You are correct, I did read the financial review article.
But in any case, nothing invalidates what we have said.
The question of what you think the tax system should be is irrelevant.
The question of what you think are rorts around the returning of franking credits are irrelevant. You want to fix the rorts? It won't happen. Fix the cause of the rorts and the rorts will disappear.
Its costing the tax payer $5B a year. Call it what you want.
The Imputation system was introduced as a measure to stop the double taxation of dividends. It was not introduced as a measure of returning franking credits to individuals. That is a subtle distinction that people miss. Howard changed the original definition. All Labor is proposing is to bring it back to the original concept.
Are there losers? Sure are. But I venture to say that these are the same people who have been winners because of Howard's changes.
If you don't think that it it will save billions, I would think again.
Look at the rorts I pointed out to you already.
Then think of families trusts that are able to distribute to low income earners and they get refunds. No small measure? I would think again. This is also costing us billions.
Mate, bring the imputation system back to the original state and start taxing trusts like companies, and I assure you that the budget would be back in the black within a few years.
The sort of arguments put up against the proposal is exactly like the mining tax. It would collect no money, yet the mining industry spend how many millions to get it repealed? Why bother if there was no tax?
