Retirees will pay for the Paid Parental Leave scheme

Premium content

To access premium content, please log in or set up a subscription. It's quick and easy.

More from Business Spectator

Comments

Please login or register to post comments

Comments Policy »

Robert, I rarely disagree with you - however, most of us self funded retirees are still trying to recover from the GFC and I suspect we are now a much smaller proportion than the "BIG CHUNK" of National investors and superannuation holders that you would have us believe and franking credits do give our super funds some small tax relief. - but really, if the sums are done properly, how much will our self funded retirees contribute????.

Yes, it is probably a marginal impact. While I concede the inevitable counter-point that cents add up to dollars, I also think we are talking about a good cause here. I don't begrudge the increase of the Medicare levy for the NDIS, and I don't begrudge the looming contribution from my super earnings for the paid parental leave's LNP version.

The incentive of leave payments proportional with earnings is an important acknowledgement of the opportunity cost of parenthood in lost earnings. Many of the generation of parents enjoying this benefit will be burdened by university debt even before a mortgage, and the parental leave will be essential in maintaining their capacity to have children.

George

Spot on. These are my sentiments also.

Those retirees that invest for dividends must be extremely conservative and risk-averse. Assuming inflation is the way out of soveriegn debt (in the US, EU, UK & Japan) I suspect they will not fare too well in the coming decade.

I have been writing here for some time that Robert Gottliebsen has become a 'fear mongerer' journalist - the sort that excel in the Murdoch livery. In fact, his fear-based excesses are more the stuff of the Sydney Telegraph than Business Spectator.

Cheers

All things considered – i.e. debt burden that retirees are leaving for young generations to pay, the disproportionate health care costs burden they create, etc. – perhaps this is a small contribution that retirees can make to compensate the younger generations a little.
Besides those retirees who will suffer 5% devaluation in their franking credits (1.5 cents in 30), which is of use only to those that have a tax bill over and above tax free threshold, are hardly poor, are they!

Tomislav,
Self centred, much? Casting all that have gone before You, all of their collective accomplishments and failings, as nothing more than a burden.
Naive, much? Complaining about Health Services for Retirees. Lucky You, to foresee a future in which You and your Ilk could or would never want or require medical care.
Entitled, Much? Because someone else is able to live off of the fruits of their labour, as opposed to being a burden on the state, they somehow deserve to pay more.
Despair, much? I do..!

What accomplishments? The boomers are a cultural desert, as bereft of accomplishments and Mars is of life. The transistor, microprocessor and moon landings were all accomplishe by the generation before you, the biggest thing you lot can claim to leave behind is an enormous property bubble and a debt based ponzi economy.

Govt welfare and tax deductions, both in their favour, have tracked the boomer population right through your working life, so just 'coincidently' just as you approach your theoretical peak earning capacity you've lowered tax rates to generational loans and goosed the super system to ensure no boomer is left behind.

Oh and then there's the $800bn infrastructure deficit your trying to pass off to us as you've been to cheap to pay the appropriate level of rates and taxes on your million dollar homes and all your investment properties.

Instead of spluttering semi-coherent outrage as to the thought of being asked to pay a fraction of what you should have, why don't you take a good look at the country, the debt levels, the inflated land values (legacies of your nimbisim and credit bubble), and ask yourself are we truly handing over a nation in a better stronger position than what we inherited?

Family Guy rip-off,
You have me mistaken for someone else,. I am 20 years too young to be labelled a Boomer and have few of the trappings You are so keen to attribute to me.
I don't claim to be an apologist for any sector of society, re-read my post, I make no specific defence of the Boomers.
In fact, I find the broad stereo typing of the Generations as about as arbitrary asAstrology.
I will, however, call out the politics of entitlement, hypocrisy and envy when I see it.
For, as Your post so admirably proves, if left unchallenged these cam lead to many wrong assumptions. And much bitterness.

For the heinous slight of mistaking you for a Boomer I apologies unreservedly. As for the rest, it is too muddle-headed centre of the road nonsense to get a sense what your true views eg "Despair, much? I do..!" (I mean who are you, Yoda??), but I will agree with you on one thing - the sense of entitlement needs to be purged from this economy.

Great Stewie.

When do you give up your dole payments and get a job since you obviously don't work or don't
work hard enough for your employer given your posting frequency.

shoots

Roll over David. Play dead. Good boy! Would you like your belly scratched?

Stewie, Do you get back pain from that big chip on your shoulder? Inventions and progress have always been an evolutionary thing, they have little to do with specific generations. I (a baby boomer) worked for NASA during Apollo missions. I do not wish to denigrate anybody because of their birth year. As far welfare money is concerned, what we received for child endowment was not enough to pay the milk bill.

Maybe if your generation could get off the drugs long enough to go to work things would be better.

And if you could stop raping people by drugging them, that would also be nice.

It's like, ya know, what I'm like, kinda, you know like trying to say, like...

No, it is incorrect to say that only persons earning in excess of the tax free threshold will be affected by the reduction in the franking credit rate. Any Australian resident recipient of franking credits would receive a Tax Office refund for the value of their franking credits (on lodging a tax return) if their taxable income was below the tax free threshold. If the value of franking credits is reduced by 5% then the tax refund would be 5% lower. Interestingly, foreign holders of Australian shares would be unaffected by the changes (company tax rates/parental leave levy) as they do not receive franking credits.

Well now Rob..2 things hit me immediately today
1. You are back to your brilliant best...and when you fire like this, you are hot.
2. You highlight exactly why the current crop of ALP losers should be turfed out, this current mob of ALP losers with their brand spanking new suits and parliamentary perks dont seem to have any decency cept to their own special interest tree hugging fantasise.
Spotting such a gross impost on older folk would in yrs gone by have had all ALP types up in arms as one, this just goes to show that RUDD is a one man band, but no on in the ALP has the brains to outthink a dumbo like Hockey.

Tony, one of your conclusions is spot on: Hockey is dumbo Well spotted!:

Just like the MRRT and the Carbon Tax and the Deposit Guarantee Tax and etc etc. All of these reduce the income of the self funded retiree - we must constantly review our investments to compensate for Government Cash Grabs. This one is sooooo small by comparison. I think the biggest factor here is your headline - which I find grossly misleading.

Abbott's Paid Parental Scheme is just another John Howard buy your way out of trouble at election time fix.It's designed to fix Abbott's low appeal amongst Australian women in order to buy more female votes on September 7.Abbott doesn't have any economic ideas of his own Robert ,he's just a clone of John Howard lock ,stock and barrel.
In the meantime who'd be dumb enough to believe a word Abbott and Hockey say about economic policy anyway ?
On April 29th /2013 in The Australian ,both Abbott and Hockey were demonising Gillard and abusing her for destroying the country's economy with wasteful policies like Gonski and the NDIS.
Now both Hockey and Abbott think both policies are big vote winner's ---ah sorry good ideas.
Abbott and Hockey are simply doing " the Howard " and what an economic menace he proved to be in hindsight--according to Peter Costello .

Good points Andrew.
I'm really pissed off with middle class welfare (MCW) and I think a lot of other 'middle class ' people feel the same way.
Now,here we are in the middle of really tough times and Abbot wants to continue MCW and then some.

