Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Labor, Liberal, Greens, Democrats? Here's the place to discuss.

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Trader » Thu May 09, 2019 2:13 pm

Q. wrote:Because under that system, instead of being taxed once (at either the company or the personal level) as was the original intention, company profits can escape tax altogether.


How?

The only way they escape tax altogether is if the dividends are paid to people you have already agreed to be a 0%, eg: Super funds in retirement mode.
The reason you previously agreed they deserve to be at 0% is because that investment was already taxed on the way into the fund.

It isn't escaping tax, it was taxed on the way in.
Danny Southern telling Plugga he's fat, I'd like to see that!
User avatar
Trader
Assistant Coach
 
Posts: 4202
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 1:19 pm
Has liked: 60 times
Been liked: 794 times

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Q. » Thu May 09, 2019 4:01 pm

Trader wrote:
Q. wrote:Because under that system, instead of being taxed once (at either the company or the personal level) as was the original intention, company profits can escape tax altogether.


How?

The only way they escape tax altogether is if the dividends are paid to people you have already agreed to be a 0%, eg: Super funds in retirement mode.
The reason you previously agreed they deserve to be at 0% is because that investment was already taxed on the way into the fund.

It isn't escaping tax, it was taxed on the way in.


Which results in a net revenue of zero to the State. Company tax gets used to create a negative tax return for the individual = cash handout.

Your stance is to treat non-taxpayers the same as taxpayers by refunding them the same amount of company tax. This was the crux of Howard's policy in 2007. I'm arguing that credits should can only be used to the point of reducing the individuals tax bill to zero (not to create a negative tax return).

We're going around and around in circles. Philosophically we want different outcomes - I (and evidently most of Australia) would rather see potential tax revenue spent on essential services rather than be used to create negative tax returns for wealthy retirees.

What will be most interesting about the policy is whether they can get it through a Senate where they won't have a majority.
User avatar
Q.
Coach
 
 
Posts: 22019
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:16 pm
Location: El Dorado
Has liked: 970 times
Been liked: 2396 times
Grassroots Team: Houghton Districts

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Trader » Thu May 09, 2019 4:53 pm

Q. wrote:Which results in a net revenue of zero to the State. Company tax gets used to create a negative tax return for the individual = cash handout.


Yes, zero revenue to the state because as you agreed earlier, they should have a tax rate of 0%.

Q. wrote:Your stance is to treat non-taxpayers the same as taxpayers by refunding them the same amount of company tax. This was the crux of Howard's policy in 2007. I'm arguing that credits should can only be used to the point of reducing the individuals tax bill to zero (not to create a negative tax return).


No, they are tax payers, as you said earlier, the bit you bolded....

Q. wrote:Franking just means that the tax on dividends is done at the individual level rather than the company. This means that by definition if you receive a dividend with any franking at all, then you have paid tax already. It is not just an offset mechanism, it is actually a representation of tax that has been withheld.


These are people who have paid more tax than they should have.

Look at it another way, if your employer withholds more tax than you owe, you get a tax return.
The same applies here, the company has paid 30% tax on your behalf, and you are getting that back.
Danny Southern telling Plugga he's fat, I'd like to see that!
User avatar
Trader
Assistant Coach
 
Posts: 4202
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 1:19 pm
Has liked: 60 times
Been liked: 794 times

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Q. » Thu May 09, 2019 4:57 pm

Company tax is not a withholding tax for the shareholder.
User avatar
Q.
Coach
 
 
Posts: 22019
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:16 pm
Location: El Dorado
Has liked: 970 times
Been liked: 2396 times
Grassroots Team: Houghton Districts

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Trader » Thu May 09, 2019 5:30 pm

Q. wrote:Company tax is not a withholding tax for the shareholder.


Yes it is.

#stalemate

But seriously, the portion of company tax that is handed out as a franking credit is exactly that, tax that has been paid on behalf of the individual shareholder.
Danny Southern telling Plugga he's fat, I'd like to see that!
User avatar
Trader
Assistant Coach
 
Posts: 4202
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 1:19 pm
Has liked: 60 times
Been liked: 794 times

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby DOC » Thu May 09, 2019 7:00 pm

It is not paid on behalf of a shareholder as such.

