@Yossarian Because we have an incremental Tax System where the Tax you pay is tied to your level of Income.
If your earning a high income then Labor’s plan doesn’t affect you. It was designed to only affect those on low incomes, and self funded retirees.
Punishing people for working hard, or moving the goal posts after they have spent a lifetime working towards a specific retirement plan, is really unethical.
I am not saying Franking Credits or Negative Gearing policies should be off limits when it comes to Tax Legislation, but changes always need to be done sensibly and reasonably, without quite literally ruining people’s lives.
If he got this legislation through, there would have been a mad rush from the Super Industry to sell off shares on behalf of retired members. So the first affect would have been to take away their income, and the second would have seen the stock market plummet and reduce the value of their lifetime worth of work to nothing.
That’s so unfair and unscrupulous, its bordering on being immoral.
Put yourself in those people’s shoes for a moment. Ultimately Bill Shorten and his mates hot exactly what they deserved over the weekend.
Excellent analysis Abraham. I didn’t understand the impact of it (or what the whole thing meant). Is there a complicating factor that meant this tax reform couldn’t be grandfathered in the same way the negative gearing was to be? I assume you would have found this undesirable still, but would it have been acceptable?
Finally, you’ve talked about honest toilers with modest retirement plans working a plan around this tax concession, is there a way that very wealthy people could also take advantage of franking credits and use it in a way that it wasn’t intended? How would that work? And how prevalent do you think that might be? Do you think it’s a problem that could have been addressed better than labor’s approach?