Parliamentary Register of Interests

Spartacus does not know where to go, but perhaps someone can point him in the right direction.

Just reported in the Australian, Shadow Treasurer, the Hon. Chris Bowen MP said:

he “pleads guilty” to paying for his policies, after Treasury and Parliamentary Budget Office estimates suggested about a third of his party’s proposed new tax revenue will come from scrapping dividend imputation credit refunds.

Granted Mr Bowen is a member of the ALP, but perhaps pleading guilty may be premature at this stage.  However, Spartacus did not know that Mr Bowen had a personal wealth in the multiple billions.   It is delightful to know that someone with sufficient wealth to place them among the wealthiest people in the world sits in the Australian Parliament.

Mr Bowen must be personally worth billions.  How else could he claim that he was going to pay for the spending promises of the Labor Party yet not be held to account by the government or the media?

Perhaps he misspoke, but more likely it was a Freudian Slip.

Follow I Am Spartacus on Twitter at @Ey_am_Spartacus

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Parliamentary Register of Interests

  1. Bruce of Newcastle

    Bowen wants to rob poor old people. Is it because old people who don’t want to be a burden on Australia tend not to vote for the ALP robbers?

  2. Tim Neilson

    Where are the Coalition on this? Or Senators Bernardi and Leyonhjelm for that matter?

    Peanut Head has said publicly that a self funded retiree getting about $60,000 (maybe less – not sure of the exact number) is “wealthy enough” to afford to lose a chunk of that in Peanut Head’s tax changes.

    So where’s the Bill in Parliament limiting any taxpayer funded salary or benefit to Peanut Head to an amount that won’t give him (inclusive of any other source of income he has) more than $60k a year? Introduce it, get it through the Senate (with whatever bribes to cross benchers are required), put it into the Reps and announce that the Coalition will pass it unless Peanut Head personally votes “no” (thus revealing himself to be the most grubby venal hypocrite in the history of sentient life).

    What about a Bill capping trade union official’s salaries and benefits at that level?

    I’m happy to draft something if that would help.

  3. candy

    It is delightful to know that someone with sufficient wealth to place them among the wealthiest people in the world sits in the Australian Parliament.

    It’s no different to Malcolm Turnbull worth $200 million and cracking down on the lowest placed people in society who owe something like $500 to Centrelink from up to 7 years ago, and making them pay for his spending promises of millions of dollars to the UN or the Barrier Reef, or wind turbines or whatever. I understand if Centrelink makes an error the welfare recipient still pays the amount owing, as it is part of the contract.

    so, Mr Turnbull is robbing poor people too and sits in Parliament as a massively wealthy person.

  4. manalive

    Australians probably didn’t know that you can get an income tax refund, even if you didn’t pay any income tax, and can get the tax paid by a company you own shares in repaid to you so that no net tax is paid …

    That’s Bowen in today’s OZ, he thinks people on low incomes should pay double tax on their share holding earnings.
    Mr Bowen, it’s their money from investment earnings being returned to them — not yours.
    Maybe all franked dividends are next on the agenda or maybe he wants to do away with the tax-free threshold entirely.

  5. Tim Neilson

    candy
    #2711902, posted on May 16, 2018 at 10:34 am

    There’s a difference candy.

    Centrelink are asking for money back that never really belonged to the recipient.

    Peanut Head and his crime syndicate are planning to rob people of money that at present is actually theirs.

    There is a legitimate complaint for the Centrelink recipients if they’ve accepted a payment in good faith because of a Centrelink stuffup and are now suddenly being harassed for swift repayment (or excessively fast garnisheeing of their valid welfare receipts). If that’s what you’re complaining about then that’s fair enough. But it shouldn’t be assumed that they are entitled to keep forever something that they shouldn’t have got.

  6. Tim Neilson

    Australians probably didn’t know that you can get an income tax refund, even if you didn’t pay any income tax, and can get the tax paid by a company you own shares in repaid to you so that no net tax is paid …

    Why is that any different to another low income Australian getting free money from Centrelink?

