Name a Conservative Success Story

Remove this Banner Ad

So explain that to the average punter, because right now I think if the average punter realised how little this affects them on the one hand, and how on the other hand it's mostly exploited by those holding substantial share portfolios they would agree it stinks.

(I already disclosed I am a beneficiary of franking credits, and I think it stinks. I'll continue to benefit from them as long as they exist; I'm not crazy, but I would be more than happy to see things returned to the former sensible situation of tax free but not a tax refund.)

The average punter hey. The same average punters who are likely to vote no to The Voice. The average punter is, sadly, an idiot, and even more so when it comes to complex systems such as taxation. If we start making laws because its what the average punter wants, then we're stuffed.

I read above about GST and dealing with tradies etc, but these same people gladly accept a job for a cheaper rate when they pay cash.
 
I don't understand what you are getting at here. They are separate legal entities. The company is not its shareholders. Shareholders come and go. Hence why its impractical for the company to know each shareholder's marginal tax rate and adjust the dividend accordingly. Similarly the shareholders are not the company. They own an equity interest.
The whole principle of the original franking credits mechanism was that the company is nothing but its shareholders so why should the shareholders pay tax twice. That is right and proper.

But you seem to be arguing that the individual shareholder is entitled to a considerable tax advantage merely by dint of them holding shares in a company that pays franked dividends. You seemed to be implying that what goes for the corporate goose automatically goes for the individual gander.

Of course you can say "well people are stupid to not get into shares in companies paying FF dividends" and you'd be right. It's mad not to take advantage of such a lurk (if you have the resources, and plenty of Australians are under severe housing stress).

But the question still stands, in a political sense, in a time of seemingly endless and worthy demands on the public purse, why are we privileging one small sector of society so outrageously?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The whole principle of the original franking credits mechanism was that the company is nothing but its shareholders so why should the shareholders pay tax twice. That is right and proper.

But you seem to be arguing that the individual shareholder is entitled to a considerable tax advantage merely by dint of them holding shares in a company that pays franked dividends. You seemed to be implying that what goes for the corporate goose automatically goes for the individual gander.

Of course you can say "well people are stupid to not get into shares in companies paying FF dividends" and you'd be right. It's mad not to take advantage of such a lurk (if you have the resources, and plenty of Australians are under severe housing stress).

But the question still stands, in a political sense, in a time of seemingly endless and worthy demands on the public purse, why are we privileging one small sector of society so outrageously?

Not quite right. If you remove imputation or even change it, business will be encouraged to raise funds through debt financing by issuing bonds. That will provide a better return to investors. The problem though is that in down years, interest payment must still be made, where dividends can be reduced or suspended. So you are putting pressure on business.

It will also see a decline in investment in Australian companies by super funds and super returns declining. This will be a huge future cost to the Government who are trying to move away from Government funded pensions to people relying on their super to fund their retirement. So your short term benefit to the public purse is just that - short term.

Luckily we had a Labor Government who thought through the long term implications of imputation and have built a super system the envy of the world.
 
So you want to remove the benefit to low income people, so only the wealthy can benefit from dividend imputation.

You are basically saying that, if your employer withholds too much tax, too bad, no refund for you. Thats exactly what’s happening here. The company has withheld too much - their 30% tax rate was higher than the individual. You don’t want the individual to get that tax back.

An alternative would be for businesses to withhold tax based on the individuals marginal tax rate. But that would be administratively prohibitive, It's easier for the company to withhold a flat rate and let the individuals deal with their own tax affairs.
I’m sure there’s at least 3 low income folk who are with you all the way - and let me tell you they are furious.
 
LOL.

If franking credits were assessable income then you would have to pay income tax on franking credits.

You DO pay tax on the franking credit. Your failure to understand this now explains why you fail to see how imputation eliminates double taxation.


