Originally posted by boomeronrationsHi Radicool, There was no...

  1. 2,810 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 21
    There was no con job involved. The dividend system as it stood ,encouraged companies to run with higher debt as this was to the benefit of shareholders. 

    Thanks Boom for clarify the incentive side of the FC for companies but I still believe that Keating pulled a swiftly on the general public.  

    That part wasn’t sold to the general public as a its main aims to the average shareholder. I don’t believe it was general knowledge to the public, except to the 'Instiute of Directors' and management of company's.

    My recollections of the political spiel for the general public consumption was to address an unfair double taxation system with the side affect, of forced savings.

    From my my basic understanding of this so call 'unfair double tax', is that it’s no different to what we term today as unfranked dividends.

    So from my point of view, this piece of legislation amounted to fraudulent behaviour by the politicians and abetted by companies who accepted this option, by paying their shareholders in this manner!

    It amounted to theft by the govt of a portion of the dividend from its rightful recipient,  especially if a shareholder who couldn’t utilities it for tax purposes - this is the case for my non-working wife since 1987.

    Therefore, one could argue that Howard redressed a dodgy piece of tax legislation by paying the cash refund to every shareholder.   Is that why he got the nickname of Honest John?

    Companies need to follow Packer's classic comments about paying taxes,  and reverent back to unfranked dividends.

    Radicool Views

GET SUPPORT arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.