  7. Tim Neilson

    Sorry, I should clarify …
    Why is a low income Australian being allowed to keep some of the earnings from their investment (albeit earned indirectly behind the corporate veil) worse, or even as bad as, other low income Australians getting free OPM from Centrelink?

  8. mh

    manalive
    #2711931, posted on May 16, 2018 at 11:01 am

    Mr Bowen, it’s their money from investment earnings being returned to them — not yours.
    Maybe all franked dividends are next on the agenda or maybe he wants to do away with the tax-free threshold entirely.

    I am in the vast minority here, but I don’t believe that the franking credit tax offset should be a refundable offset. The franking credit is allocated to the franked dividend so that the recipient for whom it is assessable income can offset their tax payable by the tax paid at the company rate of 30 percent. That’s the purpose – to avoid double taxation. If the recipient of the franked dividend ends up with no tax payable on their taxable income then I cannot see the principle that excess franking credits need to be returned.

    “Their money” is the dividend received. The franking credit is their tax offset.

  9. H B Bear

    In the spirit of Julia, your money is his.

  10. Tim Neilson

    mh
    #2712005, posted on May 16, 2018 at 12:38 pm

    Zero rate Australian taxpayer makes an investment in an entity that generates $100.

    If it’s equity in a Singapore company, 15% Singapore tax is paid and the investor gets $85.

    If it’s equity in an Australian property trust the investor gets the full $100.

    If it’s a debt interest in an Australian entity, the investor gets $100.

    If it’s shares in an Australian company $30 Australian tax is paid and:
    (a) under the current system the investor gets it back, so has $100 consistent with other Australian investments, and better than Singapore or other offshore investments;
    (b) under the Peanut Head crime cartel’s proposal the investor gets only $70 – to the extent that the investor wants equity investments in active businesses there’s now a positive incentive not to support Australian jobs but instead to support Singapore jobs.

    Is it “fair” that investors are penalised for supporting Australian companies?

  11. stevem

    mh, think of the dividend imputation as a PAYE payment taken out by an employer. Just as a percentage of wages are sent to the taxation department, so is 30% of dividends. There would rightly be an outcry if a greater than required PAYE instalment was not refunded at the end of the year.
    How is it that a dividend shojld be treated any differently except by the well proven politics of envy?

  12. manalive

    Removing a concession worth $6bn was, we knew, bound to cause a backlash … But we didn’t do these things for fun … (Bowen).

    It’s not a “concession’, there is no reason why dividends from share investments should be treated any differently to income from any other source, say term deposits.
    People with incomes below the threshold of ~$18,000 p.a., mostly pensioners and part-pensioners I suspect, have no tax liability whatever their source of income and these are the people whose measly investment income Shorten wants to single out for an extra special tailor-made tax.
    There must be an awful lot of them if he expects to raise $10b over four years.

  13. mareeS

    Things are pretty bad here when a bunch of hungry pigs see a trough to be raided, not understanding that it is being swiped away from right under their noses.

    We are in contingency planning, Labor and their loafers seem to think it will be business as usual if they gain government, but everyone with a substantial SMSF is smarter by far.

    The only hidden bomb that Labor won’t mention is death/inheritance/wealth tax, a surefire thing because it always has been part of the Left manifesto.

  14. mh

    stevem
    #2712059, posted on May 16, 2018 at 1:35 pm
    mh, think of the dividend imputation as a PAYE payment taken out by an employer. Just as a percentage of wages are sent to the taxation department, so is 30% of dividends. There would rightly be an outcry if a greater than required PAYE instalment was not refunded at the end of the year.
    How is it that a dividend shojld be treated any differently except by the well proven politics of envy?

    PAYE (payg) is the compulsory system of pre-paying your expected tax liability. The corporate tax on profits at 30 percent is not a pre-payment of tax, it is the tax.

    If you believe that franking credits are your money being returned to you, then you have to believe the following:

    Step 1: Australian company – an entity in it’s own right – pays tax on profits at 30 percent and sends it to government (via ATO)
    Step 2: Government then returns the company tax paid to owners of company – because it is the owner’s money

    Who believes that?

Leave a Reply

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