Scare campaigns work

Originally posted by Dochico: ↑

The "Limited" part in a company name refers to limited liability, and in some cases, limited shares. Nothing more, nothing less.

I keep repeating myself because your ideology is preventing you from understanding.

My interpretation of the implications on dividends is supported by decades of bipartisan tax law in Australia, Singapore and other countries.

Your interpretation of the implications was brought to the general public by Shorten and rejected resoundingly.

I've pointed out problems with Shorten's way in previous posts, but here's another. That way creates a situation where dividends are taxed at the personal income tax rate if the individual's marginal rate is higher than the company tax rate, but taxed at the company tax rate if the individual's marginal rate is lower than the company tax rate.

Which is it? The govt can't have a bob each way. They have to choose. Choosing the tax entity on a case by case basis in order to tax at the highest rate available was ridiculous, and correctly rejected by the Australian people as an unfair system.

If you are OK with dividends being considered a company profit and taxed at that rate, are you OK with individuals with higher marginal rates only being taxed at the company rate for dividends and not having to pay the excess?

Expand

"The "Limited" part in a company name refers to limited liability, and in some cases, limited shares. Nothing more, nothing less.I keep repeating myself because your ideology is preventing you from understanding."

Commonsense doesn't have an ideology. Take it up with Michael Pascoe who completely differs with your opinion.

“But,” says the Wilson circus, “the franking credits on the company dividends belong to us! We are the company, we’ve already paid company tax to earn the credits.”
Well, no. Shareholders are not the company – and they wouldn’t want to be when a company goes bust, for example. The company is a separate legal entity. The “Limited” bit of the name is rather important.
The Australian limited company is only one of several different legal structures for investors to put money into. Hawke/Keating sought to encourage investment in Australian companies by introducing franking to stop the double taxation of company profits – franking provides a tax credit on top of the cash dividend for the proportion of company tax paid on the profit to produce the dividend.
The franking system means only one lot of tax is paid on the company’s profit that produces the dividend for Australian shareholders. Tax is still collected. Giving cash refunds of franking credits to people or super funds that don’t pay tax means no tax is collected. It doesn’t prevent double taxation, it prevents taxation.
https://thenewdaily.com.au/money/finance-news/2019/02/11/franking-credits-michael-pascoe/