Game Theory: why Labor can not budget for $5b from franking policy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Zenith Chaos, 17th May, 2019 at 7:18 PM.

Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community
  1. Zenith Chaos

    Zenith Chaos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    10th Jul, 2015
    Posts:
    1,029
    Location:
    Sydney
    Game Theory assumes players are rational and play the best game.

    1. SMSFs can transfer into industry funds
    2. Self funded retirees can sell down to receive a pension
    3. Restructure into lower yielding equities and selling to fund expenses
    4. Funds can restructure to pay unfranked dividends

    Every Australian can act rationally to improve their position to counteract this policy and increase costs to the government and/or impact investment in Australian companies.

    If Labor wins this election and legislates this policy then they must be held accountable to provide evidence of Its outcome.

    I believe this policy if implemented will have a negative impact on Australia.
     
    Nodrog, qak, HUGH72 and 2 others like this.
  2. bashworth

    bashworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    192
    Location:
    Dandenong
    People behaving rational is the big question mark.

    1. I'm not saying a SMSF isn't a rational choice for a sophisticated investor but its not a rational choice for a lot of people. I've seen people take a big hit on their super by bad decisions. I'm reasonably sophisticated . . . but I still think letting the experts in my industry fund manage my money is well worth it.
    2, If they sell down they have to spend the money so that will help the economy by creating a demand.
    3. Selling to fund expenses is a saving to the government compared with the government paying retirees to fund their expenses.
    4. But are they going to get a pension if they restructure?

    I get tired of people saying they are self funded retirees when the truth is they are getting tens of thousands of dollars cash from the government.
     
    TSK and LibGS like this.
  3. Rolf Latham

    Rolf Latham Inciteful (sic) Staff Member Business Plus Member

    Joined:
    14th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    4,884
    Location:
    Gold Coast
    no chance of that :)

    ta
    rolf
     
    Morgs and gman65 like this.
  4. Perthguy

    Perthguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    11,275
    Location:
    Perth
    That's simply not true. They could

    a) save the cash
    b) buy an ip
    c) invest using a different structure
     
  5. Scott No Mates

    Scott No Mates Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    13,918
    Location:
    Sydney or NSW or Australia

    Only if it's new if the want the depreciation allowances but they want to be investing for income to replace the income from dividends.
     
  6. Redwing

    Redwing Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    2,715
    Location:
    WA
    Selling up and incurring CGT and transaction costs may be a dampener?
     
    Zenith Chaos likes this.
  7. Morgs

    Morgs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    7th Dec, 2017
    Posts:
    353
    Location:
    Sydney NSW
    I agree in that with a change in rules it is those who are agile that will be able to take advantage of opportunities.

    This is the problem with ideological policies. In theory they works but that isn't how reality transpires because people can find ways to change and adapt. The old example of regulating increased wages payable by business to workers is great in theory, but the money needs to come from somewhere. Often it can mean the business (say if in manufacturing) who can't just put prices up to absorb the drop in margin may look to moving production offshore where there is a significantly lower cost base.
     
  8. willy1111

    willy1111 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16th Jul, 2015
    Posts:
    197
    Location:
    Melbourne
    If in pension mode, zero CGT.
     
  9. LibGS

    LibGS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    856
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    If people were rational, then John Howard would never have turned this offset into a refund and put us into this unaffordable (structural deficit) mess that we have now.
     
    Lizzie and TSK like this.
  10. Redwing

    Redwing Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    2,715
    Location:
    WA
    Thanks @willy1111

    Still a few years away for me to be in that mode :D
     
  11. SatayKing

    SatayKing Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    20th Sep, 2017
    Posts:
    2,050
    Location:
    Australia
    Futlle to berate previoius Governments. If a problem exists now as a result of past decisions, the issue is how to fix it with the least disruption - and how it is sold to the electorate.
     
    marty998 and kierank like this.
  12. Marg4000

    Marg4000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    3,700
    Location:
    Qld
    Whether the refund of franking credits was over-generous or not is irrelevant, it was legal and therefore people took it into account in their retirement income planning.

