Bill Shorten has ignited a class war over his proposed reform on dividend imputation, but who are the real victims here? Satirist Ben Pobjie has taken his cues from recent emphatic reactions and broken down the numbers on Australia’s most vulnerable.
CASE STUDY ONE
Ron and Rhonda are both 96 years old and live in a 28-bedroom Edwardian mansion on the Sydney Harbour foreshore. They also own several pastoral leases in the Victorian high country and 40% of a major supermarket chain. Under Shorten’s plan, what is the cheapest brand of cat food they can begin eating in order to survive?
ANSWER: Whichever the private chef manages to pick up from the market.
CASE STUDY TWO
Arthur lives alone with his collection of porcelain clowns and the ashes of his late wife. Dividend imputation affords him a comfortable lifestyle in which he pays a young woman to visit each week and spit on him while he is dressed as a baby. Will the Labor policy force him to abandon this weekly ritual?
ANSWER: Arthur can draw down on his savings to continue his usual routine, but will have to switch to non-disposable nappies.
CASE STUDY THREE
Cheryl is 55 and wishes to retire early, but her current superannuation plan guarantees her only $300,000 per year if she lives to be 100, which means that without the cash refund she may be forced to keep the smaller of her yachts in dry dock during the winter. How will the destruction of all her hopes and dreams affect her?
ANSWER: The bitter disappointment caused by Labor policy will cause Cheryl to turn to drink, further draining her savings. Eventually Cheryl will crash her Volvo into a pop-up Thai street food café, killing dozens.
Nicely put Ben; the end of the world as they know it for countless millions of suffering self funded retirees.
I am convinced that those who criticise the critics of Shorten’s Dividend Imps plan haven’t a clue how it all works and are over-simplifying the issue. For example, self-funded retirees, by definition, don’t collect the aged pension, will almost certainly earn more than the tax threshold and will most probably pay tax. The way I understand it, Labor’s proposal, roughly speaking, addresses franking credits that go to those who are under the tax threshold and this can affect many very low income earners, the majority of whose income comes from a part pension. There are certainly many higher income earning self-funders who can probably afford a good accountant to minimize their tax liability but, why punish those on not much more than the pension. They could sell their shares and put the money into another form of lower earning investment. I am happy to be corrected if the evidence is there.
none of those farcial statements has any relevance to the actual effect shorten franking credits changes have on ordinary retirees, none of those people in those examples are remotely effected as on those incomes they still pay tax and enjoy the full benefit of their franking credits, the real losers are bill who retired with $600,000 in his self managed or other fund, he gets a return of 7% == $42,000 per annum including franking, after shortens hit, his income is now less $12,400 franking credits taken away leaving $29,600, hardly a rich mans income, then there`s pensioner bob, managed to supplement his tiny old age pension with an investment in shares of $10,000 which gives him a return of$700 a year to pay car rego or rates etc he loses $210.00 dollars , he`s not wealthy either, then there`s jim, part pensioner with with $400,000 invested in shares, gets a return of $28,000 and now loses $8,400 leaving $19,600 income, the truth is not being told here, and no mention is made of the saving to the tax payers of hundreds of thousands of dollars over 10 years that these retirees would have received if the opted to go onto a pension instead of keeping themselves
Apportioning welfare on the basis of how much of a particular kind of asset you own seems like an ass-backwards system to me.
How are any of these examples of poor beggars going to be able to afford to donate to the Limited News Party government to fight to protect their battler-subsidised upper/middle-class welfare?
Receiving a taxation refund when you haven’t paid tax is illogical. I don’t care how your finances are juggled, if you haven’t paid tax there cannot be a refund of tax.
More like lollies for non contributors.