You fail to comment on the massive dividend imputation tax hike under Labor and the effect on low income savers. This is one of a raft of tax hikes under Labor. Can you please model these and add to your estimates.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Peter's comments are noteworthy.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

There is no imputation tax hike, don't know where you get your information from.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

It is clearly skewed towards higher-income earners and for my part I'm happy to forgo the dividend imputation gift. I feel not comfortable that the younger generation pays in tax for that generous gift.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Peter - Labour aren't hiking taxes on dividends. They're simply proposing rules that retain company tax within govt coffers for the benefit of other tax payers, not non-taxpayers.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Self funded retirees are going to cope a massive hit with the Labour proposal to end Franking credit rebates. Admitably there has been an abuse of the system through trusts and self managed super funds with high balances, but where this is really going to hit is the self funded retiree that is just above the cut off level for the pension. They will loose their entitlement to the franking rebate, whereas a pensioner that is being paid by the government still retains their ability to claim the rebate credit. Where is the fairness in that.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Mark If a retiree receives cash handouts for franking credits, the retiree is not self funded. It doesn't matter if you receive a gift from the tax office or a pension from CentreLink. It comes all from general revenue. It's also not a rebate if you get it as a gift. It's only a rebate if you include the grossed up dividend in you taxable income. If you owe tax after that, it becomes a rebate on tax owed. It's fair for Labor to cancel it. Poorer people who have no shares should not have to pay a bonus to wealthier shareholders.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Why do people who complain about tax cuts favouring the higher income earners only refer to how the higher income earners will pay thousands less and the lower income earners will only get to pay hundreds less?

Why don't these people state how much tax the people they are comparing WILL pay and not how much they will NOT have to pay?

Clearly because their argument would lose most of it's validity.

Someone on $15k would miss out on tax cuts altogether, but they pay NOTHING anyway! So you could compare them with anyone and say how unfair it is that they miss out on the tax cuts altogether if you talk about how much the tax cuts will deliver to them!

Of course they would be struggling to survive, but that is a totally different matter!

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

I wish all of this information was presented at the family income level rather than the individual level - as that is how most people are assessed is it not? My partner and I are on very different levels of income and I'd like to know what the tax changes mean for us given our aggregate income. Can this be provided?

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Wrong. Labor have managed to find a way to tax Superfunds in SMSF's 30% tax by not allowing funds to have the benefit of tax exemptions on their super funds.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Labour's proposal to change franking credits was a mistake and they have paid for it with voting at the election. Just about all self funded retirees would have voted against them.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Just wondering why a young girl of age 14 is getting the tax cut of 1080

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.