Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

[Q.]

Budget


Any thoughts?

It sounds promising. Without the detail, and based on headlines it certainly could sway my vote.

Were Murdoch headlines going to be anything other than glowing?

[Q.]

Budget

Any thoughts?

It sounds promising. Without the detail, and based on headlines it certainly could sway my vote.

Chucking me a $1000 or so over a year isn't enough to sway my vote to these clowns, there's more to governing than just finance and these bastards have no social conscience. Morrison is a limp wristed PM by default and nothing more. Frydenberg is the slimiest prick I've ever seen in a federal government ( and that's saying something! ) while rats like Pyne, Bishop and co. are fully aware this ship is sinking and they're off for dry land.

Hard pressed finding a slimier Government in Aus history.

Morrison spent over $100 mil reopening Xmas Island dentention centre for a photo op to use as a smear campaign against Labor's support of the Medivac bill. The smear campaign failed and he is shutting it again. Slimebag.

[Booney]

Budget

Any thoughts?

It sounds promising. Without the detail, and based on headlines it certainly could sway my vote.

Chucking me a $1000 or so over a year isn't enough to sway my vote to these clowns, there's more to governing than just finance and these bastards have no social conscience. Morrison is a limp wristed PM by default and nothing more. Frydenberg is the slimiest prick I've ever seen in a federal government ( and that's saying something! ) while rats like Pyne, Bishop and co. are fully aware this ship is sinking and they're off for dry land.

Hard pressed finding a slimier Government in Aus history.

Morrison spent over $100 mil reopening Xmas Island dentention centre for a photo op to use as a smear campaign against Labor's support of the Medivac bill. The smear campaign failed and he is shutting it again. Slimebag.

But all the murderers and rapists and child abusers we stopped from entering the country....

[Jimmy_041]

I went to an accountants seminar about Labor’s attack on self funded retirees in Melbourne yesterday.
Good luck Bill and Chris. There are a lot smarter people than you two in the world.

Everyone on the panel said it is a clear strategy to support the industry funds for their fight against SMSFs.
There were several strategies to counter the move and a Labor Government will save very little.
The accountants will wait for the final law but they are gearing up to advise their members how to respond to it.

As for the propaganda that it attacks the rich! Anyone with over $1.6m will still get the excess franking credits refund.

[bulldogproud]

I went to an accountants seminar about Labor’s attack on self funded retirees in Melbourne yesterday.
Good luck Bill and Chris. There are a lot smarter people than you two in the world.

Everyone on the panel said it is a clear strategy to support the industry funds for their fight against SMSFs.
There were several strategies to counter the move and a Labor Government will save very little.
The accountants will wait for the final law but they are gearing up to advise their members how to respond to it.

As for the propaganda that it attacks the rich! Anyone with over $1.6m will still get the excess franking credits refund.

This move by the ALP is closing a taxation loophole that was created by John Howard. No other country in the world allows a taxation 'refund' on franking credits where no tax has been paid. Please explain to me why someone should get a 'refund' when they never paid the tax in the first place?? How can you get a 'refund' on something you never paid?????

Also, just to show the actual small impact of the franking credit, please note the following:

Average Dividend Yield on Australian shares for the 2017/18 year was 2.1%.
The Franking Credit is worth 15% of the value of the dividend (the difference between the company tax rate of 30% and the superannuation taxation rate of 15%).
This means that the Franking Credit is worth 15% of 2.1% of the value of shares a person holds. This means it is equal to 0.315% of a person's share portfolio.
This means that if a person holds $10,000 in shares, their franking credit is worth a TOTAL of $31.50 in total.
Now, ask yourself this:
Would you prefer to receive $31.50 a year in franking credits and have someone who contracted cancer pay $10 000, or would you prefer to forego the $31.50 and perhaps save the life of someone with cancer?

Even a person with $100 000 in shares only receives Franking Credits of $315. As such, it is mainly the rich who actually benefit from franking credits to any sizeable degree.

