysis.

    Does it strike you as intriguing that 43% of the wealthiest 10% of Australians over 65 have an official taxable income less than $18k ? Does that help explain concern where most of $5b a year of imputation refunds is going ?

    Because it certainly isn't being used by the poor buggers in the bottom 40-50% of the wealth/income scale.
     
    Darc Knight and Knobby22 like this.
  15. willy1111

    willy1111

    Posts:
    276
    Likes Received:
    217
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2006
    So basically it is because couples can hold upto $3.2m in Super between them and not have to pay any tax on the earnings from the $3.2m if held in pension mode.

    So why not just change the tax rules to do with Super? Just apply marginal tax rates on the Super earnings once it goes into pension mode.
     
    Skate likes this.
  16. Toyota Lexcen

    Toyota Lexcen

    Posts:
    417
    Likes Received:
    44
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Couldn't find any reference to ABS only to Grattan Report.
     
  17. Zaxon

    Zaxon The voice of reason

    Posts:
    248
    Likes Received:
    148
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    The same Grattan Institute who says "Most Australians will retire with enough savings".
     
  18. basilio

    basilio

    Posts:
    6,788
    Likes Received:
    841
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Go to the original story and look under the pictures of the graphs. The first two state Survey of Income and Housing 2015. That is the ABS report. Gratten Institute used that survey for the information in their report. The creation of the graphs to reflect the information in the survey would be the work of the Gratten researchers
    They don't have the capacity or the independent credibility to undertake such a survey.

    http://www.abs.gov.au/household-income
    http://insidestory.org.au/the-real-story-of-labors-dividend-imputation-reforms/
     
  19. basilio

    basilio

    Posts:
    6,788
    Likes Received:
    841
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Not sure Willy. Certainly that could be the case for a number of people. On the other hand there may be other Trust or Company structures that have enabled people to hold exceptional wealth and a great lifestyle but report a minimal tax position.

    Perhaps other posters can offer insight into how this can be done ?
     
  20. Toyota Lexcen

    Toyota Lexcen

    Posts:
    417
    Likes Received:
    44
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    They have made their own interpretation of the survey? Why don’t they credit ABS correctly for it?

    Seems suspicious to not credit it correctly
     
Loading...

Share This Page