Lawfuly, companies in Australia must pay a flat 30% tax on all profits. However, a company is not obliged to pay tax on any profit it distributes to shareholders as a dividend. Franking credits represent the tax a company has already paid on any profit it distributes to shareholders as a dividend. The credits reduce a shareholder's tax liability at the end of the financial year and can result in an ATO refund.

Franking credits were introduced in 1987 to prevent “double dipping” by the government where tax is paid on profits by both the company and the investor.

What has emerged is that in some circumstances, investors who have a tax liability less than 30% on income, and in many cases zero, are receiving a full rebate (not the difference between the two liabilities) and as such the company tax of 30% has become zero.

This was never intended and only Australia has this system.

I get that if you are a beneficiary then you may wish to keep it. AS I have stated before, when this comes in, the amount of dividends payed will change for many companies. I will wait and see.
User avatar
DOC
Coach
 
 
Posts: 17913
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 7:15 pm
Has liked: 723 times
Been liked: 2076 times

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Q. » Thu May 09, 2019 7:03 pm

Trader wrote:
Q. wrote:Company tax is not a withholding tax for the shareholder.


Yes it is.

#stalemate

But seriously, the portion of company tax that is handed out as a franking credit is exactly that, tax that has been paid on behalf of the individual shareholder.


It's not. A company is a legal person with its own tax liability. A share holder is not entitled to "refund" of tax paid by a different legal person.

The only reason a franking credit refunds exist is because of Keating and Howard policy. They aren't entitlements. If current economic climate dictates that a policy is no longer viable (and in the case of Howard's it's gone from 0.55 bil to 8 bil cost with only the wealthy to benefit) then you change it.

Someone once said ''the age of entitlement is over, and the age of personal responsibility has begun''.
User avatar
Q.
Coach
 
 
Posts: 22019
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:16 pm
Location: El Dorado
Has liked: 970 times
Been liked: 2396 times
Grassroots Team: Houghton Districts

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby RB » Thu May 09, 2019 7:55 pm

Q. wrote:(and in the case of Howard's it's gone from 0.55 bil to 8 bil cost with only the wealthy to benefit)

I think we can be assured that this change won't effect the very wealthy, who even when they retire from employment tend to have taxable income well above the tax-free threshold due to various investments.

Either way, the very rich are always able to get around these things through various means.
R.I.P. the SANFL 1877 - 2013
User avatar
RB
Coach
 
Posts: 5628
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 3:45 pm
Has liked: 759 times
Been liked: 1073 times

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Jimmy_041 » Fri May 10, 2019 4:22 pm

Adrian Blundell-Wignall is either stupid or being deliberately misleading. Again, using taxable income as the crux of his entire argument (and the crux of yours this whole time).


1. I expected that response to anyone that does not agree with you. Why is he being misleading? Because he's biased unlike Labor or your socialist publications? BTW, today's commentary from the Editor-in-Chief of the AFR:
Talking of Labor's tax plans, former OECD and Reserve Bank official Adrian Blundell-Wignall provided this searing demolition of its planned crackdown on the cash return of excess tax franking credits. I first came across Blundell-Wignall when he worked for the Hawke government's Economic Planning Advisory Council in the early-to-mid 1980s. He's no Coalition stooge.


Dr. Adrian Blundell-Wignall was the Special Advisor to the OECD Secretary-General on Financial Markets and Enterprise Affairs until October 2018.

He is founder and chairman of a charitable foundation (The Anika Foundation) that raises and invests an endowment fund to provide scholarships in a critical area of healthcare.

Mr. Blundell-Wignall is an Australian citizen. He has a 1st class Honours degree and PhD in Economics from Cambridge University, UK.

He is the author of extensive publications on financial markets and monetary policy in learned journals and books, as well as broker analyst studies and reports.

