Promising the Impossible: Blinken’s Out of Tune Performance…

Things are looking dire for the Ukrainian war effort. Promises of victory…

Opposition Budget in Reply: Peter Dutton has no…

Solutions for Climate Australia Media Release National advocacy group Solutions for Climate Australia…

Understanding the risk

It's often claimed the major supermarkets would prefer to see tonnes of…

A Brutal Punishment: The Sentencing of David McBride

Sometimes, it’s best not to leave the issue of justice to the…

Climate pollution and petrol bills coming down as…

Climate Council Media Release AUSTRALIA IS OFF AND RACING on the road to…


It’s time we reckoned with what it means to become a corporatocracy.…

Plan B

By James Moore Every time there is a release of a New York…

Australian federal budget falls flat in tackling inequality:…

In response to the 2024 federal budget, Oxfam Australia Interim Director of…


Where Is John Kerr, Now That We Need Him?

When Scott Morrison announced his intention to just ignore a “stupid vote” on medical evacuations, I sort of presumed that he was simply saying that he wouldn’t rush off to an election just because he no longer controlled the House of Representatives.

This would be the first time sitting government had lost a legislative bill since before you were born, unless you’re one of the ninety-year-old people who’s reading this. However, on closer reading, I’m not so sure. He seemed to be suggesting that Parliament was just there to make suggestions and it was up to him as PM to decide whether to implement them or not. And if that’s the case, then I could envisage the Liberals arguing that a successful motion of no confidence doesn’t mean they have to resign; it’s merely an example of how dangerous the Labor Party are’ what a risk to our economy they’re creating and why we need to start ignoring Parliament and to do “whatever it takes” to continue to govern. That’s only one step away from suggesting that if the election goes the wrong way, we can just ignore it and have Bill Shorten arrested for sedition. Or possibly even before an election is held.

No, we could never have a sitting government who simply ignored an election result and used the AFP or ASIO to hold power. This is Australia, isn’t it? Even though we did have a sitting government, who got sacked by the Governor-General simply because they couldn’t get supply through the Senate, that was different, because… well, it was just different.

Yes, it’s far-fetched and I don’t believe it for a moment, but I am beginning to wonder if we all got it wrong when we thought, “At least, it’s not Peter Dutton.” I suspect that Scott Morrison has no more empathy than his leadership rival but, unlike Dutton, is emboldened by the idea that God has chosen him to lead Australia and this is part of some divine plan so whatever he does, God will protect him… I probably should add here that by “God” I am referring to “God” as Scott Morrison understands him and not Alan Jones. There is no need to explain to me either that “God” doesn’t exist; nor is there a need to complain about the ridiculous amount of power that he has… By that last “he”, I mean Alan and not God, because if you believe in God, it’s sort of a given that He has a ridiculous amount of power. However, even if you believe in Alan, you probably occasionally worry about the amount of power he seems to have.

Yes, it’s even more far-fetched than believing that Morrison ignored the security warnings on moving Australia’s embassy to Jerusalem was because he actually hoped it would prompt a terrorist attack and that would be his “Tampa” moment.

But it’s not as far-fetched as Tim Wilson’s suggestion that he has no conflict of interest when he’s heading the committee on franking credits, as well as coordinating its sitting to coincide with the protests.

While there’s been a lot of misinformation about the franking credits and stories that have literally told us that the Labor party plan to take money from Nana. Yes, Nana. Not your grandmother, not even someone else’s grandmother, but Nana. All I can say is, “Nana, thank God you died all those years ago so you won’t feel the pain when that grave-robber, Chris Bowen steals whatever you’ve got left in the cold, hard ground!”

Anyway, I thought it might be good instead of case studies with the poor people who’ve paid tax all their lives and managed to start a self-managed super fund in order to minimise tax and look at how the principle of government largesse is applied to others. As an aside, I read a story about someone who was going to lose about twenty thousand a year in franking credits under Labor’s proposal. He complained that he’d paid tax all his life, including over a million dollars in capital gains. Wow, that means that he has made in excess of three million dollars in capital gains alone. Poor chap, I’ll start a GoFundMe page to ensure that he doesn’t go without!

