• 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.

Maintain the current dividend imputation system

Discussion in 'Business, Investment and Economics' started by willy1111, Oct 5, 2018.

  1. HelloAgain

    HelloAgain

    Posts:
    9
    Likes Received:
    4
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2018
    Through their own efforts and no burden on taxpayers unlike others who haven’t made the same effort and receive an aged pension with considerable associated benefits - courtesy of taxpayers.
     
    willy1111 likes this.
  2. HelloU

    HelloU

    Posts:
    888
    Likes Received:
    270
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    strangely that, to me, is the biggest problem of all in the tax system.
    when a change is being discussed you have to carefully clarify which of the half dozen sub-groups of individual taxpayers you are discussing ....instead of being able to just simply say how this change will effect australian taxpayers ....
    'if, then, but' type tax changes of any sort are divisive as they discriminate.

    and that does not even include the various COY tax rates now, and super tax rates, and trust tax rates etc
     
  3. SirRumpole

    SirRumpole

    Posts:
    12,385
    Likes Received:
    2,016
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    "no burden on taxpayers" ?

    A retiree receiving $100k pa super pays no tax while someone earning that amount through personal exertion pays about $30k a year.
     
  4. HelloU

    HelloU

    Posts:
    888
    Likes Received:
    270
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    same proof again .....it is divisive to have lots of sub-groups of taxpayers. (cos it is discriminatory)
     
  5. SirRumpole

    SirRumpole

    Posts:
    12,385
    Likes Received:
    2,016
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Well, that's multi taxpayeralism for you.

    :)
     
  6. HelloAgain

    HelloAgain

    Posts:
    9
    Likes Received:
    4
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2018
    Amazing isn’t it? One person can save enough through personal exertion to earn $100,000 pa in retirement while another can receive $25,000 plus in retirement as a government pension and pay no tax.

    That irrelevant to the refund imputation credits as the tax has already been paid by the company. Perhaps the it would be fairer if companies paid no tax then all taxpayers could include their dividends in their tax returns.
     
    willy1111 likes this.
  7. HelloU

    HelloU

    Posts:
    888
    Likes Received:
    270
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    I just wanted to post here ...again.
     
    HelloAgain likes this.
  8. HelloU

    HelloU

    Posts:
    888
    Likes Received:
    270
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    quietly ...it IS the grossed up figure that is already used in ur tax return ........

    (that strengthens ur argument btw)
     
  9. SirRumpole

    SirRumpole

    Posts:
    12,385
    Likes Received:
    2,016
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Or we could do what every other country (nearly) does and tax both profits and dividends.
     
  10. HelloU

    HelloU

    Posts:
    888
    Likes Received:
    270
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    should have asked the tampon committee, they were recently making the big tax calls.
     
  11. SirRumpole

    SirRumpole

    Posts:
    12,385
    Likes Received:
    2,016
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Let us know what they say.
     
  12. HelloU

    HelloU

    Posts:
    888
    Likes Received:
    270
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    just quietly ....we already tax both profits and dividends (2 different tax entities involved there of course)
    It is the grossed up figure that is included in the tax returns for individuals ......that is the issue for many ....that one person can get to 'keep' all of the imp credits whilst another person may not get to 'keep' any of it.

    On a broader level this is not the same as having 'too many' deductions compared with tax liabilities .....so deductions are lost. This is actually taxation payments made to the ATO that exceed liabilities accrued by the taxpayer based on taxable income (under current tax laws). If the ATO does not wish to hand back excess tax payments then DO NOT use a grossed up figure in returns to calculate taxable income.

    I have never said if I agree with any of this or not, I just want equity in the taxation system.
     
    willy1111, SirRumpole and HelloAgain like this.
  13. sptrawler

    sptrawler

    Posts:
    11,246
    Likes Received:
    1,953
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    I agree, it is funny how those who have paid very little tax, object to those who have paid a lot of tax getting anything.
     
  14. SirRumpole

    SirRumpole

    Posts:
    12,385
    Likes Received:
    2,016
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014



    Is the age pension exempt from tax ?
     
  15. Smurf1976

    Smurf1976

    Posts:
    9,045
    Likes Received:
    2,315
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Agreed but surely in this era of massive data about everyone and everything it should be straightforward to sort out who is and who is not earning less than $x from all sources. Arguments based around administrative complexity don’t really cut it in 2018.

    It’s not something that would directly affect me at the present time but I do take issue with yet another change to the rules regarding investing and in particular that it sends a message that an individual is either wealthy or on welfare with most being the latter.
     
  16. HelloU

    HelloU

    Posts:
    888
    Likes Received:
    270
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    just for those who may not have been involved in the "normal" tax system lately (PAYG and the like) there is now 2 different figures used when you do a tax return (and welfare applications).
    One is the 'taxable income' that is used to calculate payable income tax, and
    second is ATI - Adjusted taxable Income.

    ATI is the figure that prevents peeps earning a high income, then burning a lot of it in negative gearing and stuff, and then try to put their hand out for welfare.

    Those days are now pretty much gone.
     
  17. HelloU

    HelloU

    Posts:
    888
    Likes Received:
    270
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    essentially correct.

    more complicated but if no tax has been taken from the pension payments, and that is your total 'income' then a tax return is not required.
     
  18. Knobby22

    Knobby22 Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

    Posts:
    5,161
    Likes Received:
    469
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    I think they should just set a cap on imputation limits rather than ban them for ordinary households, say $10,000.
    It is crazy that a few wealthy people have managed through good advice (and loopholes that have since been closed) to park hundreds of millions of dollars in Super and then received massive imputation credits worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and yet pay no tax whatsoever.
     
    SirRumpole likes this.
  19. SirRumpole

    SirRumpole

    Posts:
    12,385
    Likes Received:
    2,016
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Contributions to a super fund only taxed at 15% and no tax on the payments is a lot more than "anything".

    Anyway I'd be happy with super pensions over $100K being taxable, I don't want to hurt the little guy.
     
  20. willy1111

    willy1111

    Posts:
    307
    Likes Received:
    271
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2006
    Geoff Wilson is also polling people for this to help his ammunition against the proposal https://wilsonassetmanagement.com.a...-wrong-side-of-history-with-franking-changes/
     
Loading...

Share This Page