Tim Wilson running franking bucket shop for fundie mate?

Geez, mate, a poor look, via Domain:

Experts believe Liberal MP Tim Wilson may have breached privacy laws by failing to tell hundreds of people who signed up to a petition that their names, addresses, phone numbers and emails would be transferred to a multibillion-dollar fund manager.

The backbencher’s taxpayer-funded inquiry into Labor’s franking credits policy is under fire after it was used to sign up new Liberal Party members and promote fundraisers.

Mr Wilson has co-ordinated protests and submissions against Labor’s policy with Geoff Wilson, a distant relative and the founder of Wilson Asset Management, one of the leading campaigners against Labor’s proposal to end cash refunds to more than 800,000 self-funded retirees.

Tiny Tim resorts to the technical defense:

In defending himself against Labor’s claims he “colluded” with Wilson Asset Management, Mr Wilson said any interaction with the fund by inquiry attendees was voluntary.

“We have a website we encourage people to send a submission through,” Mr Wilson said. “There was an option to sign the Wilson Asset Management petition, the link to the petition was there.”

“If people wanted to sign that then we honoured their request, nothing more. The whole basis of Labor’s argument is just an absolute fiction.”

Perhaps he can return to the Human Rights Commission where they just love such the technocratic agonising over language.


    • Strange Economics of Ethics?

      Selected as the Philosopher and Ethicist…given the highly paid HR commissioner role to bring liberal values.. Selected as the expert in Ethics… (but doesn’t understand “conflict of interest”.)
      Mini Me Trumpism, where the political values are more important than skills and knowledge….

  1. I really wouldn’t mind if they all secretly had their hand in the till (which many of them kind of do), IF they all didn’t seem so bloody incompetent. Just go a whole day without doing or saying something stupid, I dares ya!

    • I think it’s more that they have their hand in the till for such little reward that gets me. The fact that our politicians are “cheap dates” for corruption should concern all and sundry.

  2. its grubby. geoff wilson has also been tainted in my view although of course he is not an elected representative.
    media, as usual, cant get to the nub of the issue. GW’s main benefit is derived because his vehicles, esp WAM, specifically target high fully franked dividends and are thus adored by the tax refund crowd (affluent and less affluent alike). Abolition of refunds is not an existential thread to his business but will narrow his competitive advantage vs managed funds, increase the cost of equity for his vehicles, reduce his performance fees and slow the growth of his business.

    • not just grubby but being stupid, and in defence of terrible policy anyway. I wouldn’t mind if they were using tricks in the support of good policies but stopping the franking credit refund is just insane – Costello should never have allowed it in the first place.

      • proofreadersMEMBER

        +1 It was indefensible when Howard/Costello brought it in costing half a billions a year and it’s billions of dollars more annually, totally indefensible now?

      • Disagree – the ALP changes are poor and ultimately a thinly disguised boost to the Industry Fund sector.

        Any HNW who might be affected by them will very easily change their affairs to ensure that they continue to get the benefit of the franking.

      • I loved that argument from Geoff Wilson


      • Hi Jason what is your rationale for these changes being a thinly disguised boost for Industry Super Funds, which, according to the date, perform better anyway

      • yeah one argument bouncing around is that if you stop franking refunds, we will spend all our cash and go on the pension.
        well, here’s news for you: that option is open to you right now! The fact is, one of “franking refunds” main benefits is to enable retirees to preserve capital and enable inter-generational wealth transfer. Lets stop dancing around the handbags.

      • @HC:

        The ALP is not proposing to change the franking rules which allow you to offset the credits against tax paid on other income received. So if you are a superfund with a lot of franking credits but a lot of other taxable income (including contributions in accumulation phase) you will continue to get the full freight benefit for the franking credit. Industry Funds therefore will not be affected by the change in practice because they are mostly in accumulation stage and with generally balanced portfolios. Retail Funds are similarly not affected in practice but of course with the RC, people are leaving them anyway.