It is a moral hazard in these of all times.

I think there were a large number of Labor voters out there who were willing to vote for the Opposition, who have now changed their mind...and I don't blame them .

There are more pressing issues that require funding than the PPL, such as Hospitals and Health. Whilst people are fit and healthy, H&H is not very important. However with an ageing population, obtaining timely and adequate treatment has become an important issue and will become more so. Currently, waiting times for elective surgery are measured in years, not months. In NSW the latest published waiting times are for 2008. The NSW Minister for Health, Jillian Skinner, refuses to publish waiting times for elective surgery because they are so bad. The frail and the elderly are being ignored in this election. Voluntary Euthanasia is the preferred alternative to Health Care.

True, but rubbish nevertheless. Any reduction in company tax will have this effect on dividend imputation. Don't we all believe in reducing company tax to encourage business and increase productivity?

Oh yes, that good old fairy tale (i.e. reducing company taxes increases productivity) that in the years to come will be sung as a lullaby to children to put them to sleep.

If you want to increase productivity you need to put money in the hands of those that spend most of their earnings to create demand and hence productivity. Henry Ford knew it when he realised that only when his workers could afford to buy cars he would make more cars.

Lowering tax for companies put more money in the pocket of those than own the capital. Which company is stupid enough to expand making more widgets if there is no demand for their widgets? You need to create the demand in order for the supply side to respond. It is not and it will never be the other way around. How rational and intelligent people be confused by such a simple concept?

Extremely good argument Dante ,and Geoffrey's next comment will probably be just the same as his last.

If you want to make the wheels turn faster you need to look at the way you reduce company tax. Rather than dropping 1.5% across the board, make the first $10,000 of company income tax free. This would push up the profitability of small business and put money into the community increasing the money available to spend. That is how to encourage productivity, growth, the economy.

True, but rubbish nevertheless. Any reduction in company tax will have this effect on dividend imputation. Don't we all believe in reducing company tax to encourage business and increase productivity?

Well, Robert, what do you have to say about Labor's super increase from 9% to 12%? That move is entirely aimed to taking income from the (younger) workers to pump into the superannuation system in order to try and maintain asset prices for retirees (and those close to retirement) that would otherwise decline with the population bulge of baby-boomers now beginning to convert into net withdrawers from the system rather than net contributors.

Super contributions are an expense (effectively a tax) on companies from which employees (mostly) obtain some benefit in the future - not a reduction of income to employees - the net effect of which is to reduce company profits, which likely in turn reduces employment opportunities. The only way this can be considered as impacting on employees is if an employer takes it into consideration in reduction of bonuses etc, that might be payable (which in themselves do not attract the super guarantee levy and would not generally be payable to the majority of employees).

How do you figure that this is designed to try & maintain asset prices for retirees?

And to those that bleat on about super being a tax concession to the wealthy - it is an increased tax imposition from what was originally a tax-free contribution with a 30% tax on withdrawal + the 15% tax on earnings along the way designed by Government (of both persuasions) to get their snouts in the trough.

Personally I'm very annoyed with the LNPs announcement of paid parental leave - but not for the reasons Robert postulates, even if it does have some truth. If you can't afford children, don't have them & why the hell should society in general pay for this! Its time we outlawed political parties altogether to get away from this absurd vote-buying. Maybe this policy could in fact sell off enough votes by way of protest, etc to jeopardise the LNPs aspirations.

It seems that you are missing the main aim of superannuation. Governments have found increasingly difficult to fund old age pensions from general revenues for a number of reasons (e.g. we live longer, our health care cost is increasing in relative and absolute terms, tax bases have been lowered to buy votes, etc. etc.) and superannuation is meant to limit future government payouts towards old age pensions.

Saving 12% of one's pay is to provide retirement income for current younger workers that would otherwise inherit empty coffers. This is in fact the reason why low income earners need government to top-up their superannuation. The Libs are going to remove this top-up, a classic short-term and short-sighted decision. But that is what happens when we elect politicians that are interested only in short term solutions, and we are stupid enough to elect them.

Closed my SMSF by ATO. Too much regulation and cannot trust the politicians no matter which party in government. They cannot help themselves too much money that they would like control. Increasing ATO fees, or to put it another way, one more tax! So I say stick your super up your jumper, it's not worth the trouble. BTW only investments allowed would be share markets or term deposits. One is NOT allowed to earn anymore than 7.5% according to ATO. Suck it up buttercups.

Closed my SMSF by ATO. Too much regulation and cannot trust the politicians no matter which party in government. They cannot help themselves too much money that they would like control. Increasing ATO fees, or to put it another way, one more tax! So I say stick your super up your jumper, it's not worth the trouble. BTW only investments allowed would be share markets or term deposits. One is NOT allowed to earn anymore than 7.5% according to ATO. Suck it up buttercups.

How typical of the baby-boomer cheerleader in chief to come out and boo-hoo the latest ridiculous piece of LNP/Labour party politicking - and not from any reasoned economic point of view as to what a disastrously poor bit of policy that it is, but because he is worried that it will hit retirees in their hip pocket.

Obviously RG has been too busy counting the $'s in his super fund to pay any read a paper by the Australian National University’s Alan Tapper, Alan Fenna and John Phillimore that has examined the extent to which welfare policies across the period 1984 to 2010 have favoured the elderly at the expense of the young.

Our superannuation systems is inequitable, both intergenerationally and within the boomer generation themselves, and completely unsustainable, get RG's primary concern is being asked to pay for anything more... fine - how about GenX,Y&Z pay for our ridiculous parental leave (assuming it isn't anything other than non-core election gimick), while you pick up the tab for the rest of your boomer mates who've failed to adequately save for their retirement, or taken their super as a lump sum, blown in on the pokies and now plan to get everyone else to pick up the tab by going on the old age pension?

One of the biggest expenses for baby-boomers (ongoing expenses, in some cases), who were never recipients of government hand-outs, is supporting lazy, selfish, ungrateful know-it-all offspring. Remembering that baby-boomers were not "the elderly" through most of 1984 - 2010, your tar brush might well be put to better use.

Too right, there is a potholed road out the front of my house at the moment that could do with a spot of tar - a legacy of the local boomer controlled town council refusing to increase rates to an appropriate level as they're too concerned about the impact any rises will have on their semi-elderly constituents and how cross that will make them... nothing worse than the thought of having enraged pot bellied boomers in the streets throwing the cheese fondu sets and car keys at you.

I'd love an LGA like that. Our rates get jacked up 5% year after year and still the potholes remain. I'm thinking its more about unfunded boomer defined benefit schemes in our case.

Yeah that makes sense. Young struggling families in your town must want to be taxed more for their roads but can't vote in the right people to do it.

Whatever happened to democracy when you need it?

@ Ken Mortensen - you have hit the nail on the head!

Go Ken!! You are on the money here!

Geez, Stewie, good to see a balanced approach: you've obviously got a chip on both shoulders. There are places you can get help, you know.

Stewie will burn a retirement village down soon.

Mark my words...

You live in a retirement village? My money was on a kennel.