Senior Positions

2014- 2016 Director in the OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs
2007 -2014 Deputy Director in the OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs
2000 - Executive Vice-President, head of Asset Allocation, BT Funds Management
1993 - Head of Derivative Overlays and Levered Products at Bankers Trust Funds Management, building a new $4 billion business
1991 - Head of the Research Department at the Reserve Bank of Australia: directing a department and participating in monetary policy discussions at the internal pre-Board meetings
Early in his career he held economist positions in: the OECD Economics Department, the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Economic Planning Advisory Council of Australia.


Only an idiot would call him stupid and the Editor of the AFR rates him. Do I trust him or a person who did 1 year with Westpac and 2 years in the public service and thereafter a journalist and a spud HEALTH economist in socialist whinge rags? You have to be kidding! Sad thing is you aren’t!

2. Using taxable income has NEVER been the crux of my argument. My argument pertains to super and that that this policy only affects those with an SMSF. You can have two people with zero and $1m taxable income with their super in a retail or industry fund and both still get the excess franking credits. All those Labor politicians with salaries over $200k, massive super balances and multiple investment properties won't be touched.
This is, purely and simply; Labors attack on SMSFs and I have said that from Day 1.
IF excess franking credits are so unfair, why hasn't Labor proposed stopping them altogether? Because the unions wont let them. That's corruption right there?

This Letter to the AFR Editor says it all
Shorten targets a select group
In the final leaders’ debate, Bill Shorten said hundreds of thousands of dollars are going to rich retirees under the current franking credits regime. This is simply untrue. The truth is that a select group of self-funded retirees are the target under the ALP proposal. They are the group that have assets of around $800,000 to $1,600,000 in pension phase. Those retirees with less than $800,000 will not be affected. Those with more than $1.6 million in super will still be able to claim the rebates. So the maximum rebate/government gift is around $25,000 for that select group, if all assets were invested in fully franked shares.
Super is riddled with poorly thought through tax policies. Surely it’s time to reassess the taxation of super and not simply take an easy shot. It may well be franking credits are readjusted – as should the approach to renting and selling real estate within super, as should the huge balances accumulated over years past and lodged in the tax-protected super environment.

John Golden
Newport, NSW


But, on taxable income; this is being portrayed, by Labor, as an attack on the rich. It is not because:
(i) The rich will always have taxable income because they have income producing investments outside of super.
(ii) Anyone with over $1.6m in super will pay tax
(iii) Define rich? I was told by people who would know that there were many long term (read 40 year) Holden workers with balances in excess of $1.6m who had no idea they had that much

Plus, any "rich" person will mitigate the expected damage as stated by Blundell-Wignall.
My accountant and financial planner are already sending out newsletters about how to keep the payments.
Hell, I can sell an allotted amount of personal shares every year to pay tax

Who will get hit are those who don't have the nous or means to reorganise themselves and that has been the crux of my argument and it is exactly what Blundell-Wignall is saying, and both of us are also saying Labor's entire PR campaign is bull$hit. THAT is the crux of what I have been saying.
Last edited by Jimmy_041 on Sat May 11, 2019 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jimmy_041
Coach
 
 
Posts: 13981
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:30 pm
Has liked: 718 times
Been liked: 1071 times
Grassroots Team: Prince Alfred OC

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby tigerpie » Fri May 10, 2019 8:37 pm

Speaking of bull$hit.

Fraudenburgs response to labors costings was just embarrassing.

It was a case of....if I say it often enough its true.
Absolute dud.
tigerpie
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4108
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:00 pm
Has liked: 498 times
Been liked: 429 times

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Jimmy_041 » Sun May 12, 2019 9:40 pm

Keating believes, you know, there should be, you know, a change of, you know, government.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/video/autosne ... vi-AAAWv9j
Well, **** me! Who would have thought! Obviously caught the ABC unawares looking at their headline!
Keating talks about “vision”, “panorama” and “vista”. He should know about it: His 3 years PM had none; hence he knows all about it (but won’t admit it because he’s trying to rewrite history for his legacy.) Funny how Hewson lost by revealing a strong policy change and Keating won, you know, by hammering the fear factor. Anyone else see the similarities of both 1993 & 96 in this election? Nevertheless, the Coalition deserve to lose because they don’t have anything to offer. In addition, a lot of the snakes EFF off on their pensions for life and leave us worse off! Mofos!

