Illawarra offshore wind zone declaration good news for…

Friends of the Earth Australia Media Release Today the federal government officially declared…

Why bet on a loser? Australia’s dangerous gamble…

By Michael Williss A fresh warning that the US will lose a war…

The Potential Labor Landslide...

I once wrote that the Liberals would be releasing their policies closer…

"Hungary is our Israel”: Tony Abbott and Orbán’s…

It was announced in late in 2023 that Tony Abbott was to…


By Bert Hetebry We are the mongrels Underneath the table, Fighting for the leavings Tearing us…

Diamonds and Cold Dust: Slaughter at Nuseirat

The ashes had barely settled on a Rafah tent camp incinerated by…

The EU Elections: The March of the Right

The EU elections over June 6 to June 9 have presented a…

Peter Dutton gutless and weak in not reducing…

Climate advocacy project Solutions for Climate Australia stated it was deeply disturbed…


We really need to talk about Rosalie

Rosalie has become the face, or the name at least, of Scott Morrison’s campaign against reeling back John Howard’s franking credit cash giveaway.

“I saw Rosalie today, I talked about her yesterday at the launch, she lives in Perth, in Ken Wyatt’s electorate. She has $1,800 of her 30,000 income which comes in the franking credit support that – not support, it is the pass-through of the tax that the company has already paid through to her as a shareholder. $1,800 out of a 30,000 income.

Bill Shorten calls that a gift. You know what she uses it for? She pays her private health insurance with it. She is taking care of her healthcare needs.

She is on a $30,000 income a year. I take my hat off to her. She has done an amazing job. She was a school teacher.

She is not making any complaints, except if the Labor Party change the rules on her.”

For starters, Rosalie, having been a teacher, would have retired with some superannuation. She can thank Labor for that.

Secondly, in order to be affected by Labor’s proposed changes, she must not qualify for even a part pension. An annual income of $30,000 certainly wouldn’t preclude her so she must have assets beyond the threshold.

A single person has to have assets over $567,250 above and beyond their home, or $774,250 if she doesn’t own her home, to be ineligible.

If Rosalie has a partner, they would have to have assets of over $853,000 to be ineligible, or $1,060,000 if not a homeowner.

To receive a franking credit refund of $1,800, Rosalie must have received share dividends of at least $6,000.

Rosalie may not be a squillionaire but she certainly has enough assets to have some choices about how she organises her affairs.

Unlike people whose only income is the aged pension. Or worse still, Newstart.

So if the government is going to give a cash handout, should it go to Rosalie or should it go to those who are actually living in poverty who cannot even afford to see a doctor let alone entertain any notion of private health insurance.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button


Login here Register here
  1. Keitha Granville

    Perfectly timed, he just mentioned Rosalie again.

    Plenty of time to rearrange affairs before this comes in – but if you are a pensioner there are no affairs to organise. You just have to survive, try to anyway.

  2. New England Cocky

    Oh dear Kaye Lee. You know that the COALition misgovernment only provides handouts of about $150 BILLION PER YEAR to the undeserving wealthy and corporates so simultaneously providing funding to increase Newstart or Aged Pensions is simply beyond the ambit of the RAbbott Turdball Morriscum misgovernment because those monies have already contributed to the profits of foreign owned multinational corporations, many with links to the Cayman Islands.

  3. Kaye Lee


    The thing that makes me chuckle is that, whilst campaigning, Coalition politicians must also be furiously trying to reorganise their family trusts.

  4. Alcibiades

    Fact Check Zombie: Repeated misleading claim on franking credits – ABC

    “Take the example of a self-funded retiree couple with a $3.2 million super balance, plus their own home, and $200,000 in Australian shares held outside super. Even drawing $130,000 a year in superannuation income, and $15,000 a year in dividend income, they would report a combined taxable income of just $15,000 and pay no income tax whatsoever.”

    … when superannuation income is removed from ABS income and wealth survey data (reflecting taxable income), almost half of the wealthiest 10 per cent of those over 65 report income of less than the $18,200 tax free threshold and thus pay no tax.

    On average, however, this group had wealth of nearly $2 million, even before factoring in the value of their home or other property assets.

    This illustrates the extent to which individuals with relatively high levels of untaxed incomes (including from superannuation) and wealth have (‘constructed’) low taxable incomes.

    Fact Check: Will Labor’s dividend imputation policy overwhelmingly affect the low paid? – ABC

    “more than two-thirds of refunds to SMSFs are to those whose fund balance per member is greater than $1 million”.