Yeah but my kennel is all paid for.

Hope you enjoy the next 50 years paying off yours.

shoots

All well and good, but we do need those youngsters to crank up their honeymoon tackle to ensure there IS a contributor base to prop up the government's superannuation Ponzi scheme to fund my retirement into my 80s and 90s.

Love the levity Michael.

That's the problem. We old guys have good drugs that could help repopulate if we were in the
market so to speak.

The young have bad drugs that cause them to lose interest in the greater population good.

Crazy huh?

For god sake, Alan and Robert are now splitting hairs over the wretched Paid Parental Leave scheme - whatever next.

Robert, I think your article is misleading suggesting it is the retirees that are being stung by this proposal. Any reduction in company tax will produce that result and so all small to medium enterprise owners are going to be faced with having to top up the tax if they intend to take the same dividends as they did with the 30% tax rate. I was against the Parental Leave Scheme initially, but the more I look into it the more I see it is a winner for the entire community. It helps every business recruiting staff, not just big business and it means where big business provided paid parental leave now, will have a saving as their employees will now be able to access this scheme.

This is a winner for everyone. What we need to see in the future is a reduction in personal tax, NOT company tax.

This is not the only shock in store for the Australian population - not only retirees - if and when the coalition gains office. In order to fund their election promises, given that they also plan to reduce the budget deficit while the economy is contracting (i.e. pro-cyclically), they will use every trick and subterfuge they are capable of engineering. It is certain that there will be savage cuts to the public sector, health, education, and infrastructure spending and maintenance.

The inevitable result will be a considerable rise in unemployment and underemployment, and probably another recession -- one that we did not need to have. In such circumstances, an Abbott government stands a good chance of becoming the most hated government in Australian history. Which is another way of saying that they will be a one-term government.

John...for once,I agree with you.

The older generation are seen by governments as a drain on their income streams now so what's new? and why would people strive to improve themselves when the government takes it away when they are most vulnerable?

As it stands any retirees that have more than $273,000 in assets start losing on the pension. Now that may seem a lot, but if you brought a block of land in say 1980 the increase in the value is many times greater than the increase in the asset level imposed by the Social Security act since 1980- which will preclude increasing percentages of the population receiving any pension - more so those without superannuation. The budget papers are so wrong in the amounts paid to pensioners (it appears that all those receiving a pension are paid at the top rate in the budget) as very few pensioners get the full amount of pension anyway.

The only people, it appears to get what they are entitled to, are politicians and public servants - a misnomer if ever there was. Pensions have increased at a lesser rate than inflation - the same can't be said for politicians and public servant salaries and benefits.

If you look back at the carbon tax credit afforded the general taxpayer ($9 p.w.) and compare what the politicians paid themselves ($4,000 pa + super = $77 p.w.) you can only guess at the level of cynicism both sides (and the greens) hold the voters.

Well Scrooge McDuck, if you bought a block of land back in the 80s and it has now inflated beyond sight and sound of what is reasonable, why don't you sell it and use it to fund your retirement, rather than continue to hold it with the view of passing off some pharaonic legacy to Huey, Dewey and Louie? Nah, much easier to try and grub the pension for yourself and get everyone else to pay for your existence.

Sadly, one of the best contributions to this date would be if the Moderators of this article reflected on the nasty, acerbic and generally unpleasant nature of remarks from contributors such as our friend "Griffin". Those with a balanced view would prefer not to wade through such horrid invective. Interestingly, in presuming this fellow is not self-employed, he spends a lot of his employer's time on this subject. Would that be a baby-boomer employer, or shareholders, perhaps?

Still believe we should be seen but not heard huh RR?

Actually I am usually too busy at work to be bothered engaging boomers with frontal lobes as withered as the rest of their appendages, however today I am at home minding a sick kid, leaving me with some time free to deploy my nasty, acerbic and generally unpleasant nature towards a nasty, self absorbed and generally unpleasant generation.

When I choose to peruse the 'balance views' of many of the other posts on RG's boomer fear-mongering article, I see the majority to simply be in agreement with that old fuddy-duddy's views, again, not economically critiquing an atrociously bad and regressive policy, but rather from the sense of outrage that they're being asked to contribute anything at all out of the swag bag of super funds that they've stripped out of the economy.

"today I am at home minding a sick kid" - you mean you no longer live at home being supported by mummy and daddy like the majority of your Y-Gen mates are well into their late twenties and even thirties?

I tell you what, after you have worked for more than 45 years, I will be happy to listen to you. Until then, your view means squat to us boomers!

Aah Trudi, glad you could manage taking time out from collecting rent and managing your six (or was it seven) investment properties, and grace us with your considerable intellect and depth of analysis.

Don't let me stop you from telling the world how little of a sh#t you give about anything other than your own boomer centric views.

Stewie,the hatred you hold for your parents is coming through loud and clear.

Just pull it back a little. :D

My parents generation Stephen, subtle difference.

And we're having too much fun to be bothered with spoilt, gutless cry babies who have been cosseted
their whole lives, never been given a kick in the bum because of the political police and have spent
most of their youth on drugs and travel at dad's expense.

Go bash a pensioner in the street stewie.

you'll feel better
shoots

Gutless cry baby? Wow - took you a whole week to think that one up?

Keep trying David, on day if you keep bashing away at the keyboard long enough, you might come up with the complete works of Shakespeare.

Wow u must think that most of us use more than 10 secs to reply to u.

What an egocentric sissy.

Go take some drugs or put some cr*p in your ears to make reality go away.

Better yet, spend the rest of your life whinging.

We're enjoying ours. Thanks so much.

Actually I've finished my morning coffee and croissant, and now I'm going to head out to get my weekend pedicure.

As amusing as it has been boomer baiting you, I've got better things to do than hang out here enraging an intellectual barnacle.

Stir the Stew Stewie,

He can't sell the land because he mortgaged it for his kid's last trek thru the Himalayas.

And beside, what would they live off when he croaks it?

Parasites.

shoots

Have not the companies got an extra 1.5% profit (net of tax) to distribute though?

Tony has got it. Robert, why can't you. I don't see any support in the above comments from women. In fact, I don't see any comments from women. I wonder why.

IIt's long overdue for women to get a fair go on Super and the opportunity to enhance their contibution to the size of the cake.

The jury is still out. Tony Abbott is evasive on whether the levy will lead to a franking credit (see ABBOTT WRONG ON PARENTAL LEAVE in th Australian). The article contradicts .The Drum article 8 May 2013 Paid parental leave doesn't add up, where it is assumed the levy will be passed on as a franking credit.
Will someone in the press seek clarification from Mr Abbott or Hockey?

The jury is still out. Tony Abbott is evasive on whether the levy will lead to a franking credit (see ABBOTT WRONG ON PARENTAL LEAVE in th Australian). The article contradicts .The Drum article 8 May 2013 Paid parental leave doesn't add up, where it is assumed the levy will be passed on as a franking credit.
Will someone in the press seek clarification from Mr Abbott or Hockey?

"Will someone in the press seek clarification from Mr Abbott or Hockey?"

Surely, 'clarification from Abbot or Hockey' is an oxymoron?