Let’s take some case studies:

Mythical Case Study 1: Joanne has worked hard all her adult life and has forty thousand in the bank and an income of thirty thousand a year from share dividends. She loses her job. She applies for Newstart but is told that not only does she have too much money in the bank to qualify, but her income from shares means that she is above the cut-off limit. Using the franking credits arguments, her assets shouldn’t matter.

Mythical case study 2: Andy is a student who works part-time earning $17,000 a year. He has work-related expenses. However, he can’t take these of his tax because he doesn’t pay any income tax. Applying the franking credits argument, he should get a cash refund equivalent to what he’d get if he were paying thirty cents in the dollar or more in income tax.

Mythical case study 3: Rupert owns several Newspapers and TV companies, even though they pay no taxable income, this makes him ineligible for a pension. Of course, he wouldn’t be eligible anyway, because he renounced his Australian citizenship.

Now, as I’ve said, I’m sure that there will be a number of people who aren’t wealthy and who will be hit by this. However, when I say “hit”, I mean, they may have to adjust their arrangements to maintain their current lifestyle. And by “not wealthy”, I mean it in the sense that they don’t have a private jet rather than they may need to go to a food bank in the next ten years. As the guy from Wilson# Asset Management told us people won’t pay the franking credit, they’ll just move their money offshore. And when I say “a number”, I mean something above ten but less than a billion. In fact, “The Financial Review” had a headline story telling us that en ex-teacher would be now voting against Labor in the coming election. I’m not sure why this was worth a whole story unless it was because it was the only person they could find who changed his vote as a result of the proposal.

Whatever your point of view, the fact remains that the media are spinning it a totally dishonest way. This is not taking money away from people. If Medicare payments are a handout and unemployment benefits are a handout, then franking credits are just as much a handout. Watch how we’ll hear stories of people with taxable incomes of less than ten thousand having their franking credits ripped from their hands.

Of course, we won’t be told about their connection to the Liberal Party in some cases.

And we certainly won’t be told about their non-taxable income.

# No relation to Tim Wilson, who’s chairing the Parliamentary inquiry into this. And by no relation, I mean it’s only a distant one and they haven’t even met apart from when they did a number of years ago and the fact that Tim has investments in managed funds with the company is another one of those things that happen from time-to-time which Labor use to sling mud… You know, like the way they attacked the banks for populist reasons.


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. whatever

    He is just a fat mental patient holding on to the safety railing and you can’t make him move or do anything he just keeps gripping and gritting his teeth, spittle dripping from thin, blue lips.

  2. Shaun Newman

    This article is absolutely spot on. I cannot remember when I have read a more accurate article. Australian apathy must be up there with the worst in the world.

  3. Robin

    Tim Wilson.
    IPA,patron of ‘men’s saunas’ with ol’ soapy brandis-who coincidentally gave his extremely well remunerated job at the human rights commission,a job for which he had no qualifications what so ever…aside from the obvious.

  4. Geoff Andrews

    When Kerr “sacked” Whitlam, we all thought, “we wus robbed” (by “we” I means all of us who thought Whitlam was God and by “God” I don’t mean Jones … but we’ve already been down that path).
    Even though I was incensed, I rationalized that at least it created a healthy precedent – why shouldn’t an intelligent, unbiased, popular Head of State not have the power to call a general election in circumstances similar to those of 1975? As the headline implies, if the GG had this power now, an election would have been called before Christmas.
    After 1975, I was dismayed with Labor for promising never to block supply – a sort of “it was so horrible for us, we wouldn’t dream oft doing the same thing to such nice people as the Libs”.
    We have an almost hung House of Reps and Senate and we’re all waiting with bated breath, wondering if Morrison can find a Tampa in time. The GG should have been able to say, “Time’s a-wasting, get on with it within the next six weeks.

  5. helvityni

    Love Rossleigh’s writing, Nana might have avoided the Aussie age-care cruelty, and Bowen’s ‘greediness’, but many of our dearly departed were paying fees to our greedy banks long after their burials or cremations…

    This Nana’s grandson (3-4 years old) was travelling to their weekender at sea, as he was recovering from some tummy bug it was no wonder that mum found his undies slightly soiled when stopping at Maccas for a quick bite ( oops nothing to ‘bite’ there)….