    If/when the “rules” change, people will change their attitude to share holdings for retirement income.

    The govt savings will be greatest in the short term, and isn’t that all politicians think about these days?

    It will take time for the effect to wash through. Some won’t bother. I get good returns from my shares and the $1K or so refund I lose won’t mean I sell. (No cgt involved).

    The beauty of shares is that their disposal can be staged to eliminate CGT if done in times of low or nil income, especially in the early years of retirement when proceeds can still be added to superannuation.

    Anyone who is now relying on the franking refunds for living expenses will simply use up their capital more quickly, and qualify for pension assistance sooner.
    Marg
     
    Nodrog, Perthguy and Lizzie like this.
  13. TSK

    TSK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    14th Apr, 2018
    Posts:
    372
    Location:
    VIC
    Good luck selling that. Too many retirees (growing population too! so it's only going to snow ball and put the weight of financing government on the young) and investors hooked on paying reduced taxes.

    For me, I would like to see CGT treated the same as any other income and retirees taxed at the same rate as the rest of the population as part of progressive taxation system (infinite rather than staggered...similar to Germany). Put taxes on all services and food products and then consider decreasing taxes on income.

    Hell I would like to see inheritance tax put in to restrict inter-generational wealth transfer - earn your own financial well being not get a hand me out from your relatives.
     
    LibGS likes this.
  14. Lizzie

    Lizzie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    9th Jul, 2015
    Posts:
    2,884
    Location:
    Hunter Valley
    He should have also set up a Sovereign Fund during his boom years when money was pouring in from resources ... which would mean were weren't in the structural deficit mess we are in now.

    Liberals are very good at penny pinching - in hindsight they are terrible at money management
     
    LibGS likes this.
  15. marmot

    marmot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23rd Jan, 2018
    Posts:
    810
    Location:
    N.S.W , W.A
    Great point .
     
  16. kierank

    kierank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    20th Jan, 2016
    Posts:
    4,349
    Location:
    Brisbane
    If people were rational, our first Australians would have been granted the right to vote in 1901, not 60+ years later (in 1962 by the Liberals) :D
     
    LibGS likes this.
  17. willair

    willair Well-Known Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    3,721
    Location:
    ..Brisbane..
    [​IMG]
    In a few hours time it will be all over..
     
  18. Intrigued_again

    Intrigued_again Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4th Mar, 2016
    Posts:
    106
    Location:
    Perth
    Credit were credits due

    From Hansard

    The then Shadow Treasurer, the Hon Simon Crean, MP, stated:

    Although imputation credits can be used to reduce an individual's or a superannuation fund's income tax liability to nil, excess credits were of no value to taxpayers. This bill proposes to refund to taxpayers any excess imputation of credits that may be left after offsetting the credits against their income tax liability.

    The classic example of such a situation is a low-income person who earns a little investment income—for example, a full rate age pensioner. They face no income tax liability on their income and therefore cannot obtain the benefit of the excess franking credits attached to the small amount of dividend income they receive.

    Under this proposal, they will obtain a refund of their income tax from the Taxation Office, representing the excess imputation credits. Labor included this proposal in our taxation policy prior to the last election.

    Therefore, we have no difficulty supporting the proposal because it is our policy. It builds on the major reform accomplished by Labor almost 15 years ago and it improves the current taxation situation faced by low income investors, especially retired Australians.
     
    marty998, Nodrog, dunno and 5 others like this.
  19. Gestalt

    Gestalt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    20th May, 2018
    Posts:
    54
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Future Fund | Home
     
  20. Marg4000

    Marg4000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    3,700
    Location:
    Qld
    They did.

    Check out “Future Fund”. Originally (mid 2000s) designed to pay for the previously unfunded federal public servants’ superannuation, then expanded. Started by Howard/Costello.

    Presently around $150 billion.

    Unfortunately subsequent governments have raided it from time to time.
    Marg
     
    turk and SatayKing like this.