Once again the Liberals will send us to recession. With most retirees starved of the cashflow they may be forced into selling down their property/ share portfolios- potentially triggering the former given it never really corrected. Again the super wealthy with cash reserves can afford to hold out- but the bulk majority will be forced to overpay at top prices just to buy assets at low yields to escape from cash- and become the likely victim of future crashes.

With massive cuts funding high class welfare such as this which is both uncalled for and unnecessary, this will encourage women to leave the workforce and hence the full scale of the deficit may not have been factored in.

Like basically all of the 24 commentators who have commented before me; I am sorry Robert but you have "Lost My Vote". You must be TOTALLY $$$$ DRIVEN. Surely you would understand that the Abbott/Hockey Policy is GOOD for Australia. YES we the retirees of the next few years, the "Baby Boomers" will pay a small levy, but it is SMALL, it is Prudential and it is going to assist Gen X's and Gen Y's actually get stuck in and work the way we are and did.
WE DON'T begrudge a few thousand $ being spent from our SFR bases, to actually HELP AUSTRALIAN WORK STRUCTURE. What we DO BEGRUDGE is the TOTAL waste of many times as much to pay for mismanaged, ill conceived schemes like the CEILING BATTS FIASCO that has BURNED MANY HOMES DOWN AND KILLED TRADESMEN WITH NO RECOMPENSE or accountability from PM Rudd or Ex-Minister Garrett. The "Installers" came to my home, gave me false assurances, and had been making pizzas in a failed venture the week before they were "expert" installers. I threw them out.

All power to Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey, and if you ever wondered about driving force, decency, ethics or ability, the program on Mr Hockey last night on free to air TV made me PROUD to have him as my future Treasurer.

Pretty hysterical stuff Geoff. The block letters say it all. Grow a brain.

Pretty hysterical stuff Geoff. The block letters say it all. Grow a brain.

Any cut in company tax will reduce franking credits accordingly and will impact on anyone, irrespective of age and status, who has shares which yield franked dividends.
S L feels for the retirees who have to sell down assets. Is the idea of superannuation not to use it up in retirement and - ideally - leave a zero balance upon exit from the planet? If not, then the residual should be left to the community, not to the estate.

Margit, I don't think you are portraying SL's true sentiment...he wasn't complaining...he was just giving us some good analysis of what will happen as a result of this continuous middle class welfare.

Brickbats to the headline writer for the hysterical tone, the article is really much ado about very little.

i have heard that 50% of voters in this election will be aged over 50.
I cant think of one policy since 2007 that have assisted the self funded retiree,yet the cost of living has gone through the roof.

Time to start a 50+ Party? It happened in Europe.

I would suggest that the 0% tax on super withdrawals granted by Pete Costello is more than enough largesse, what more do you want? Granted, it only really helps out the super rich with large super balances, not your average retiree with a meagre balance who probably would have paid very little tax on their modest annual drawdowns...

I swapped from the AFR to B.S. in the hope of better quality journalism, in the hope that one day Australia may have a financial newspaper not a million lightyears behind the likes of the F.T. & the WSJ. This article makes me wonder whether that's a pipe dream; it's not even worthy of the lowest quality rag.
What a cheap shot at grabbing a headline by stirring up inter-generational animosity.

Valid point Mr Palmer.

Your a bit younger than me Robert and I'll wager the GFC did me more damage than you. But I would think most people recognise that a reduction of the tax rate means a reduction in the franking credits. The levy is another matter entirely. I think your a bit out of line here,

I have worked out that the maternity leave changes on franking credits and bank insurance tax will cost my super fund less than $1000 pa. I have a daughter and daughter in law in their early 20s earning $80,000 pus pa . If they have 2 babies each and get 2 maternity leaves each that is $160,000 dollars plus in payments .I am more than happy to contribute $20 a week towards that.

I have worked out that the maternity leave changes on franking credits and bank insurance tax will cost my super fund less than $1000 pa. I have a daughter and daughter in law in their early 20s earning $80,000 pus pa . If they have 2 babies each and get 2 maternity leaves each that is $160,000 dollars plus in payments .I am more than happy to contribute $20 a week towards that.

The LNP and Labor stole pensions (means, assets tests and deeming etc) and so too starts the move of superannuation funds ... does it affect public servants and politicians?

We are talking about tax on 1.5% of dividends and shall we say 10% of dividends are paid to retirees. Do you really think that would add up to anything like the cost of the parental leave scheme? As Julia would say, "it is not nothing, it is something" - but it is not much.

inter-generational attack... oh please. the current crop of retirees/near retirees didn't pay anywhere near the amount of tax required to support their own entitlements. They have gamed super all the way and over the last 20 years have been the beneficiaries of a series of decisions tying up most of the countries wealth in their hands in the form of inflated property prices.

Don't wet yourself David...property is going to crash just as heavily as it has in the rest of the world.

Nah David.

A lot of the tax we paid went on school counsellors for the gutless generations that followed.

Lucky ICE came along and made it all better.

shoots

Well Robert, have you considered adjusting your retirement strategy as a solution to your gripe

Your analysis is spot on Robert. Thanks for revealing the subterfuge of Tony and Joe. Quite brilliant on both their part in hatching the plot and on yours for uncovering it! The "conservative" parties in Australia have demonstrated themselves to be hard core socialists at heart.

Rather sad to see the ingrained hostility of some respondents lashing out and attempting to lay the blame for their own ineptitude and failure at the feet of others.

Your analysis is spot on Robert. Thanks for revealing the subterfuge of Tony and Joe. Quite brilliant on both their part in hatching the plot and on yours for uncovering it! The "conservative" parties in Australia have demonstrated themselves to be hard core socialists at heart.

Rather sad to see the ingrained hostility of some respondents lashing out and attempting to lay the blame for their own ineptitude and failure at the feet of others.

I personally feel quite put upon to think that Abbott will impose a " great big new tax" on all retirees, and especially the battling ones who have been so badly affected by the GFC,and that this money will be used to fund a handout to over paid female employees.
Abbott is insensitive to the plight of ordinary people and Hockey is gutless enough to tag along with this just as Hunt tags along with the inappropriate Coalition climate change policy. How can people even consider voting for such policies?

Your arithmetic is right, Robert, but your "poor old retirees" line is wrong. Don't play to your audience so much.

People who don't work but live off savings (like me) have assumed for a long time that their money should work very hard (i.e. the young borrowers should work even harder for the use if it)and even get a margin above inflation so if they've enough to start with and they're prudent they can live on and on and the nest egg never disappears. That's not part of "God's plan". It's been a happy fluke for a while. And due to SMSF rules, I now make twice the income but pay tax at 20% of the rate of my hard working and reasonably paid son - who's buying a house and bringing up 3 kids, while I play golf.

