Weighing anchor on franking credits

3 May 2019

Context is everything and thus Outsider acknowledges that the ABC’s recent election-time coverage of the franking credits debate may have served Bill Shorten and the Labor Party better than it served Scott Morrison and the Coalition.

Why? Because the ABC chose to interview one of those complaining about the Australian Labor Party’s policy removing franking credits aboard his somewhat impressive motor launch moored in a better than average marina.

It seems the poor chap had complained to the ABC about its earlier coverage of the franking credits issue and then, apparently, agreed to be interviewed on his launch complaining about the manner in which removal of the franking credits refund would impact his retirement income.

Related News:

Now it is a long time since Outsider thought too much about political spin-doctoring, but he suspects that the chap in question would have created a better impression of loss if he had made his argument from the cold, hard seat of a two metre tinny than the well-padded stern chair of his motor launch.

As an old hack, Outsider knows that there are some interviewees who just deliver more than you expect.


Recommended for you




perhaps...but no one really speaks on the real benefit to the working tax payers, these people do not rely on Government benefits, they are self funded arent they?

Are they working tax payers (and therefore earning a paid income) or are they self funded retirees? Your comment has confused the two.
If self funded retirees then they do get government benefits through reduced tax scales. If they pay no tax and claim franking credits, then of course they benefit from government benefits. They are not self-funded retirees.

Hedware is a paid troll from the ALP, ISN, CFMEU nexus

When I say working tax payers, I mean the average voter considering which policy to vote for - because we have been told it only benefits 4% of people that are not us. Bye, Good luck in telling your self funded retirees they aren’t self funded because they get a tax refund and hence rely on government benefits. Down like a lead balloon my friend!

They don’t get a tax refund because they didn’t pay any tax. You have to pay tax to get a tax refund. They got a gift from taxpayers who paid tax.

Incorrect, tax has already been paid on that income at the company tax rate, hence the dividend is already reduced for tax. Its not a handout.

Should we also tax bank account interest, rental income or bond coupons at the company tax rate then pay a reduced dividend to people as well?

That notion is like saying just because someone only worked a small part of the year and earned $5,000 total in two months, that they shouldn't get all their withholding tax back just because they are under the tax free threshold.

Thanks for helping Hedware out on this one - he seems to understand a headline without reading any detail. I wonder how Hedware would react if PAYG (it's paid by the employer) was not credited to Hedware's Tax account?

Still interested about how honest you are with your clients about your true feelings on that matter...

He doesn't have any clients

The comments here from Hedware bed down once and for all that he/she is NOT a financial adviser and is purely a paid troll from the left nexus. Thank you Hedware it is clear you have never passed a finance subject at any education level. You are an utter joke.

Also hire financial advisers - sorry you dont cut the mustard - too narrow minded.

No you don't. Not even ISN ones.

And you dont seem to know enough macroeconomics and microeconomics - too much black and white - but good with reds under the beds but this not useful in financial business

When’s your next meeting with Erin, Gerard and Xavier?

Add new comment