Cheers

[Jimmy_041]

I went to an accountants seminar about Labor’s attack on self funded retirees in Melbourne yesterday.
Good luck Bill and Chris. There are a lot smarter people than you two in the world.

Everyone on the panel said it is a clear strategy to support the industry funds for their fight against SMSFs.
There were several strategies to counter the move and a Labor Government will save very little.
The accountants will wait for the final law but they are gearing up to advise their members how to respond to it.

As for the propaganda that it attacks the rich! Anyone with over $1.6m will still get the excess franking credits refund.

This move by the ALP is closing a taxation loophole that was created by John Howard. No other country in the world allows a taxation 'refund' on franking credits where no tax has been paid. Please explain to me why someone should get a 'refund' when they never paid the tax in the first place?? How can you get a 'refund' on something you never paid?????
Cheers

But, as a business owner, you have paid 30% tax already.
Plus; why then should retirees, paying no tax, get the excess franking credits if they are in a industry fund instead of an SMSF?

And don't fall for this no other country line - there are plenty of taxes that we have to pay that others around the world don't pay
There are also plenty of other tax jurisdictions that allow you to get a tax deduction for your home loan interest. I'll swap you the home loan deductions for excess franking credits. That would really make homes affordable in Australia

[bulldogproud]

I went to an accountants seminar about Labor’s attack on self funded retirees in Melbourne yesterday.
Good luck Bill and Chris. There are a lot smarter people than you two in the world.

Everyone on the panel said it is a clear strategy to support the industry funds for their fight against SMSFs.
There were several strategies to counter the move and a Labor Government will save very little.
The accountants will wait for the final law but they are gearing up to advise their members how to respond to it.

As for the propaganda that it attacks the rich! Anyone with over $1.6m will still get the excess franking credits refund.

This move by the ALP is closing a taxation loophole that was created by John Howard. No other country in the world allows a taxation 'refund' on franking credits where no tax has been paid. Please explain to me why someone should get a 'refund' when they never paid the tax in the first place?? How can you get a 'refund' on something you never paid?????
Cheers

But, as a business owner, you have paid 30% tax already.
Plus; why then should retirees, paying no tax, get the excess franking credits if they are in a industry fund instead of an SMSF?

And don't fall for this no other country line - there are plenty of taxes that we have to pay that others around the world don't pay
There are also plenty of other tax jurisdictions that allow you to get a tax deduction for your home loan interest. I'll swap you the home loan deductions for excess franking credits. That would really make homes affordable in Australia

Yes, Jimmy, please swap the 'refund' on franking credits for home loan interest deductions.... as long as that home is the one you live in and not an investment property. I would support that 100%! I would also support retirees in industry funds not being allowed the franking credits 'refund' as well. No one should actually receive a 'refund' on a tax they haven't paid.

The 'business owner' who has paid the 30% tax paying the legitimate existing tax rate. They shouldn't have to receive an additional 15% refund on top of that. After all, a person who would be on a tax rate on 45% only gets the benefit of a 15% refund, not the full 45%.

Equate the franking credits 'tax refund' for a superannuant to a superannuant who has their portfolio in term deposits with a bank. The bank still pays 30% taxation. This reduces the amount of interest the superannuant would receive, as it affects the bank's bottom line. the superannuant doesn't receive a 15% 'tax refund' on their investment simply because the bank has paid 30% taxation already. Why should a superannuant investing in shares get given a bigger return than one who uses any other form of investment?
Cheers

[Trader]

Equate the franking credits 'tax refund' for a superannuant to a superannuant who has their portfolio in term deposits with a bank. The bank still pays 30% taxation. This reduces the amount of interest the superannuant would receive, as it affects the bank's bottom line. the superannuant doesn't receive a 15% 'tax refund' on their investment simply because the bank has paid 30% taxation already. Why should a superannuant investing in shares get given a bigger return than one who uses any other form of investment?
Cheers

Actually, the above supports handing out refunds.