The property Ponzi has been an outrageous wealth transfer from young to old. And overall, the stats show fewer and fewer workers per retiree. At 66 I cannot persuade myself to feel hard done by. That I (by stealth) help pay for the fertile young to breed - so be it. But if there's disagreement on that - belt the big banks for the lot. They are absurdly large, absurdly profitable and have paid many retirees a mozza. CBA needs to sell at a PE of 12 on profits half of now - i.e. be priced at $18. Why not? Drop my sons mortage rate, (while adding a 2% margin for nuisance negative gearing investors with their Ticket Scalpers business model); drop my income. Any baby boomer who grizzles about the status quo hasn't a clue. This is as good as it gets. Batten down the hatches. Bad weather coming. I just hope they'll be kind to us. "But I'm angry and I VOTE!!". You can vote all you like, but those who work must get preferential treatment.

Great comments Mark, good luck to you and your family.

Well given that you'll be dead in 10 years and won't be playing golf for the last 5, it would seem to me to be just reward for 45 years of work. Your son is struggling as we ALL did.

This generation WILL NOT be separated from their families and friends for the sake of work. Hence the 457s doing cleaning work in remote mines.

The PROBLEM the gens have is that YOUR attitude of constantly fussing and salving every
hurt and pain has given us the greatest bunch of sooks the country has ever seen.

YES raising families has always been hard. I spent 2 years seeing my kids on weekends becaise the rest of the time i was on a bus to work. Nowadays i'd be on the dole forever, taking a course, being counselled or just get someone pregnant and live off them while selling drugs.

Get a grip. When you're young you take a big bite and chew for years. That's all there is.

Stop trying to constantly take the hurt of life away from kids. If they never struggle they never
get to experience the other side of it.

shoots

This is your longest post yet! You should give those two fingers a rest from all that typing, I mean how else is Mrs Palmer going to get all romantic with you after dinner with two of her main helpers out of action?

Well maybe you'd better use them yourself or head off to the vet since obviously you can't
afford to house any more sprogs.

Have a great life. I am.

I'm stuffed if I know how Tony, Joe and Co are going to pay for all this largesse. Holding a lot of unpaid dividends in my company I was never going to vote Liberal to see these devalued from 30c in the dollar to 28 or lower. Someone said on Outsiders on Sun morning on Ch 2 that journalists should band together and refuse to print anything policy related from any party that has not been costed. Could not agree more.

Yes but Robert, and I am of your generation, we received the biggest free kick in the tax treatment of pensions and fund income post 60, so I do not complain.

Robert

Whether Abbott and Hockey knew what they were doing is probably debateable as I doubt either would profess that economics or finance is their strong suit (that's not to say that the other side has any more clues), notwithstanding that Hockey will be soon holding the "purse strings" and nominally, Abbott will be overseeing him.

I'm no finance guru for that matter. However, to me retirees in full pension phase at least should not be too chagrined about life, in potentially having to take a 1.5 percentage point "haircut" on their franking credits, as from my minimal understanding of these things they are probably getting a full effective refund of their franking credits now anyway.

Indeed, to me, this arrangement seems to be a "great big (not new) tax" leakage to misquote Abbott, as it would effectively seem to mean that no company tax (or any tax) has been paid on the portion of franked dividends received by retirees in full pension phase. Yes, the company paid company tax on the attributable profit to which that dividend relates, but the retiree in full pension phase gets a full effective refund of the tax.

As for the 1.5 percentage point cut in the company tax rate, that's all about neutralising the effect on the "big" companies of the levy for paid parental leave scheme and pampering to small business (the big employers in this country as you keep telling us) - whether it gives either of them any more incentive to invest or employ more people is perhaps questionable.

Robert

Whether Abbott and Hockey knew what they were doing is probably debateable as I doubt either would profess that economics or finance is their strong suit (that's not to say that the other side has any more clues), notwithstanding that Hockey will be soon holding the "purse strings" and nominally, Abbott will be overseeing him.

I'm no finance guru for that matter. However, to me retirees in full pension phase at least should not be too chagrined about life, in potentially having to take a 1.5 percentage point "haircut" on their franking credits, as from my minimal understanding of these things they are probably getting a full effective refund of their franking credits now anyway.

Indeed, to me, this arrangement seems to be a "great big (not new) tax" leakage to misquote Abbott, as it would effectively seem to mean that no company tax (or any tax) has been paid on the portion of franked dividends received by retirees in full pension phase. Yes, the company paid company tax on the attributable profit to which that dividend relates, but the retiree in full pension phase gets a full effective refund of the tax.

As for the 1.5 percentage point cut in the company tax rate, that's all about neutralising the effect on the "big" companies of the levy for paid parental leave scheme and pampering to small business (the big employers in this country as you keep telling us) - whether it gives either of them any more incentive to invest or employ more people is perhaps questionable.

Robert

Whether Abbott and Hockey knew what they were doing is probably debateable as I doubt either would profess that economics or finance is their strong suit (that's not to say that the other side has any more clues), notwithstanding that Hockey will be soon holding the "purse strings" and nominally, Abbott will be overseeing him.

I'm no finance guru for that matter. However, to me retirees in full pension phase at least should not be too chagrined about life, in potentially having to take a 1.5 percentage point "haircut" on their franking credits, as from my minimal understanding of these things they are probably getting a full effective refund of their franking credits now anyway.

Indeed, to me, this arrangement seems to be a "great big (not new) tax" leakage to misquote Abbott, as it would effectively seem to mean that no company tax (or any tax) has been paid on the portion of franked dividends received by retirees in full pension phase. Yes, the company paid company tax on the attributable profit to which that dividend relates, but the retiree in full pension phase gets a full effective refund of the tax.

As for the 1.5 percentage point cut in the company tax rate, that's all about neutralising the effect on the "big" companies of the levy for paid parental leave scheme and pampering to small business (the big employers in this country as you keep telling us) - whether it gives either of them any more incentive to invest or employ more people is perhaps questionable.

Lisa has to be a lawyer !

To those who think this is insignificant you'd better do your sums. Franking credits are simply added to your income so if you rely on stocks suck as Telstra and CBA you just received a 1.5% pay cut. This is added to the recent 0.5% pay cut via the increase in the Medicare Levy that was cheered through by both sides.

The Parental scheme is ridiculous and the other Liberals know it. Abbott is the wrong leader and they know that too. This was an off the cuff scheme he came up with, likely produced to win favour with women, as he was under political pressure to do so at the time. The Libs know that they can't appear divided so they had to back it due to the reckless commitment he made. Thanks a lot.

Likely produced to win favour with his daughters.....

Mark Welch, we all agree with you but you have options.
1 Go back to work yourself until you are 75 to help your son
2 Give him all your "available" superannuation to help with his mortgage

Then re- read the comments by Ken Mortensen......and you may see why we have comments by the likes of Stewie.....very sad really......good to see that not all the Gen X Y etc are like this fellow...wish his parents all the best of good luck.

bna, I'll skip the last bit which I'll assume is tongue in cheek (NEVER give your kids a lot of money; that does harm. Just be around to give them the odd freebie, and as catastrophe insurance). I'll settle for the fact that you agree. Up the retirees tax payments, slowly remove neg gearing by 5% a year so it's in the bin by 2033. Educate the baby boomers that they're getting a great deal; discourage the pollies from pandering to the 'poor retiree'. It's no surprise, and it's not socially healthy, that there is so much bitter talk from the young now about intergenerational wealth transfer.

