Dear Shadow Minister,

Our franking credit system is that generous that it only exists in one country, Australia. Our negative gearing concessions are that generous that they only exist in two countries, one of them Australia.

So by your definition all other countries including the US are also employing deeply socialist policies because they aren't mimicking us. Calling Labour's moves to end these generous loopholes marxist and socialist is idiotic in the extreme and shows how amoral your side of politics have become.

Henry L thats the way head butt the wall and tell me my view has less worth than yours
I do not need to show you the evidence
Science has done that, and knows far more than you and I do
As the migration/Refugees show me, please, what form of government can or wants to stop them totally
Never the less your view, wrong as it is, should tell Labor how many think about both these issues and by default it

'When you can show concrete evidence that human activity causes climate change and that we can heighten or lower the world temp, I will fall into line with you.'

jolly cold here HenryL. I will breathe harder in order warm the place up and reduce the cost of my heating. Really Belly's ignorance of this topic shows how easy anyone mentioning science no matter how illogical can fool people. Thankfully the deplorables which Belly was once part of saw through the con. Its the inner city elites who live in the rich suburbs and have large amounts of their super tied up in renewables that push this garbage while pretending its a 'moral' issue.

runner glass houses and all that, YOU should never call anyone ignorant
Glad no you know you know more the science UN , and every country out in front of us on climate change

SR,

Our company tax rate is one of the highest in the world, if it was lower the franking credits would be less important, and the majority of the people that would have affected were retirees for whom the tax made a difference. As for negative gearing, other than for houses it is pretty much accepted around the world and Labor's changes would have made the capital gains tax just about the highest in the world.

There are equity issues associated with imputation credits and different classes of retirees I raised on another thread, and for which I proposed a solution, grandfathered of course:

Dividend imputation was introduced by Keating to stop double taxation then Costello virtually dissolved the distinction between a company entity and its shareholders by allowing direct payment of imputation credits, and not just a tax-offset. The initial intent of removing double taxation was not to dissolve the distinction. Who's right on this depends on who's in power.

My compromise proposal is to allow the same amount credited as is allowed to be earned by welfare-based pensioners ($4,472p.a. for a single, $7,904 for a couple, indexed). Thereafter, those pensioners would have their welfare payments affected as now, while self-funded retirees would be taxed on credits received beyond the same amount.

NG should be allowed to a limit per taxpayer, 10K feels right, beyond which losses must be carried forward to write down against future profits or capital gain. CGT should revert to indexation of the cost base then taxation at the full marginal rate. Alternatively, the taxpayer could opt for no indexation and a 25% concession.

Some say because no concession is allowed on income from employment, none should be allowed capital gain. I say a concession is OK because a capital gain is realised in a lump that can project the taxpayer into a very high tax bracket in the single year the asset is realised. CGT could paid in installments in each FY an asset is held, but this is impractical for many asset classes. And what to do about capital losses if such a scenario was adopted, should the be able to be a part of the NG limit.

My aim here is to find agreement between the political parties over a way forward that will maintain a steady system regardless of who wins power in the future. This is surely good for the country and allows concentration upon the more fundamental issues facing our country.