The interest a bank pays someone with a term deposit is a cost for the bank, and is deducted from the bank's taxable profits BEFORE they pay tax.
That is to say, the tax the bank pays is after the term deposit's interest is paid, the retiree with a term deposit gets their interest with 0% tax paid on it.
They then pay whatever tax is owed.

The retiree with shares, gets paid their dividend AFTER the company has already paid 30%.

[Jimmy_041]

I went to an accountants seminar about Labor’s attack on self funded retirees in Melbourne yesterday.
Good luck Bill and Chris. There are a lot smarter people than you two in the world.

Everyone on the panel said it is a clear strategy to support the industry funds for their fight against SMSFs.
There were several strategies to counter the move and a Labor Government will save very little.
The accountants will wait for the final law but they are gearing up to advise their members how to respond to it.

As for the propaganda that it attacks the rich! Anyone with over $1.6m will still get the excess franking credits refund.

This move by the ALP is closing a taxation loophole that was created by John Howard. No other country in the world allows a taxation 'refund' on franking credits where no tax has been paid. Please explain to me why someone should get a 'refund' when they never paid the tax in the first place?? How can you get a 'refund' on something you never paid?????

Also, just to show the actual small impact of the franking credit, please note the following:

Average Dividend Yield on Australian shares for the 2017/18 year was 2.1%.
The Franking Credit is worth 15% of the value of the dividend (the difference between the company tax rate of 30% and the superannuation taxation rate of 15%).
This means that the Franking Credit is worth 15% of 2.1% of the value of shares a person holds. This means it is equal to 0.315% of a person's share portfolio.
This means that if a person holds $10,000 in shares, their franking credit is worth a TOTAL of $31.50 in total.
Now, ask yourself this:
Would you prefer to receive $31.50 a year in franking credits and have someone who contracted cancer pay $10 000, or would you prefer to forego the $31.50 and perhaps save the life of someone with cancer?

Even a person with $100 000 in shares only receives Franking Credits of $315. As such, it is mainly the rich who actually benefit from franking credits to any sizeable degree.

Cheers

You probably need to read back through the pages mate as we covered off all of this.

Plus dividends have very little correlation to value of shares.
You could have your $100,000 shares in companies with high yields:
AWC 11.99%
AIZ 9.17%
IFL 8.28%
BOQ 8.24%
HVN 8.11%
NAB 7.93%
CSR 7.84%
AVN 7.34%

or they could be in companies with no dividends.

[Jimmy_041]

Equate the franking credits 'tax refund' for a superannuant to a superannuant who has their portfolio in term deposits with a bank. The bank still pays 30% taxation. This reduces the amount of interest the superannuant would receive, as it affects the bank's bottom line. the superannuant doesn't receive a 15% 'tax refund' on their investment simply because the bank has paid 30% taxation already. Why should a superannuant investing in shares get given a bigger return than one who uses any other form of investment?
Cheers

Actually, the above supports handing out refunds.

The interest a bank pays someone with a term deposit is a cost for the bank, and is deducted from the bank's taxable profits BEFORE they pay tax.
That is to say, the tax the bank pays is after the term deposit's interest is paid, the retiree with a term deposit gets their interest with 0% tax paid on it.
They then pay whatever tax is owed.

The retiree with shares, gets paid their dividend AFTER the company has already paid 30%.

Which is my point earlier.
You are the 100% owner of a business.
The ATO hit them up for their 30% tax regardless of your (the owner's) actual tax situation.
You therefore HAVE paid that 30% tax.
You put in your tax return and have substantial deductions and get the tax refund based upon your personal situation.
No different if you own 10%, 1% or 0.1% of a company. The company has paid tax on behalf of the owners but has no regard for the owners' individual tax situation.
Now, as Trader says, you give your Tax File No to the bank and they don't deduct tax from the interest you get paid.

[Q.]

Still parroting the double taxation lie. Tsk tsk.

[Jimmy_041]

Still parroting the double taxation lie. Tsk tsk.

Stick to your bookkeeper job effwit

[Q.]