The paid parental leave scheme is just the sort of middle class welfare that Joe Hockey rightfully denigrated in his London speech last year. Anthony Forster in above comments is right to suggest that it amounts to a direct negative for investors who will pay the price for this ridiculous scheme by way of reduced franking credits on share dividends. PPL effectively sees retirees subsidising wealthy families to the tune of up to $75,000 per child.

An incredibly bad and taxation and benefit regressive policy by the Libs Neil, makes a mockery of their claims to represent small Govt and leaving the social engineering programs to Labour.

Sort of reminds me of the FHB grant, a policy designed to try and circumvent the elephant in the room, the complete un-affordability of Australia's residential property market - particularly for young first home buyers.

Why are young women so reluctant to take time off to have a child or start a family? Because they're so dependent on the income to fund the enormous mortgage that they've usually taken on to purchase their first home - family formation usually coincides with the acquisition of the first family home.

Instead of trying to address the cause to so many of this nations ailments, our massive land and debt bubble, this is simply another program designed to try and alleviate another of its symptoms. All the while the patient will continue to weaken.

I guess the young people using the FHBG who bid up house prices weren;t in the trough like the
rest?

Nah it was all cruel boomers and not FHBs who didn't want to save and went in to 100% loans
because they could.

Seems to me the Gens got the house prices they deserved.

shoots

Mate I've really stirred you up haven't I... makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Don't have a heart attack :)

Nar I luv it.

The good thing is that even if i had a heart attack tomorrow I've had a great life.

Once you get over your whining and blaming you could have one too.

C'mon hit me with another slice of wet lettuce.

I think people should think more broadly on this issue. At first glance the policy may seem elitist but don't just concentrate on the top end salaries (i.e. salaries of $75,000 for 6 months). These represent only a small percentage of funding.

PPL is designed as a positive economic, social and productivity reform counteracting 2 big negatives. (1) the disincentive to employ women in the first place due to the hassle of recouping under the current ALP scheme (2) that many working women after childbirth loose touch with it and don't return. PPL will assist in retaining a sense of confidence and status for some of those (point 2) women. The loss to productivity due to highly educated and qualified women not entering or leaving the workforce due to having kids is huge. Even Eva Cox - states that Abbott "gets it" with the Coalition's PPL policy. The "experiment" is worthwhile at the least.

Robert, I think you are drawing a long bow for your glib argument perhaps you should be arguing that the retirement age should be increased from 65 to 70 or perhaps 72 ( The public never has the opportunity to discuss why because politicians are all governed by self interest) over a relatively short period as well as adjusting the transition to retirement age .
While you are analysing these things can you please explain the effect of the FBT changes on our politicians

Remove SATO, tax SMSF's in pension mode and I might listen to your argument. I saw Singo's mate say it pretty clearly on fox the other day....if you oldies don't give up something soon my kids (the mob) will be coming after you. Spoilt rotten with timing and market forces and now refuse to pay your share. Will be interesting reading when the kids realise how lucky you were.

When the kids chase me with pitchforks and flaming torches, my security guards in the gated compound around our boomer free love compound in the Philippines will see them off.

shoots

Abbott's PPL scheme will cost a lot of money. Overall revenue from company tax will be reduced. Carbon tax will go. We've got Gonski and DisabilityCare. Then there's infrastructure and other promises. The net effect would be a large increase in the deficit and debt. If this is to be avoided, there will have to be cuts in a lot of services, on which lower income earners tend to rely on more than higher income earners.

I think one of the risks with PPL is that some people will keep on having more and more babies, given the government will be paying for this. I presume child support payments will stay. Such people will be financially better off having more and more children. I would envisage a huge, expensive mess.

We may no longer be better off in economic and fiscal terms than any other country after a few years of a Coalition government.

Here is another way to look at this. Although I don't support the way-too-generous proposed PPL, and I agree that it will be partly funded by retirees, I think we should look at it from another angle before we all scream unfair.

Suppose I am over 60 and living on an income stream paid by my SMSF. Let's say my fund owns 20,000 shares in CBA, which I bought at around $30 several years ago, now worth around $70 each. My assets are worth around $1.4m so I receive no govt pension. My income is around $70k in dividends and $30k in franking credits (round figures) so I have an income of $100k. On this I pay no tax at all as the assets are in pension phase. I get back from the govt the $30k company tax that CBA paid to them. I save about $26.500 in income tax as this is the amount of tax I would pay on the $100k income if I held the shares outside of Super. I would also qualify for a Seniors health care card as my TAXABLE income is less than $80k.

The franking credit would reduce by $1500 under the new system so the income would reduce from $100,000 to $98,500, but in any case the tax benefit I receive is still far in excess of the pension that the govt would pay me if I had no assets.

(This in itself is insanity - we offer retirees a tax benefit that is higher than the govt pension to encourage them to save enough so we don't have to pay them a pension - Um who thought up this scheme - yes of course, a Baby Boomer)

Anyone over sixty who has arranged their assets to maximise the benefit of tax free super income is now having a totally tax free ride at the expense of younger workers with mortgages and families to support.

Sounds great except retirees on that income are almost extinct and to earn it you're exposed to the risk of the share mkt. I seem to recall a 50% crash a little while ago.

Meanwhile back in real life most people's TDs are negative after inflation while living costs soar.

get real.

We all know that Costello's 2007 tax cuts to high superannuation income were way too generous but the solution to that mistake is not to impose a regressive, flat tax on all shareholders but to reverse some of Costello's mistakes. e.g. there's no reason why allocated pensions could not be included with a rebate in taxable income like they were before 2007.

This would return taxation of super incomes to a much fairer regime.

The problem with this, of course, is that many Liberal MPs would be ideologically opposed to any reversal of changes brought by one of their heros, Costello.

I have just read this article and the comments and recommend that everyone reads the contribution by Lorraine Graham.
It is a factual treatment of the PPL impact on a self funded retiree. Yes, it will cost "us" a bit. No, it will not "send us to the wall". Yes, we are already given many benefits, so the overall Super set up is still.very favourable.
Asd a self funded retiree who loves franking credits my view is simple. yes, it will happen. Get over it, just wish the money was going into basic health for the whole community.

Lorraine, you explained that rather well. For me, I fail to see the problem with the scheme offered by Abbott, because it is, just "catch up" for womens super.

OK lets not talk about the unfunded NBN, lets talk about retaining valuable members of the workforce. $150K seems to be the problem, so lets see who that might be: A head nurse, a senior school teacher, a Major in the Army, a Sergeant in the Police force, a legal secretary, a post graduate medical researcher, a news reader etc, (All falling within the approximate range).

So, if you want to see the skill base of Australian women, removed from the workforce, then Roberts comments become relevant.

If you want to see the investment in woman's careers continue to contribute to the Australian economy, then listen to me, as I have just expanded the terms of reference.

Australia has to think outside of the box, if we want to offer a more diverse society.

Ken, how does this new PPL Scheme help retain women in the work force any more than the current scheme, or the arrangements before that?

Previously a woman was entitled to un paid maternity leave of 12 months and the returned to her job because she needed the money.

Under the new was scheme, a woman might now take longer than 12 months because she has received the large bonus from Tony.