    They had to be binned, and the said grandson regarded Mac Donald’s as greedy for ever after, stealing little boy’s much-loved Batman’s undies…

    I don’t think he ever ate there… understandably…….a wise boy..

  6. David Stakes

    This scenario of a government holding onto power because it believes it can, is too scary to contemplate. Tanks in the streets. Move over South America this how you do a coup. In plain sight of the people who are too apathetic to notice.

  7. Zoe Brain

    I’m one of those mythical cases. My total, actual, from all sources, income will drop from $27,000 to $18,000. Oddly, my taxable income will remain $27,000, I just get an $8,000 tax credit to offset the $1400 tax I’m liable for. A cut of $6,400.
    Someone getting $20,000 of dividends and $20,000 of interest or directors fees won’t be affected by the ALP policy. The tax credit they get on dividends is less than the total tax payable on $40,000.

    How many more are like me? Probably not many, maybe a hundred thousand at most. Those sufficiently disabled so they can’t drive or walk the km or two to a bus stop, but not so disabled they count as disabled for pensions. Those who put some of their after tax money into shares, and some into super, to spread the risk. Most would be in a far worse position than me, but few would be as badly off as someone on Newstart or Disability pensions.

    I’m in a position to sell my shares, and put the money into super. Then get regular tax free lump sums instead of dividends. It increases risk, but I have no real choice. It also decrease tax revenue, and so there’s less money for those who really are in desperate need, but I’m already living below the poverty line, so maybe others getting more than $27,000 a year should do something.

  8. Rossleigh

    Zoe Brain, I suspect that very few would be in your position.
    People on the aged pension will be exempt. Income from super will be exempt.
    You seem a rather unique case, but if you can, then you’d be better to sell some of the shares and put them into an industry super fund and to choose a capital secure option, if you’re worried about risk.

  9. wam

    I used to rib my old hockey mate for his 20 years of welfare payments. If his nemesis labor wins he will be reduced to his 6 figure tax free pension and the deeply protected dividends from his mum’s, dad’s and his own portfolios. He has already downsized his race horses in anticipation of the disaster.
    I am glad there is some leaks from general revenue that will be plugged.

  10. Pappinbarra Fox

    A company makes$100 profit. It pays COMPANY tax of $30. It decides to pay $70 as dividends. It has these dividends franked so they will not be taxed again. So upon distribution the recipient declares them as income but since they are franked the receiver also gets an equivalent deduction from their total income. So far so good. The problem arises when their allowable deductions are more than the taxed component of their income. They actually pay no tax. The argument that they have already paid tax on it is BS. The company has paid company tax after deducting all components allowed. It is not the recipient tax. They have paid no tax and are not entitled to a refund. If their income was that low they would be entitled to a pension or part pension.

  11. whatever

    Franking rebates were introduced by Hawke/Keating as a convenience for stockbrokers moving large amounts of shares every day, before the TaxFile Number system was made universal.
    When John Howard completely privatized Telstra the Mum&Dad investors bought up bigtime, but the dividends were miserable and the share price languished. Telstra is a good, safe investment, but in a country with such a small population there are limits to growth.
    Howard extended the Franking Credits system to small investors, with an eye on the legion of Telstra shareholders, as a kind of Royal Easter Show showbag of freebies for Liberal-voting sooks who found out that capitalism sucks.

  12. totaram

    Zoe Brain: ” It increases risk, but I have no real choice.”

    I don’t understand why you think that super has a “higher risk” than shares. My super has a number of investment options including shares, and you can choose the one that suits you best, and I would imagine most super funds have similar options. I would imagine you can reduce your risk by choosing the so-called “balanced option”. I would suggest that you are confused about super, and need to look into it more closely.
    The rest of your description of your situation does not make sense either. How can your actual income drop while your taxable income remains the same? Please enlighten me.

  13. Rhonda

    Oh yes, Howard loved to speak at length, and ad nauseam, about those Mum & Dad aspirational Aussies – and I remember rather outrageously, to the exclusion of all others. Detested him then as I do now

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