Hope we’ve entertained you all. In the end, nothing we write on here changes anything.
But, as, you know, as Keating once, you know, said: “When you change the government, you change the country.” Never truer this election.
Funny thing is; Keating said it as a warning NOT to vote for Howard. The people spoke, overwhelmingly, and told Keating they didn’t want him. I expect you will see the same next weekend with this government getting the boot for the same reasons.

Then? Who knows, but I suspect it will be the same $hit governing we have had for over 10 years. Last year, Koutsantonis said that the new State Govt didn’t have a mandate because they didn’t win 50.001% of the primary vote. There you have it. This current era of politicians have no regard for our vote. It’s all about them getting power. Plus; HTF do you get anything done with only a 3 year term. I’m just reading “Betrayal” by Simon Benson, about the Iemma Government. You have the utmost conflict between what’s good for the state or country and getting re-elected, or worse still; sacked as PM or Premier.

Anyway, that’s it for me. Too busy this week to come on here. 3 cities in 5 days then, as luck would have it; Adelaide for the weekend so I can watch Q play footy (Hope I get to report him =)) but I doubt it. Mind you Gazza got reported last week) and sink some Coopers and have a laugh with him. If he does a Penny Wong on me I know the Houghton President will buy me a beer ;)

My biggest regret is not being in Manly to see the contest next weekend . A few Get Up people have copped it from the locals at Manly Wharf. Talk about “in your face” lobbying! I’m expecting some fireworks over here. The Israel Folau case has stirred the Manly locals up. Lots of Polynesians here who don’t like Get Up. Good luck to all the good people (that excludes Shorten, Joyce, Dutton, anyone Green & Morell)
User avatar
Jimmy_041
Coach
 
 
Posts: 13981
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:30 pm
Has liked: 718 times
Been liked: 1071 times
Grassroots Team: Prince Alfred OC

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Booney » Mon May 13, 2019 10:58 am

First home buyers scheme to benefit couples earning up to $200k p.a.

Of course, two $95k p.a incomes in one house is very common place and those people who are both on $95k p.a sure need some help.

Glad they're helping the battlers.
PAFC. Forever.

LOOK OUT, WE'RE COMING!
User avatar
Booney
Coach
 
 
Posts: 58211
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Alberton proud
Has liked: 7467 times
Been liked: 10755 times

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Jimmy_041 » Mon May 13, 2019 12:02 pm

Booney wrote:First home buyers scheme to benefit couples earning up to $200k p.a.

Of course, two $95k p.a incomes in one house is very common place and those people who are both on $95k p.a sure need some help.

Glad they're helping the battlers.


The BIGGER problem is state stamp duty
Anywhere from $25,000 to $40,000+ and no first home owners concession in SA
User avatar
Jimmy_041
Coach
 
 
Posts: 13981
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:30 pm
Has liked: 718 times
Been liked: 1071 times
Grassroots Team: Prince Alfred OC

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby The Dark Knight » Mon May 13, 2019 1:12 pm

Jimmy_041 wrote:
Booney wrote:First home buyers scheme to benefit couples earning up to $200k p.a.

Of course, two $95k p.a incomes in one house is very common place and those people who are both on $95k p.a sure need some help.

Glad they're helping the battlers.


The BIGGER problem is state stamp duty
Anywhere from $25,000 to $40,000+ and no first home owners concession in SA

Yep, Stamp Duty is the killer!
User avatar
The Dark Knight
Coach
 
Posts: 34427
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:32 pm
Location: Gotham City
Has liked: 10298 times
Been liked: 1516 times
Grassroots Team: North Haven

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby mighty_tiger_79 » Mon May 13, 2019 6:15 pm

Not sure the 1st home owners 5% is necessarily a good thing either.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Matty Wade is a star and deserves more respect from the forum family!
User avatar
mighty_tiger_79
Coach
 
Posts: 56642
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:29 pm
Location: at the TAB
Has liked: 11805 times
Been liked: 3582 times

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby DOC » Mon May 13, 2019 6:45 pm

Jimmy_041 wrote:
Booney wrote:First home buyers scheme to benefit couples earning up to $200k p.a.