Theo, 50% of your salary up to $150K, for 6 months. As a father I know that child care for children under the age of 6 months, either does not exist, or is prohibitively expensive.

The new scheme is like the old scheme just a little wider reaching.

Sure it's expensive but only if you don't look at it's benefits.

Robert
I may not agree with all your sentiments but I can see the logic.
Curiously, some here seem to see this as a non-Liberal rant for baby boomers and an attack on Gen ?..

Interestingly, the IPA (no "lefties" there!) has put The Australian article "Tax cuts help but levy doesn't" by Sinclair Davidson on their website.

The final paragraph makes the point that "This could easily become an intergenerational transfer from self-funded retirees and superannuation funds to females in business." Same conclusion, although they are looking for the PPL to have a sunset clause. (non-core promise?)

The "stewie..(??) comments and obvious hatred of the aged (apparently excepting his own parents) almost put me off, but I persist despite his self-confessed "nasty, acerbic and generally unpleasant nature" and comments to make the points that not all retirees are baby boomers (I am of the generation that invented the transistor, and the microprocessor etc), many retirees started their education and working life without Government assistance (including sick leave to mind kids) and have not used negative gearing or Ponzi schemes to build up Super. Just years of honest work and restraint in spending.
The scheme will reduce our income but the PPL is a good idea, although it clearly should be means tested.

I won't comment on the scheme itself although I would like it if we learned from countries such a Norway for such matters rather than the US / UK. As for the impact to retirees it is only those with superannuation pension income and not those struggling on the age pension, boo hoo. The nil tax or potentially a tax refund on franked dividends is not sustainable. Anyone would think baby boomers haven't had enough cake.

It's a bit rich to complain about loss of franking credits to people in untaxed phases of their life.

Dividend imputation was designed to prevent double taxation, and has had an unexpected side benefit of providing extra returns for slef-funded retirees.

Basically you are arguing against cutting the corporate tax rate. So what's your plan Robert, increase the corporate tax rate to make life easier for self-funded retirees?

That's the problem with picking and choosing the bits of the tax system that suit one's circumstances.

Isn't it about time we all acknowledged that the Howard-Costello tax cuts were bigger than we can afford?

If we want all this middle class welfare (and obviously a huge swathe of voters seem to like it) we either need to cut back on tax loop holes (pension cash out recontribution strategies, negative gearing against employment income), or put taxes back up to pay for it.

We can not raise more income and have no losers in the process. We just need to suck it up, and everyone bears their bit.

"and everyone bears their bit"

Of course in this case (the levy) not everyone bears their bit. Only shareholders, who will be double-taxed again partly like the old days.

Stewie Griffin you have no idea - what a sad individual you are. I assume your parents contributed to the success of this country and the many infrastructure accomplishments over the many generational periods of time. Perhaps your parents were paying 17% home interest rates at one stage whilst you enjoy 5%. Get a brain lad. All generations will contribute to the success of Australia not just X and Y with the attitude thats its all "about me". Would like to speak to you again in 30 or 40 years time and see what you attitude is then...........

Yawn - that was the best you could do after two days of thinking? I think it is you who needs to grow a brain!

Once again you start sooking about paying 17% interest.... for what 18mths? At the time that 17% interest represented barely more than 35% of household disposable income, at a time when most households only had one working parent. Nowdays thanks to the debt binge you've push on everyone younger than 50 interest rates only have to rise to 6.5-7.5% and your already at 35% of disposable household income... we are looking at that % of householding income being diverted to debt servicing, pretty much for the next 20years.

I suppose if you are too much of a simpleton to comprehend that this is the main gripe of my argument and several other less self absorbed boomer posters, than really I suppose it isn't much of a surprise that it took you 2 days to type out a response.

Here is a thought I'll leave you with, which going on current timing I expect you to finish reading sometime by the end of the week:

Once upon a time Australian society (our idiot boomer parents who I so frequently refer to in general) use to sit around the BBQ wondering about the massive foreign debt that we were building up. They use to ask:

"What are we going to do? Leave it all to our children?"

The answer to that question, is a resounding yes. Thanks to your lots selfishness at worst, or ineptitude at best, that debt is now imbedded in Australian property prices, so if your kids want to have any hope of a life of their own, now we have to take over the debt you ran up, then so selfishly spent largely on yourself. That is the crux of my annoyance with you,.

Now given the large length of time it took you to respond to an article written 3 days ago, and that you threw up that red herring (yet again about 17% interest rates, without actually understanding the math behind it relative to household spending, I really have low expectations as to you'll make the necessary connections to even view my statement as a possibility - but go away and have a nice little think about it, maybe over a cup of tea with an Anzac bickie or two :)

Stewie is always the centre of the universe. He thinks people take three days to respond to his ravings when the truth is most people out their are enjoying life and occasionally read this forum and reply.

In Stewie's universe HIS generatin didn't take up the FHBG. HIS generation didn't front banks for 100% loans. HIS generation weren't at the auctions. HIS generation weren't blowing out credit
card debt like there was no tomorrow......

BECAUSE THEY COULD!

Nar. HIS generation played no part in it all.

Mummy, nasty mummy and daddy did all the baaaaaaad things.

Never mind stewie. Mummy will make it better.

shoots

Stupid is as stupid does I suppose - have another chocolate David.

Yair Stew had no answer to that one!

His generation blew it out on credit and went to the auctions and took the FHBG and yet it's the
fault of the boomers.

Like I said you got the house prices you deserved.

Suck on it.

Actually David, I've simply grown tired of replying to your feeble attempts at having the last word (and you suggest that I'm egotistical! lol)

Out of curiosity I've gone back and had a look at quite a few more threads that you have been active in and find a surprising pattern of you showing up days after the last post, simply to have the last word.... so for whatever great life you claim to have had, you show a surprising degree of insecurity.

BTW - you appear to have made the mistake of thinking I actually care about you and your opinions as opposed to using them as a conduit to highlight the worst elements of the boomer generation - why would I have the slightest interest in the thoughts of an intellectual barnacle, whose hitched a ride on the thought patterns of our ponderous whale RG?

So I like the last word but you take the trouble to research my propsemsity to have a last
word.

Yair that makes sense.

But STILL you have not refuted the central point that YOUR GENERATION ran up the houses prices by utilising the FHBG and thought they were on a roll too because "house prices always go up" or so they thought. They had their snouts in the trough too.

Yair, stewie, refute that you gutless wimp.

I have devoted precisely 5 minutes to this, it had doiminated my life and I do like to stick it up the first hurdle failure generation such as yourself.

Enjoy your croissant.

Of course I took the trouble to research - I was curious to see just how big an idiot I was dealing with... a pretty big one apparently.

The community mostly pays for the higher education of young women, and I think the community should get the benefit of their skills in the workplace. Surely retirees have sufficient advantages? And wouldn't it be better to improve the overall productivity level by getting these well qualified young women back into the workforce? And wouldn't they feel more connected to the workforce if they are being paid half their salary while they are looking after their new babies?