    “Superannuation payouts have been tax-free since 2006: they don’t even have to be declared on personal income tax returns. And draw-downs of savings other than superannuation to fund retirement — whether shares, bank deposits or investment property — are not declared as income.”

    @Kaye, the 1 in 7 who actually have ‘Trusts’, often more than one, oh indeed.

  5. Terence Mills

    There was a good discussion on The DRUM last night involving millennials who talked a lot of sense and bemoaned the gig-economy and the insecurity of work and the dishonesty of calling people contractors when they are clearly employees but without the benefit of paid sick or annual leave or superannuation and the fcat that because of their unstable employment they can’t get a home loan.

    Why on earth should Rosalie or I, for that matter, be getting a tax refund on tax I haven’t paid and how can anybody justify this franked credits anomaly which means that nobody ends up paying tax on that corporate profit ?

  6. totaram

    Kaye Lee: You forgot what Rosalie might be doing with those assets beyond the threshold. To get dividends of $6K at a yield of even 5%, she has 120K worth of shares. That plus the money in super would put her beyond the $854K limit for a part pension. So let us say 730K in her super, all in pension mode, so she MUST withdraw at least 4% (depending on age it varies a bit), so she is getting at least 29.2K tax free as “self-funded pension”. That explains the 30K income. Why has she got her money in shares? We don’t know, maybe a not very clever Financial Adviser. But when Labor’s changes come in she can get rid of the shares and put the money into her super. There is a small snag. She can only put 100K a year and she has to satisfy the “work test”. Provided she is under 75. So I sympathise with Rosalie if she is over 75. She is going to lose around $1800 a year, unless she rejigs her portfolio. Companies like CSL don’t give franked dividends, did you know? The yield is low, but then you get CapGains. But you see how many options there are? And I am not even a Financial Adviser but just another self-funded retiree – much like Rosalie.

  7. totaram

    Terence Mills: “…how can anybody justify this franked credits anomaly which means that nobody ends up paying tax on that corporate profit ?”

    Now, you are talking! This is a point that is too complex for most people to understand, but now that you mention it, it becomes really important to try and explain it. We can do it with a “hypothetical” example.

    If the shareholders of a company were ALL non-taxable retirees and they all got franking credit refunds, then the entire profit of the company would have been distributed to the shareholders without any tax going to the government!

    That should tell you how ridiculous this Franking Credit Refund is.

  8. Kaye Lee

    Franking credits are classed as a tax offset, just like the low income offset and the senior and pensioner tax offset which are NOT refundable.

    Tax offsets are designed to reduce an individual’s tax liability, not to enable them to put their hand out to collect the tax paid by a company which has its own tax liability.

    It was always a silly rort. Those who have taken advantage of it, good luck. Time to rethink.

  9. Chris

    Thank you for drawing our attention to the facts about the proposed removal the tax imputation racket.

    The Coalition is running a scare campaign to convince people who do not understand the scheme that Labor are intending to tax retirees. It is all lies. There are no taxes being imposed, just an unsustainable cash giveaway is being cancelled and the funds, $6 billion a year, are being put to a more equitable use.

    What I want everyone to understand is that pensioners will still receive their tax refund for imputations. As such nobody who loses this cash is poor – as stated in the article a single person can have a non-means tested home and $567,250 in assets, or $774,250 without a home. A couple can have a non-means tested home and $853,000 in assets, or $1,006,000 without a home.

    How can any fair-minded person believe that people wit h the above assets are poor and need government cash handouts? It is simply greedy and will affect less than 4% of people and 0% of pensioners.

  10. paul walter

    Perhaps Morrison means Rosalie Norton.

    Certainly seems a red letter day for metaphysics.

    Sheep, cloven hoofed goats, now this ?

  11. totaram

    Chris: As I have pointed out, they can still rejig everything and not lose much. The fact that they will still lose out shows that they are extremely wealthy (compared to most Australians). Case closed.

  12. Chris

    Exactly totaram. Usually people of extreme wealth have accumualted it with the assistance of our taxation laws biased in favour of the rich, or the money has been inherited.

    I have no problem with people being wealthy but please accumulate the wealth by fair means.

  13. wam

    my facebook boys haven’t reached the level of rosalie they are still on hanson’s death tax but thanks for the info if they do.

