Yuyutsu,

Yes. Only about 5% of voters - those who don't actually vote for the same drones all the time - change governments. My own electorate is a safe Labor seat (the Liberals insultingly put up a token candidate nobody knows), so I will be writing 'None of these" with a clear conscience, and saving my energy for the Senate: voting 12 below the line, and not a Liberal, Labor or ghastly Green among the ones I mark.

Oh, and my state electorate is so safe for Labor the gutless Liberals don't put anyone up.

Before the house prices rises, negative gearing existed
It Was there to promote home building, but gave tax breaks to investors in rental properties
That tax break,may well have come from the PAYE everyday taxpayers, who may never own a home
The housing price surge, and even its fall, has done little to end the shortage of rental property, or assist those who do not have the ability to buy a home
John Howard, during the biggest mineral boom in our history,gave his voters a reward, tax returns for some who paid no tax franking credits.
Had that been done by a Labor government, or supported by one, it would be named socialism for the far less than needy
By this government
The purpose of welfare is not to reward the better off while ignoring those in need

Dear kirby383,

You write;

“So what Mr Shorten is proposing is to remove franking credits on those who do not pay income tax. The funny thing is tax has already been paid on the profit, so Labor wants 300000 odd Australians to pay tax twice.”

How on earth can someone put these two sentences together and think they make sense? Care to try again?

Ok,

I'll rephrase by using an example,
“So what Mr Shorten is proposing is to remove franking credits on those who do not pay income tax. The funny thing is tax has already been paid on the profit, so Labor wants 300000 odd Australians to pay tax twice.

My father in law is retired and has a small trust fund which owns shares, he gets approx. $800 a year franking credits which helps his retirement income. As the trust does not pay tax, he will be penalised at 30%. He does not fall into the "anyone who gets a pension wont be effected" category as he does not own the shares, the trust does.

So, in his own name he can earn over $20k per year and pay no tax, yet he will pay $800 (or lose), yet James Packer if he had the exact same shares he would keep his $800.

Why should someone who would normally be in the nil tax or 19% tax bracket have to pay 30% tax on an investment?

If my father in law owned property in the trust, he would pay 19% tax on rent (as he is a low income earner) , yet if he invests into a trust that has shares he pays 30%

It is simply not fair!

Dear Kirby483,

You write;

"The funny thing is tax has already been paid on the profit, so Labor wants 300000 odd Australians to pay tax twice."

But no where in your example does your father-in-law pay twice does he? So why claim he does?

Ok, i'll try an explain again,

I used the word twice, in hindsight I should have used almost double.

If you normally pay zero or 19% tax rate and you pay 32.5% tax on one particular type of investment,that's almost double.

So I apologise in not using the correct wording.

It still is an unfair tax that will effect thousands of low income Australians, it is simply NOT FAIR