Thank you Robert for drawing attention to this issue, a sneaky trick by the LIBs. At last it is getting some media coverage today. Clearly some people do not understand the implications for retirees receiving a Superannuation pension. As a new retiree managing my own SMSF, I will receive 5% less in franking credits which are equivalent to 42% of the dividend received. So not an insignificant amount! As you know when in the pension phase, franking credits are refunded to the super fund as no tax is payable. Both major parties say they will not interfere in superannuation but how is this not interferring. I was considering voting for the LIBs which is not my normal preference, however, I am back at the undecided phase for my vote. Just a couple of replies to some of the other comments: I have worked full-time all my adult life and I never received any parental leave when I had my child. Another thing, I have paid taxes all my working life and being healthy, I rarely had the benefit of govt funded health care. So if I do become a "burden" on the taxpayer, it is likely to be just a small portion of what I have contributed over my life. Health funds have made a significant benefit out of my earnings as well. Once again, thank you Robert for drawing attention to this issue.

Investors are off their rockers a little bit here. I can't believe that people are complaining that a company tax cut is bad and going to leave them worse off because it will cut imputation credits. By this analogy then a tax increase is very good because it will increase imputation credits, the government may as well increase the company tax rate to 50%. Heck why have we been falling for the cuts to the company tax rate trap all these years, when we should have been increasing them.

Jokes aside, what people are forgetting is that a cut to the company tax rate will result in higher retained profits and so assuming a constant payout ratio this will result in an increased dividend to partially compensate for the decreased franking credits.

The whole tenor of this discussion about imputation credits, actually highlights why imputation credits are bad. Namely because it discourages Australian companies from investing outside of Australia as non-Australian earnings don't attract imputation credits. Result is domestic earnings are more highly valued by Australian investors. This then incentivises the concentration of Australian industry into conglomerate style monopoly structures. And goes a long way to explain why Coles and Woolworths are so dominant in the Australian retail sector. Qantas - Virgin, Big 4 banks, Telco sector, Insurance etc, all virtual oligopolies.

"I can't believe that people are complaining that a company tax cut is bad and going to leave them worse off because it will cut imputation credits."

That's a strawman argument. The complaint is about a 1.5% non-refundable levy that is equivalent to a 1.5% pay cut of franked dividend income. Would you complain about a 1.5% pay cut?

Robert you are spot on as per usual. The fundamental problem with the $5 Billion per annum plan is that it nothing more than gross economic mismanagement similar to what we have now had for the past 7 years under Labour rule. If we have $5 billion to spend each and every year (and I suspect we don't), then spend it on improving our infrastructure (ports, freight rail and roads in particular) and whilst that is going on, get a group of people together that can help us figure our how Australia can develop a sustainable economic advantage that will assis the new generation in employment and leaving conditions. The other big problem that this irresponsible action leaves with is who do I vote for? The Greens are only interested in their own free lunch, Labour has more then proven their utter incompetence and the coalition clearly lacks judgement or the true leadership to make a difference to our nation.

The biggest dilemma I see happening is that the large end of town will just think really hard about hiring young fertile women full stop. If like Terry's daughter and daughter inlaw earning $80K plus, soon adds up. So realistically the blue brigade are really sticking it to the younger generation of female workers, otherwords have all your kids first before even thinking of getting a job.

Yep in a tight labour market, fertile females will be left out.

On the other hand they may actually have the time to read to them so that they don't discover that they are illiterate at 15 and cannot read the instructions on the contraceptives.

shoots

This is a really nasty discussion!!!! Why so personal?? Back to the debate though - There are two sides the the intergenerational funding debate. There is another that involves the balance sheet (ie funding for investment) side of the discussion rather than redirection of revenues or re-assignment of operating costs from and to different parts of the Australian demographic.....governments invest in infrastructure now, but the debt for the investment has to be paid for by the future generations - indeed the only good reason I can see for paid parental leave - so that we create as many tax payers for the future to support the payments.....notwithstanding - I do not support paid parental leave in the form proposed - welfare should be provided where needed! Apparently our welfare spend exceeds our health care spend....got to be something wrong with that!

Thanks for the fun stewie. I like to stick it up your useless generation while I have my second coffee.

Time to see if there's any surf and then get back to writing my book.

And yes I have published before and still get royalties- although paltry ones.

Go back to your life of non-quiet desperation stew and i'll check tomorrow for more dummy spits from you.

Ta ta

I look forward to seeing it in the recycling bin.

What are you thinking of calling it "The life and times of intellectual mollusk?"

Nope. 23 years in print and still available on Amazon.

Not under the name David Doyle since I would never proclaim anything under my real name for the web.

Now go back, take a bite out of life and start chewing.

I'm afraid I have earned a lot more croissants than you.

ciao

And yes I really luv dishing it up to you useless clowns.

5 minutes of ridiculing you each day gives me a little charge.

next insult please?

Ah David, is that the best you can do? I've got more money than you? ROFLMAO. Maybe you'd like to tell us all what a big stud you are while your at it.

Do you really think your actually dishing it up? I've spent more time agonising over a pimple than I have been troubled by you. I read you crap and nearly piss myself laughing that there could possibly be someone as sad, stupid and insecure as you out there.

Seriously "23 years in print and still available on Amazon". What's happened in the interval - writers block? Looking at your semi-legible rants I'd say probably a car accident and a mild brain injury.

Well, I had a quick read through the above comments and much is informative, but I still see nothing to really convince me that this PPL is anything other than something that would normally be trumpeted by The Greens. The loss of franking is a real concern and just can't be ignored. In a $100,000 fully franked dividend within a super fund, one would be looking at close to a $3000 loss if Daryl Dixon's figures are to be believed and his figures agree with my own calculations. Nick Minchin said today that Abbott may be looking for support from The Greens to get this thru the senate but even they would consider it to be too generous (esp at the top end). These are strange days indeed when a potential Liberal Gov is pushing The Greens to spend more money. I tried to like it but really I just can't like it and for me this is a stupidity ("fatal error blue screen of death"!) that this time will stop me voting Liberal.

So I like the last word but you take the trouble to research my propsemsity to have a last
word.

Yair that makes sense.

But STILL you have not refuted the central point that YOUR GENERATION ran up the houses prices by utilising the FHBG and thought they were on a roll too because "house prices always go up" or so they thought. They had their snouts in the trough too.

Yair, stewie, refute that you gutless wimp.

I have devoted precisely 5 minutes to this, it had doiminated my life and I do like to stick it up the first hurdle failure generation such as yourself.

Enjoy your croissant.

Mate this having the last word is really important to you isn't it?

So important that you posted it once in reply to a post up above, and a second time down here at the end of the page.... why? Were you afraid all your followers from you 'big book' that you wrote 23 years ago and that is still available on Amazon, might have otherwise missed it?

You really have an overblown sense of self importance if you think I would bother wasting another second trying to explain something to you in this now pretty dead forum? "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." So true!

I've had my fun baiting you and making you look like such a fool that even your lickspittle side kick Ken Mortensen has fallen silent. Much easier to simply wait for you to post your 'thoughts' on some other more active thread and have another dig at you in front of a wider audience.

Goodnight you insecure little man :)

Too late for a comeback, Stewie? Or can I just claim "last word" this one time?