    My clp boys share pictures of farmers, droughts, pensioners can’t afford to eat etc and a picture of disabled looking shorten. I foolishly ‘you twits scummo and the rabbott have been in government you can’t blame shorten but I am wrong they can and do.

    ps if true to form paul it will be rosalie wilson

  14. Rezenebe

    Bugger me, the Age Pension accounts for about 25% of the Social Services Payments. Yes most of these people have worked hard and paid their taxes throughout their lives and deserve to be looked after. However, they may have also been the beneficiaries of low tax as they didn’t have a high income, family payments, child allowance, DSP etc, etc, etc. Labor has always supported these people – possibly not as much as they could have, but as much as the economic and the political situation allowed. Now many of these people are influenced by the bullshit “retirement tax”, “death tax”, “family tax” lies of the LNP Christians. Many self funded retirees have untaxed income in excess of $100000 and are bleating about loosing a franking credit refund which they shouldn’t have any entitlement too. If the LNP get back in these dickheads deserve what they get………..but the rest of Australia, the workers, the children, the students, the sick, the disabled don’t deserve the shit they will have thrown at them.

  15. Judith

    And, yet again, these figures only tell one half of the story – if the franking credit cash giveaway is reinvested into the country and boosts the economy, her shares portfolio is likely to increase in value. To be fair, this increase should be taken into account on her balance sheet.

  16. corvus boreus

    A basic suggestion upon methods of public persuasion;
    Beginning a respondent message with the general address of ‘you twits’ (or ‘you loonies’, ‘you fascist phuqwits’ or ‘you mentally incompetent pack of coprophagous trematodes’), although personally gratifying, is, generally speaking, a piss-poor opening stratagem for winning over the hearts and minds of a potential recipient audience.

  17. wam

    cawcaw you are spot on as usual with the egg sucking lectures.
    My foolishly’ might have suggested some frustration.
    As for the loonies how did you(or any of the other 10%) consider how narrownose went last night? Did he demonstrate that he doesn’t care if the inept birmingham or the excellent plibersek is elected? He, as in the past, will work with the former and, blackmail the latter?

  18. corvus boreus

    How did ‘narrownose’ (presumably you mean Richard DiNatale) go on Q&A last night?
    The honest answer is: I dunno, I didn’t bother watching.
    I don’t really watch very much TV at the best of times and, like many others, have chosen to vote early, and have thus, to a large extent, voluntarily disengaged from spectating upon the whole electoral campaign circus.
    Contrary to your assumptions on my ‘allegiance’ (as usual pointlessly wrapped in gratuitous insult), I voted (HoR) 1 INDI, 2 GRN, 3 LAB, and, for the senate, threw a few votes (BTL) towards some of the more worthwhile minor party candidates before casting strategic votes towards a few of the less obviously odious Green and ALP senatorial aspirants.
    Believe it or not, I am a genuinely informed and committed environmentalist who votes according to perceived quality of both stated policies and proffered candidates, rather than some mindless member of a party cheer-squad.

    Ps A hole either end and suck it dry is, I believe, the traditionally accepted method.

  19. wam

    caw caw *apologies to the old joke)the method is to blow, suck is an euphemism.

    There is nothing gratuitous or insulting from this end. I think I have used spot on as a positive?

    I, like you, have often given my ‘$’ to an independent who puts in the effort but unlike you I always avoid the extremists who garner dubious dollars.

    Sorry you missed birmingham but he showed why this government should be ousted

    My bias allowed me to have a little laugh at narrownose a great deal of sniggering at simple simon.and the head shaking disappointment at whoever jones is

    As expected the women were far and away smarter, more lucid and human compared to the 3 arrogant little boys. The show would have been terrific if the boys had been delayed and the women were there by themselves.(

  20. Zathras

    I’m one of those self-funded retirees who is entitled to a refund of franking credits, albeit a relatively small one.
    I think the fact I pay no tax on my retirement pension is more than enough of a handout and would prefer to have well funded services for myself, my children and my grandchildren tomorrow than some dollars today.

    As for “changing the rules”, when I started work (for a Commonwealth Department) I was offered specific conditions related to retirement but those conditions were progressively changed and finally removed entirely over the years without my consent. Likewise my conditions of employment were also changed due to various legislative changes so the argument that some things are somehow untouchable is misleading.

    The notion that a retiree claiming to be entirely “self-funded” can be given a payment far in excess of the annual aged pension is ridiculous and unsustainable. It may currently be legal but at one time, so was slavery.

  21. Chris

    In response to the message that cash paid to self-funded retirees in the form of an imputation credit will be spent to assist the economy, is not a definite as these people have other money to spend. In contrast, additional money paid to pensioners (especially Newstart recipients) will definitely go back into the economy as these people have no choice but to spend it. Common sense economics..

  22. totaram

    Chris: I applaud your “commonsense” understanding of economics. Sadly the very same commonsense, as many have noticed, is not common at all. More’s the pity, but such is life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page