Example: How imputation works when the shareholder is on the top personal tax rate

CompanyFully franked distribution
Income earned
Company tax (30%)
Net profit after tax
$100.00
$30.00
$70.00
Dividend paid
Franking credit
Taxable income
Tax on taxable income (47%*)
Credit for company tax
Tax payable
$70.00
$30.00
$100.00
$47.00
$30.00
$17.00
Net distribution to shareholder
Total tax paid by company and shareholder
$53.00
$47.00
 
Cut and paste job. LOL


Do you have any original thought?
Any original thought at all?
Parrot.
parrot.
Parrot.

Lol. Nice fail. Your question has been answered as to why imputation was introduced. Also, you are using the word parrot incorrectly.
 
Last edited:
You’re living in the past. It’s no longer legal to have the double Irish Dutch sandwich. You just have a view that big corporates pay no tax despite any evidence presented to the contrary.
I’m assuming then that apple and google no longer domicile in Ireland then?

I mean what’s the point.
 
Both parties were going to introduce the GST.
It was suggested by Keating initially.

However when the liberals initiated it I feel that Labor played some pretty scorched earth politics with it especially considering both sides agreed it was needed. It was the first time I remember politicians letting petty politics / naysaying get in the way of an important reform and the beginning of the end for bipartisanship.
 
Howard took it to an election and won, fix or bad it had to be associated with the LNP.

Howard also got us booming in migration as well, I think migration is a good thing for Australia so I'm handing that to him as well and saying in a non ironically that it's a conservative success story.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Howard took it to an election and won, fix or bad it had to be associated with the LNP.

Howard also got us booming in migration as well, I think migration is a good thing for Australia so I'm handing that to him as well and saying in a non ironically that it's a conservative success story.
migration and tourism are very important to australia, we're a country of natural beauty and don't exercise that enough.
 
I’m assuming then that apple and google no longer domicile in Ireland then?

I mean what’s the point.

Apple still has a branch there where they manufacture phones and employee over 6,000 people. See their press release.


As for Google, well they were incorporated in Ireland but domiciled in Bermuda but has since shifted all of its IP back to the US and made the Ireland company a tax resident in Ireland, not Bermuda and it acts as a Holding Company.

All of these changes came about through global (OECD) BEPS measures to combat tax avoidance introduced by the LNP.
 
Apple still has a branch there where they manufacture phones and employee over 6,000 people. See their press release.


As for Google, well they were incorporated in Ireland but domiciled in Bermuda but has since shifted all of its IP back to the US and made the Ireland company a tax resident in Ireland, not Bermuda and it acts as a Holding Company.

All of these changes came about through global (OECD) BEPS measures to combat tax avoidance introduced by the LNP.
<<<Apple’s 2022 results were for just nine months. “Normalising” that up to a full year, it is equivalent to $12.4 billion of sales, $521 million pre-tax income and $159 million tax. Apple Inc’s global gross margin was 43.3 per cent last year, so on an annualised basis its Australian gross profit was more than $5 billion, and the ATO got 3 per cent of that.>>>



 
<<<Apple’s 2022 results were for just nine months. “Normalising” that up to a full year, it is equivalent to $12.4 billion of sales, $521 million pre-tax income and $159 million tax. Apple Inc’s global gross margin was 43.3 per cent last year, so on an annualised basis its Australian gross profit was more than $5 billion, and the ATO got 3 per cent of that.>>>




You can't infer Apple Inc's (US) gross profit onto the Australian Apple business. Apple AU must operate as an independent business (arm's length principle). If Apple sold its product through an independent Australian seller, do you think that business would have the same gross profit as Apple US.

Example. BHP sets up an office in Denmark to arrange sale of iron ore to Nordic countries. That office has 100 people who spend time on the phone with Nordic customers. Do you think that business should have the same gross profit as BHP Australia who operate iron ore mines? Gross profit is determined by your functional profile.

 
Last edited:
So, we’ve got GST and gun reform.
With being in power for so many years at the federal level, surely there’s more than that?
Future fund and increase in migration
And both would have happened under a Labor government anyway
That seems a touch unfair. Assuming the current iteration of the LNP finally collapses and a more Liberal and progressive (moderate) party re merges, can they lay claim to things Labor did because "we would have done it anyway"
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Name a Conservative Success Story

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top