Caitlin whatever's article reads like someone who just read up about what franking credits are and what excess franking are. She then spent another couple of hours thinking about this, drafting up a few neat expressions such as "the objectively wealthy". I took it she didn't want any debate about the definition of "wealthy" so the subjectivity of wealth was laid to rest by choosing "objectively wealthy". That's it! Nothing more to be said here. Article littered with such terms as "A nice piece of pork for the base" said as she opines it was the decision by Costello to allow the refund of excess tax requirements of imputation credits. She assumes it was a policy change jost to benefit the elderly. No evidence she understands the impact on other segments of the population, nor its impact over time, nor its subtleties in changing the way tax is usually applied, with this Mark 2 policy now having two classes of pensioners, the lucky ones "grandfathered" and the out-of-luck ones who are hit with the financial brick.
Some of her comments she makes but goes nowhere with them, the worst of these being :
"PBO documents show nearly half (48.8 per cent) of individuals who claim excess franking credits have a taxable income under $19,000 a year"* but given she was unable to go anywhere with this statement to support her own bias, that it was "vested interest doing what vested interests do", which was supposed to convince us "don't be fooled" she warns, it is all to do with vested interests, apparently.
Coloured terms does not constitute good factual debate but the article is peppered with them. Here is an example in this claim that the PBO has made it clear that its the "well heeled constituency" which will be really affected by Labor's proposal. Yet there are many more sophisticated thinkers who have demonstrated why the big sharks which Labor is supposedly targeting can get away but the small very numerous tiny fish are those who will be hurt. (see above*)
A poorly written article which has no attempt to wrestle with the more challenging aspects of this debate. No evidence that sufficient time was spent examining more sophisticated analysis on this issue was made by her. Doubt if she has had any economic education at tertiary level.