Still parroting the double taxation lie. Tsk tsk.

Stick to your bookkeeper job effwit

Im a statistician pal

[Jimmy_041]

Bell Potter says high-yield switch will dodge Labor franking hit
Jonathan Shapiro
Senior Reporter
Feb 4, 2019 — 11.00pm

Labor's proposed policy to stop paying cash refunds for surplus franking credits to investors with no income will drive up the cost of capital for banks and force investors into high-yield bonds that could significantly reduce the potential tax saving.

That is the view of research analysts at Bell Potter who have told clients that by switching out of bank hybrid securities to a listed high-yield corporate bond fund that does not benefit from franking, investors who will lose thousands of dollars of refunds under the policy can actually maintain the same income.

Bell Potter's hybrid analyst, Damien Williamson, showed clients an example of how investors could potentially maintain the same cash income after tax by shifting half of a $600,000 investment in Westpac's Capital Notes, which pay a margin of 5.25 per cent, into Neuberger Berman's listed global high-yield bond fund, which also pays a margin of 5.25 per cent.

A $600,000 investment in the Westpac hybrid would generate $22,050 in cash and $9450 in franking credits. A self-managed superannuation fund would then pay 15 per cent tax (or $4725), which would offset half the franking credits, resulting in a $4725 surplus rebate and an after-tax income of $26,775.

Under Labor's proposal the rebate would fall away, leaving a lower $22,050 of cash income after tax for the SMSF.

Portfolio shift
But Bell Potter said that if that investor shifted half its portfolio, or $300,000, into the high-yield bond fund with the same 5.25 per cent yield, the gross income would remain the same at $31,500. This would comprise $11,025 of cash and $4725 in franking credits from the Westpac hybrid, and $15,750 of cash interest from the high-yield fund.

The franking credit entirely would offset the $4725 of tax payable to ensure a zero tax bill.

But the cash income of $26,775, made up of $11,025 from the hybrid and $15,750 from the bond fund, would allow the investor to maintain the same after-tax income than if the policy was not changed.

The analysts therefore argued that as investors shifted into other investments the potential savings for the government may be less than assumed while the reduced attractiveness of hybrids to some investors would increase the margin banks would have to pay for this funding.

"Reallocating investments away from the capital structure of banks to an offshore high-yield income trust is likely to increase bank funding/capital costs," Mr Williamson said.

"This investment strategy also brings into question the quantum of revenue this policy will generate."

Thousands affected
Fixed-income research firm BondAdviser estimated the policy change would directly impact more than 1 million individuals, 200,000 SMSFs and more than 200,000 pensioners.

Morningstar's John Likos said in a note at the time that the policy will "strike hardest at the heart" of the bank Tier I hybrid market.

"These hybrid securities are often fully franked, a strong selling point for retail investors, particularly self-managed super funds, or SMSFs."

A change in the policy therefore could reduce the attractiveness of hybrids and at the time the policy was announced in March 2018, margins on hybrid securities were sold off to the point where margins increased by nearly a quarter of a percentage point.

As the opinion polls point towards a Labor victory the change appears more likely.

Labor leader Bill Shorten said the party was "not for turning" on the policy while shadow treasurer Chris Bowen told those destined to lose out because of it "are perfectly entitled to vote against us".

[Booney]

#saveourtradiesutes

[mighty_tiger_79]

And the Campaign begins.
May 18 Australia decides which nimcompoop leads the country.

[stan]

I feel this will be closer than what many people are thinking. I would still tip Bill and Labor to get up but it will be close.

[Booney]

You've got a "clear choice" :

Vote Labor, Shorten becomes PM with a stable team behind him.

Vote Liberal, Morrison becomes PM and in the not too distant future the faceless men in the factions replace him with whoever it is that sucks up to them the most.

[Grenville]

And the Campaign begins.
May 18 Australia decides which nimcompoop leads the country.

No need for that sort of language. Moderators??????

[Booney]

11/4/19

Labor $1.16
Coalition $4.85