Of course, two $95k p.a incomes in one house is very common place and those people who are both on $95k p.a sure need some help.

Glad they're helping the battlers.


The BIGGER problem is state stamp duty
Anywhere from $25,000 to $40,000+ and no first home owners concession in SA



Ahem.

"Anyway, that’s it for me. Too busy this week to come on here. "
User avatar
DOC
Coach
 
 
Posts: 17913
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 7:15 pm
Has liked: 723 times
Been liked: 2076 times

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Q. » Mon May 13, 2019 10:58 pm

Look forward to seeing you Jimmy. The election has come around fast, can't wait to see what Saturday night brings us.
User avatar
Q.
Coach
 
 
Posts: 22019
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:16 pm
Location: El Dorado
Has liked: 970 times
Been liked: 2396 times
Grassroots Team: Houghton Districts

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby stan » Tue May 14, 2019 9:35 am

Q. wrote:Look forward to seeing you Jimmy. The election has come around fast, can't wait to see what Saturday night brings us.
And thank **** it will be over.
Read my reply. It is directed at you because you have double standards
User avatar
stan
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15221
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:53 am
Location: North Eastern Suburbs
Has liked: 88 times
Been liked: 1253 times
Grassroots Team: Goodwood Saints

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Jimmy_041 » Tue May 14, 2019 3:33 pm

DOC wrote:
Jimmy_041 wrote:
Booney wrote:First home buyers scheme to benefit couples earning up to $200k p.a.

Of course, two $95k p.a incomes in one house is very common place and those people who are both on $95k p.a sure need some help.

Glad they're helping the battlers.


The BIGGER problem is state stamp duty
Anywhere from $25,000 to $40,000+ and no first home owners concession in SA



Ahem.

"Anyway, that’s it for me. Too busy this week to come on here. "


Sitting on a train.........
That took 30 seconds
User avatar
Jimmy_041
Coach
 
 
Posts: 13981
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:30 pm
Has liked: 718 times
Been liked: 1071 times
Grassroots Team: Prince Alfred OC

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Q. » Tue May 14, 2019 10:46 pm

Jimmy_041 wrote:
Adrian Blundell-Wignall is either stupid or being deliberately misleading. Again, using taxable income as the crux of his entire argument (and the crux of yours this whole time).


1. I expected that response to anyone that does not agree with you. Why is he being misleading? Because he's biased unlike Labor or your socialist publications? BTW, today's commentary from the Editor-in-Chief of the AFR:
Talking of Labor's tax plans, former OECD and Reserve Bank official Adrian Blundell-Wignall provided this searing demolition of its planned crackdown on the cash return of excess tax franking credits. I first came across Blundell-Wignall when he worked for the Hawke government's Economic Planning Advisory Council in the early-to-mid 1980s. He's no Coalition stooge.


Dr. Adrian Blundell-Wignall was the Special Advisor to the OECD Secretary-General on Financial Markets and Enterprise Affairs until October 2018.

He is founder and chairman of a charitable foundation (The Anika Foundation) that raises and invests an endowment fund to provide scholarships in a critical area of healthcare.

Mr. Blundell-Wignall is an Australian citizen. He has a 1st class Honours degree and PhD in Economics from Cambridge University, UK.

He is the author of extensive publications on financial markets and monetary policy in learned journals and books, as well as broker analyst studies and reports.

Senior Positions

2014- 2016 Director in the OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs
2007 -2014 Deputy Director in the OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs
2000 - Executive Vice-President, head of Asset Allocation, BT Funds Management
1993 - Head of Derivative Overlays and Levered Products at Bankers Trust Funds Management, building a new $4 billion business
1991 - Head of the Research Department at the Reserve Bank of Australia: directing a department and participating in monetary policy discussions at the internal pre-Board meetings
Early in his career he held economist positions in: the OECD Economics Department, the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Economic Planning Advisory Council of Australia.


