The question must be asked does New England deserve another three years of representation by Climate Change denier Barnaby Joyce.
It's been suggested the LNP are on track to lose the election, with a new Labor Government who no doubt would want nothing to do with Mr Joyce.
With the dramatic effects of climate change being felt through the electorate, with Keepit Dam empty, the Namoi River ceasing to flow, Guyra having only 100 days of water left and Chaffey dam at 25 per cent we need an advocate who could not only work with Labor but also put the interests of New England first.
On may 18th put Mr Joyce where he belongs, last.
Scott Hyams, Tamworth
There has been volumes written, and correctly so, about the proposed tax on Franking Credits, which is going to affect SMSF retirees. It is well documented by the press and the Wilson parliamentary inquiry how this tax from 1/7/19, will severely damage the retirement plans of many retirees, in an unprecedented tax grab.
Now has anybody thought who indirectly could be affected:
Many SMSF, retirees as parents and grandparents finance their families in many different ways.
Medical expenses, premiums, holidays, school fees both for the private and public sector, HECS payments, and a whole list of items which are personal matters within the family. This is part of the Australian family tradition and fabric. These costs will be partly or wholly financed out of Franking Credits.
Baby Boomers, Generation X Y through to the Millennials will be affected by the tax grab Labor government Franking Credits tax policy.
There is a very large group of young to middle aged people that could lose financially if retirees lose their Franking Credits refund.
It is unbelievable that an Australian Political Party would "hit" a group of people due to their demographics and limited ability to support themselves against a new unfair tax, attacking long standing tax rules.
This is not what Australians expect from its political leaders.
What's next, Gift Tax, Death Duties, or other Tax Grabs.
A.J. Gregg(Jim), Noosaville, QLD
It's a tax refund not a gift
For the life of me I simply can't understand the mentality of some of the people which are ready and willing to believe whatever comes out of the mouth of some politicians and take it as gospel.
Franking Credits, in the way they have been presented by both Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen is just a typical example of that, and the reason of what I am trying to convey with this letter of mine.
Both of these men are simply dishing out some misleading information. What amuses me the most is that even the main stream media are just swallowing it all hook and sinker as being the truth the sole truth and nothing but.
Confusingly enough though, most of these people in the media there present, let alone the rest of the politicians are questioning it and/or even try to prove that it is just a baseless and made up invented story by these two men.
Now has anyone heard what both of these men are continuously telling the plebs that Franking Credits are just a tax cheque under the pretence of being a free gift because none of those recipients didn't pay any tax to get a refund........ Are these men for real?
Herewith I will explain how the Taxation system is actually working and rest assured that there is no way in the whole wide world that the tax department will hand a cheque over to you if you are not entitled to get one. The ATO is even worse than Uncle Scrooge for God's sake and I am very sure that they could have taught him a trick or two.
What most people aren't really aware of, is that shareholders, based on the percentage ownership calculated by the amount of shares he/she held at the time the dividends are paid out, are in fact the owners of a company.
Any recipient of dividends paid by a company can receive up to three different components with their dividends:
B) Franked, and
C) Franking Credits or Imputation Credits
1) If the dividend is Unfranked it means that the recipient will not be entitled to claim a Franking Credit as the company did not pay any tax on his/her behalf.
2) If the dividend is Franked, it means that that dividend has been paid out of earnings made by an Australian Company where they were liable to pay tax in Australia. Most importantly, these types of franked dividends represent only 70% of what the recipient would be entitled to receive had the company not been liable to pay tax on your behalf.
3) The remaining 30% specified as Franking Credits, are simply representing the amount of tax the company has paid on behalf of the recipient of the dividend, ie. the Shareholder or Taxpayer.
So the company has paid to the ATO 30% in tax which has been based on it's taxable Income, and it has been paid on your behalf. It is then up to the individual taxpayer to do as requested by the ATO and record it in his/hers Tax Return AS INCOME.
As such where does this load of BS which has been constantly dished out by both Chris Bowen and Bill Shorten comes from? How can they say that the tax cheque you are going to receive is a gift and not a tax refund?
The words used by Bill Shorten are very simplistic by saying that this is a gift we can't afford and he also said that there was no tax paid by the beneficiary and as such these gifts have to be stopped. During the Leaders debate he also said "I can understand why some people don't want to lose the money. I get it"....... "But at the end of the day there's no principle of tax law anywhere since the ancient Romans, which says you get a tax refund when you haven't paid income tax. It's a gift.".
And this comes from none other than the man which might soon be running the country. Does he really know what he is taking about and how the Tax system really works let alone what appears in any tax return forms? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Why aren't the media and members of Parliament calling him to task on that? Oh yes, I know, that is because once it is in, none of the rest new governments will be bringing it back. Money for jam while taking it away from the ones which are currently legally entitled to it....Simple isn't it?
These people have paid tax. Facts. They're the beneficial owners of companies which have paid a 30 per cent tax on their behalf by the company itself. Facts. And the bottom line is that as the Franking Credit is a tax paid by the company ... it's definitely not a gift, and it's a refund of overpaid tax...Period!
And if it is a gift, like Shorten is trying to convince us it is, why is it that this gift is continued to be allowed to a certain class of people and discontinued to some others? After all the only ones suffering the greatest impact after this will be implemented, are the self funded retiree, the older Australians, (particularly women), and the sick people. None of the others will feel any difference as they will continue to get their full refunds in the form of credits against their tax payable. And that of course will include all the politicians of every persuasion.
In closing I will also bring to your attention what appears in one certain item of the tax return of an individual taxpayer. Item 11 "DIVIDENDS".
Item 11 "S" - Unfranked Amounts which, as stated above, it represents the amount of dividends where tax was not paid by the company and does not include any Franking Credits.
Item 11 "T" - Franked Amount which, as stated above, it represents the amount of dividends where tax has been deducted already by the company on behalf of the shareholder, and it represents only 70% of the total amount which would have been payable to the shareholder had tax not applied.
Item 11 "U" - Franking Credits which, as stated above, it represents the amount of tax of 30% paid by the company on behalf of the shareholder. If you are to add both items "T" and "S" you would come up with 100% of the income due and payable to the shareholder.
So, where does this notion and belief that if they are to refund that tax to you it then becomes a gift?
And the worst part of it all is that, while you are forced to include those franking credits to your taxable income thus only showing a falsely inflated figure representing your taxable income for something you didn't get and which shouldn't be there as it only represents tax paid by someone else on your behalf, your taxable income, for any purposes suitable to the Government and the ATO, has been increased to your total disadvantage. By doing as required you are in fact increasing your taxable Income by the amount of this tax paid on your behalf by the company while all at your disadvantage.
To me it is very clear and I have no doubts whatsoever that this plan is actually a form of double taxation. For, you have paid tax for that part of your income already and, as they don't want to give it back to you, they are in fact taxing you again. Is double taxation allowed under the Constitution?
I rest my case!