I agree with you. What I found absurd was it was to only be...

First 122 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
stoz

307 Posts.

3

21/05/19

16:39

Post #: 38673750
Share

Originally posted by Autosime: ↑

this policy was simply to hit SMSF sector and advantage the industry funds who are effectively run by the unions mates . You could 5 m with an industry fund and not be impacted but
the same in a SMSF could see you lose 10s of thousands . You could have 600k in a wrap pension and be impacted and a million in an industry fund and not be. It would have also hurt, LICs. How can a tax be fair when it hits people with lesser funds. How can you get rid of a tax refund the aids retirees . How is fair that some people are effectively forced to pay corporate tax at retirement which is what eliminating refunds would mean
I have never been so happy to see an election result as much as I was with this one . Hopefully this will allow the labor party to move away from the hard left. They used to be a party of ideas in the Hawke /Keating days , now they are a radical Socialist party with a morally bankrupt ideology on so many fronts. “ Gender commission “ what the hell was that going to be
How funny is the admission that the franking policy would have negatively impacted the average retiree 24hrs after the election . I hope their failure is pointed squarely at Chris Bowen - the architect of these failed policies.

Expand

I agree with you. What I found absurd was it was to only be applied to basically the SMSF sector. How is it fair to apply a rule to some and not others. They would have possibly liked to but thought it wouldn't get up so tired to demonise the SMSF sector to get support. How wrong that decision turned out to be.
5 Upvote

Reply