        Importantly, because a fund is a single taxpayer albeit with a large number of beneficiaries’ accounts, this means that one beneficiary can effectively use the tax paid in another beneficiary’s account to set off against their franking offsets if they themselves don’t have enough taxable income in their own account.

        It is really only SMSFs (and particularly those in pension phase) who are affected because they are small and will have little other taxable income to offset against the credits.

      • @Jason Accept all this but doesn’t it boil down to asset allocation? It seems like many / most SMSFs in pension mode are overweight / grossly overweight Aust shares / LICs to get the credits. Nothing wrong with that, but its a decision largely motivated by tax.

      • The ALP changes will push it the other way. Why would an SMSF hold shares that pay franking credits when the shares are priced as if the shareholder can use the franking credits? It is a distortive change.

        And for what it’s worth – if SMSFs move to buying corporate debt or non-frankable hybrids, little will be achieved because the company will get a tax deduction for the interest whereas the SMSF’s won’t pay tax – hence a leakage. Obviously, companies don’t get deductions for dividends which is the trade off for being able to frank dividends.

      • Hi Philly, Hardron, Jason etc.

        You may find this interesting from a post by Jan on Cuffelinks.

        People say the imputation system is “a huge impost on the budget that is no longer sustainable.” I say the $18,200 tax-free threshold is also unsustainable.
        If you want to revert to the pre-2001 status quo, then remove FC cash refunds and reduce the TFT to $5400 which is where it was before Howard introduced the changes, which were, by the way, was to compensate GST effects.

        At the time, then Shadow Treasurer, Simon Crean said Labor was fully in support of the cash refunds because it was actually Labor policy. (See Hansard).
        As well as cash refunds, TFT was raised to $6000 and other family benefits introduced “as a sop” to the non-retirees.

        In 2012/13, Labor raised the TFT to a whopping $18,200. Yes. everyone can earn $18200 TAX FREE. Except under Labor, self-funded pensioners will be taxed at the company rate of 30%. Treasury/PBO docs confirm this. (See ABC RMIT fact check article)
        Enough said !!

  3. “a distant relative”

    Not that distant – they are second cousins. That is, Tim’s dad is Geoff’s cousin. I know all of my second cousins, and apart from the ones that live outside of Sydney they aren’t that distant.

  4. At the Chatswood inquiry, these old cunts BOOED when an attendee mentioned that the free money they get could cover public education funding.

    Basically we have old millionaires in this country who do not give a flying fuck about the future of the place, they just want their free government money. Which is cool, I suppose.

    • yep I saw that, real ugly. just vomitous.
      their view seems to be that they paid so much tax over the years that they are now entitled to free money …..

    • How about how the old bloke dissenter was manhandled out of the place and pushed/fell over – I mean, he looked pretty aged so may have some frailty issues (or not) and they allegedly all cheered?

      poison, every single one who cheered (if it’s true as reported in the Smage)

      • Mining BoganMEMBER

        True. The guy took a dive but yeah, they cheered.

        No-one identified themselves before grabbing him either, just grabbed him. Poor form but you could see he wasn’t going to struggle anyway. If he was intent on standing his ground the first entitled who stood up would have had his jaw smashed before he got a word in. Terrible approach to a situation. The second entitled who did the pushing and shoving only came in when he saw entitled number one still had his teeth.

        The entitled were angry that day.

  5. Tim Wilson: The bloke who thinks corporate rights are more important than human rights!

    His appointment as the Human Rights Commissioner was just taking the piss.

  6. Whoa everybody, just step back and take a deep breath.

    Tim is gay. He’s part of an oppressed minority, so according to the rules of intersectional theory, that makes everything he does OK.

    • Yes a few chill pills would not go astray here! As an aside I cannot believe what used to be respected institutions like Universities now spend their time running propaganda like intersectional theory courses and expecting the Australian public to keep funding them. What is the difference between Mao’s Little Red Book and Australian university intersectional theory courses?

  7. What annoys me most is the inconsistency of our political parties. If he was a labour member you can gaurantee the libs would be up in arms along for his resignation too.