Non Footy Chat Thread II

[Eelogical]

FFS merkins ... we are meant to be hanging shit on gary, not me .... ‍

Gary Who?

 

[Eelogical]

This stuff is gold.

 

[strider]

This stuff is gold.

Which one is grandpa Gary drinking snob beer?

 

[strider]

Couple of hotties at the end there

 

[TheRam]

Stupid old merkins didn't want them foreigners then and their kids don't want them now. Just shows how our kids are sponges. Be careful what u say around the dinner table.

Let them die. FFS.

Ah ha, or the reality is more like this.

 

[Gary Gutful]

The Gary obsession in some of you is a little disturbing...but on the same hand it is understanding.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

It's just backlash after that advice you gave about KY jelly for fish that look a bit sad. Live and learn I say.

 

[Gary Gutful]

It's just backlash after that advice you gave about KY jelly for fish that look a bit sad. Live and learn I say.

*mermaid

 

[hindy111]

You can have your mermaid back after Easter I said.Now leave us alone in peace ffs.

 

[strider]

Yikes .... she's got tim mannahs eyebrows

 

[Gary Gutful]

You can have your mermaid back after Easter I said.Now leave us alone in peace ffs.View attachment 29155

Take care of her mate.

 

[Bandwagon]

I also think Labor should stop the use of Trusts which is nothing but glorified income splitting tax evaission

But no he wont do that cos he and his rich buddies wont be able to keep taking advantage

Trusts have an important role in asset protection, and flexibility in income distribution to beneficiaries, their primary purpose is not a tax doge, although it is true that they can be, and are used in this way.

Labor's tax policy is to remove the ability to "income split" through a discretionary trust, so address' the point here, but you can't just lump all trusts in the same boat like you have here.

It's worth noting that the tax bill from income derived from a discretionary trust can be higher than that which would have resulted from a company structure as distributions are taxed at the beneficiaries marginal rate, rather than at the corporate rate, literally hundreds of thousands of small business owners use a trust as a valid structure, that whilst in can be tax advantageous, is just not in the same league as how trusts can be used by the uber rich, which is where most of the perceived problems lie.

 

[hindy111]

Take care of her mate.

One of the star fish fell off. Must of been a poor quality stitch job

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Trusts have an important role in asset protection, and flexibility in income distribution to beneficiaries, their primary purpose is not a tax doge, although it is true that they can be, and are used in this way.

.

Protection from what? And who implicitly subsidises the cost of that protection. Why is that protection 'good'?

Trusts have been used for reasonable purposes, and to allow some entities to ring-fence assets to prevent paying up for the crap they've inflicted on others.

 

[84 Baby]

Protection from what? And who implicitly subsidises the cost of that protection. Why is that protection 'good'?

Trusts have been used for reasonable purposes, and to allow some entities to ring-fence assets to prevent paying up for the crap they've inflicted on others.

You can’t blame trusts for people being scumbags. I have also seen them protect assets from crap inflicted BY others.
And really the tax advantages aren’t that great except to lesser profit groups.

@strider do you run a business? If so, through a company then, where you pay flat tax and then can drip feed franking credits to effectively pay zero tax? What a rorter

 

[strider]

Ping @Gary Gutful ... Barry and 84 are using big words I dont understand again ... please explain

 

[Gary Gutful]

Ping @Gary Gutful ... Barry and 84 are using big words I dont understand again ... please explain

I can’t be certain but I think 84 just propositioned Barry.

 

[Bandwagon]

Protection from what? And who implicitly subsidises the cost of that protection. Why is that protection 'good'?

Trusts have been used for reasonable purposes, and to allow some entities to ring-fence assets to prevent paying up for the crap they've inflicted on others.

You might note I didn't make a call on the morality of asset protection, only that there is a need, my argument is that trusts should be banned because "tax dodge" is a poor argument.

As you concede, trusts have been ( and are I assume? ) used for reasonable purposes, what's reasonable is always subjective though isn't it.

 

[strider]

You might note I didn't make a call on the morality of asset protection, only that there is a need, my argument is that trusts should be banned because "tax dodge" is a poor argument.

As you concede, trusts have been ( and are I assume? ) used for reasonable purposes, what's reasonable is always subjective though isn't it.

I never said ban em entirely, i said Shorten should stop people using em as a tax dodge

 

[84 Baby]

I never said ban em entirely, i said Shorten should stop people using em as a tax dodge

Where is the tax dodge? It can only mitigate trust tax to individual tax rates at lower brackets or company tax rate but the administration of distribution particularly to companies would make up a lot of the tax savings. I guess in rare circumstances you could also distribute to a SMSF but that’s rare and could be caught at top tax rate.
The only other option is to a charity but then you lose the money as well (basically 100% tax then)
The only real way it can be a “legal” tax dodge is if you have enough connected ie family members to distribute the profit to so they are less than company tax rate, which if administered poorly can be too risky for the tax savings.
And even before all that, PSI, div 7a and even part 4a can all come over top anyway