Labor's Proposed Changes to Fanking Credits Tax Refunds

Originally posted by zebster ↑

In light of the ALP's policy announcement today, I ran some numbers to work out how much a retired self-funded individual taxpayer would need to earn in order to not be impacted by Labor's proposal to axe tax refunds for surplus (unused) franking credits in the hands of individual taxpayers for a given financial year.

The math is pretty simple: Labor is saying that, if elected, they will do away with the current ability of individual taxpayers to claim any unused franking credits as a tax refund. So, if a taxpayer was living in a "use or lose" franking credits world, then the question becomes:
"How much taxable income is required such that I pay an average (not marginal) tax rate of 30% (i.e. to exactly match the 30% flat corporate tax already paid by the companies that are providing my fully franked dividend income) so as to receive the full benefit of the franking credits that are attached to my dividends"?

Answer: ~$180,000 p.a. per person. Anything less than this would mean that the self-funded taxpayer living solely on their passive dividend earnings would be worse off, to varying degrees, under such a policy. At this level of taxable income an individual taxpayer pays tax of $54,232, being an average tax rate of 30.13% (excluding the 2% Medicare levy, for the sake of simplicity in this example). And for a (retired) couple, that hurdle doubles to $360k p.a (i.e. 2 x $180k p.a.).

So when the ALP talks about the "...vast majority of the [current] benefit here goes to high-income earners", we should understand that they are really talking about individuals/(couples) who earn less than $180k p.a./($360 p.a.). Anyone earning more than these hurdle - the really high income earners - won't be affected at all. As usual, it will be the various shades of middle class that will wear the brunt. After all, that's where the budget numbers are.

(This is in no way intended to be a political commentary. It's about giving clarity, through numbers, to some of the spin that is coming from from one of the political majors. No, I am not suggesting that retirees earning, say, $100k, $150k, $179k p.a. each (or even jointly) are on struggle street. It's just about calling BS to political spin, nothing more.)

Expand

The big issue on the franking credits debate is - does Labor's idea serve the purpose of the franking credits system ?
The purpose of franking credits is to ensure that dividend receivers don't pay tax on dividends as if they are a company (ie at 30% flat). Keep in mind that franking credits represent company tax that has already been paid on money that is not under that companies control, ie money for dividends is not for the company's benefit, purely for shareholders' benefit. So, Labor's idea means that a low income earner (having below taxable income levels) effectively pays tax on dividends as if a company (ie, at 30% flat rate). Labor's idea by-passes the purpose of the franking credits system, as well as discriminating against low income earners.