Alp franking credit changes I want a straight answer

Originally posted by scittyandcross ↑

Originally posted by boomeronrations
"From that I assume you agree that my answer to Moondongs question is correct ", actually no.

These word games are fun!

"Each fund (Retail/Industry/SMSF) is treated exactly the same" your answer
Moon's question, "Two identical aged people with identical balances and identical portfolios.
One in a smsf and one in an industry fund.

Are they treated the same under the alp proposal or not?"

Manifestly . the 2 aged people ,no. See my past question.
However you are quite right the funds are treated the same, but that wasn't the question.

Now, back to my question, which was really just to pin you down . Thought I had
How about both in pension phase super, would it shock you if that is what I meant?

Now you seem an honorable lad, I hope you are not going to go for the "oh , look over there , a squirrel" defence , so beloved by HC participants.

cheers
"Now, back to my question, which was really just to pin you down . Thought I had
How about both in pension phase super, would it shock you if that is what I meant? "

I'm sorry I can only answer the question's that are put to me - bit rich to ask a question and the expect me to somehow interpret the unknown parameters you are applying.

So if your question is intended to be "Assuming both are in pension mode, if two identical aged people have identical assets, one in a SMSF and one in a Retail/Industry fund, will the rate of return be identical for each person following the introduction of the changes? The answer is obviously No

But that question (and its answer) is irrelevant because the situation does not arise in real life. You have absolute control of what you invest in in a SMSF but vest that decision making if you join a R/I fund so the two are never going to be the same. (Simply not comparing apples with apples)

So the only question to be asked is this - is my current investment vehicle providing the best returns under the current rules and regulations for the level of risk I'm prepared to accept?

If the answer is Yes - great. If the answer is No - then change your investment strategy.

Now my turn for a question.

Why do you think there wasn't this level of outpouring of grief and concern for poor pensioners when Joe Hockey introduced changes in the 2015 budget that saw 300,000 people kicked off the pension?

Expand

Hi scitty

Why do you think there wasn't this level of outpouring of grief and concern for poor pensioners when Joe Hockey introduced changes in the 2015 budget that saw 300,000 people kicked off the pension?

I can answer that for you. A pension which is taxable income is paid from government revenue is welfare. Therefore the more people you get off welfare, the more the government can spend revenue on other measures.
The returning of franking credits is not taxable income, however it is paid from government revenue but it is not welfare. Therefore if you cut it out, it will have no effect on the budget. People will just twig their investments a little bit.

You have hit the nail right on the head scitty. This is exactly the same argument as the mining tax that Julia wanted to introduce. " Look you will not collect any tax!" Yet we had the billionaires club organising protest after protest against something that would not be paid. Go figure! And remember the "special reports" put out by one of the big 4 chartered accounting firms, how if this and that happened a company could pay 75% tax?
But because it was a Liberal Government who imposed a special tax on banks, the protest silence was deafening.

And now we have the same arguments. You will not save any tax. It will have no effect on me etc etc. i will simply re-arrange my affairs. Yet we have all these protests.

Pear