Only an idiot would call him stupid and the Editor of the AFR rates him. Do I trust him or a person who did 1 year with Westpac and 2 years in the public service and thereafter a journalist and a spud HEALTH economist in socialist whinge rags? You have to be kidding! Sad thing is you aren’t!

2. Using taxable income has NEVER been the crux of my argument. My argument pertains to super and that that this policy only affects those with an SMSF. You can have two people with zero and $1m taxable income with their super in a retail or industry fund and both still get the excess franking credits. All those Labor politicians with salaries over $200k, massive super balances and multiple investment properties won't be touched.
This is, purely and simply; Labors attack on SMSFs and I have said that from Day 1.
IF excess franking credits are so unfair, why hasn't Labor proposed stopping them altogether? Because the unions wont let them. That's corruption right there?

This Letter to the AFR Editor says it all
Shorten targets a select group
In the final leaders’ debate, Bill Shorten said hundreds of thousands of dollars are going to rich retirees under the current franking credits regime. This is simply untrue. The truth is that a select group of self-funded retirees are the target under the ALP proposal. They are the group that have assets of around $800,000 to $1,600,000 in pension phase. Those retirees with less than $800,000 will not be affected. Those with more than $1.6 million in super will still be able to claim the rebates. So the maximum rebate/government gift is around $25,000 for that select group, if all assets were invested in fully franked shares.
Super is riddled with poorly thought through tax policies. Surely it’s time to reassess the taxation of super and not simply take an easy shot. It may well be franking credits are readjusted – as should the approach to renting and selling real estate within super, as should the huge balances accumulated over years past and lodged in the tax-protected super environment.

John Golden
Newport, NSW


But, on taxable income; this is being portrayed, by Labor, as an attack on the rich. It is not because:
(i) The rich will always have taxable income because they have income producing investments outside of super.
(ii) Anyone with over $1.6m in super will pay tax
(iii) Define rich? I was told by people who would know that there were many long term (read 40 year) Holden workers with balances in excess of $1.6m who had no idea they had that much

Plus, any "rich" person will mitigate the expected damage as stated by Blundell-Wignall.
My accountant and financial planner are already sending out newsletters about how to keep the payments.
Hell, I can sell an allotted amount of personal shares every year to pay tax

Who will get hit are those who don't have the nous or means to reorganise themselves and that has been the crux of my argument and it is exactly what Blundell-Wignall is saying, and both of us are also saying Labor's entire PR campaign is bull$hit. THAT is the crux of what I have been saying.
ANU have modelled Labor's tax plans: 89% of all franking credits claimed are paid to top 20% wealthiest households 2.7% of franking credits are paid to the bottom 50% of the wealth distribution. Av impact of policy change across all households=$489pa

https://t.co/DjIT1jtoAd

"the largest impact in dollar terms and per cent of disposable income terms is the
top 10 percent (decile 10). The top 10 per cent would, on average, pay $2,641 per year (1.1 per cent of disposable income) in more tax where franking credits are removed.
11 The average impact is $489
per year across all income groups or about 0.5 per cent of disposable income. The policy change has
virtually no impact on households in the bottom half of the income distribution
.

The impact is even more progressive when considered by wealth distribution (Figure 4) with virtually
no impact across the bottom 70 per cent of the wealth distribution. This should be no surprise as, in
most cases, large franking credits are related to large incomes that flow from large superannuation
balances. We estimate that around 89 per cent of all franking credits claimed are paid to the top 20
per cent of the wealth distribution. Around 2.7 per cent of franking credits are paid to the bottom 50
per cent of the wealth distribution."
User avatar
Q.
Coach
 
 
Posts: 22019
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:16 pm
Location: El Dorado
Has liked: 970 times
Been liked: 2396 times
Grassroots Team: Houghton Districts

PreviousNext

Board index   General Talk  Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |