Australian CEOs volunteer their thoughts on Senate reform

[medusala]

It's easy to lie with statistics it a question of how pratical the numbers actually are.

Lie? The facts speak for themselves.

As for necessities I catch a train past plenty of housing commission flats with satellite dishes plastered all over them. "Necessity" is a very arbitrary word.

I think that there is a glitch in the system. My name was in a post that wasn't mine and a couple of times I have pressed reply and someone elses name came up.

This has happened to me as well lately, a common problem?

 

[Slax]

Lie? The facts speak for themselves.

As for necessities I catch a train past plenty of housing commission flats with satellite dishes plastered all over them. "Necessity" is a very arbitrary word.



This has happened to me as well lately, a common problem?

Agree, how some afford to smoke and have Foxtel is beyond me and they are the ones who in my view can't complain. But the statistics I talk about are the percentage of net household income spent on rent and basic essential services (utilities, food exluding alcohol) and when you look at that the wealthy are so far better off it's not funny.

 

[Play by Numbers]

That is merely your opinion. The "rich" pay a shamefully disproportionate share of income. It's about bloody time others started contributing rather than just having their lives subsidised by others.

The lack of gratitude by some is mind boggling.

They contribute less as a proportion of combined wealth.

 

[medusala]

They contribute less as a proportion of combined wealth.

See post #16.

48 per cent of Australia’s 12.2 million “income units” pay no net tax.

 

[Dry Rot]

Mmm, let me see.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ey-pay-all-of-it/story-e6frgd0x-1226841174461

In the financial year ending June 2010, what one might call “holistic average tax rates” (including indirect and direct taxes and net of social security in cash and kind) ranged from -64 per cent for the bottom quintile, to -22 per cent for median households and 13 per cent for the top fifth of households.
Put simply, only the top fifth of households paid any tax. The bottom 6.9 million households, while often incurring income tax liabilities and regularly paying GST, received more in cash welfare and services than they paid in.

It is absurd to claim the “rich” - assuming incomes rather than wealth are the defining criterion - aren’t paying their “fair share” of tax when they in fact pay all of it. Equally, to argue that the “average” worker is subsidising government folly is difficult given that their aggregate benefits exceed the tax they pay

Got figures splitting out stats for the bottom lot families vs singles? I think you;ll find working low income singles are utterly boned, paying tax and getting nothing from the govt.

 

[medusala]

Got figures splitting out stats for the bottom lot families vs singles? I think you;ll find working low income singles are utterly boned, paying tax and getting nothing from the govt.

No, would have to go to referenced stats and even then not sure if it gets split out.

Is it just families vs singles or families with kids vs singles?

I reckon there must be a huge boost re spending once kids come in ie family benefits, medicare, education, maternity leave, childcare etc.

 

[Grin]

Not an opinion. It is fact.
I will give you something as I agree that multinationals are given too many advantages. However, income earners on $200k/yr are taxed way too much!

Really?
Let's say a person who has a wife who doesn't work and has a family trust and gets about 250k.
How much do you reckon they get taxed?

 

[Lebbo73]

Really?
Let's say a person who has a wife who doesn't work and has a family trust and gets about 250k.
How much do you reckon they get taxed?

More than you ever will be

 

[Grin]

More than you ever will be

So if you have no idea what someone on 250k with a trust and a dependent wife earns, how can you say they pay to much?

Oh that's right, you're just mindlessly regurgitating what others have told you to think.

 

[Lebbo73]

So if you have no idea what someone on 250k with a trust and a dependent wife earns, how can you say they pay to much?

Oh that's right, you're just mindlessly regurgitating what others have told you to think.

I have read it on here before. I am pretty sure it was you who carried on about it. If I am wrong, I am sorry. I can't remember the amounts exactly. However, they still pay more than enough tax. Spending must be the first thing slashed, then taxes.

 

[Grin]

I have read it on here before. I am pretty sure it was you who carried on about it. If I am wrong, I am sorry. I can't remember the amounts exactly. However, they still pay more than enough tax. Spending must be the first thing slashed, then taxes.

At least you admit that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Obviously very general, but in the ball park:
Lets say the couple are both 50 years old. Lets make it a sole income family and the breadwinner, for the sake of the argument is the wife who runs her own business. She's a professional, a lawyer, and earns herself 300k in a partnership with other lawyers after paying for shared business expenses such as rent, admin staff, utilities etc.

This all goes into a trust. Hubby is the owner of the trust and he pays himself 140k, 40k of which goes into his super, 20k he deducts in "legitimate" expenses (devaluation on the BMW etc) leaving a taxable income of 80k on which he pays $17,547 in tax.

Wife gets 160k pays 40k into super, claims 30k in deductions (devaluation on the merc etc) leaving a taxable income of 90k on which she pays 22,247
So that's bout 40k or about 13% + medicare levy.

On top of this of course is the compounding tax free income they are earning through their super. So if we looked at the likely super of this couple, it would be at least 1mil. At 10% that's an extra 100k income tax free bringing the total tax bill to 10%.

Of course, many people claim much higher deductions (like restaurant meals, family holidays, personal and family internet, personal utilities etc. etc. etc.) that a PAYE tax payer cannot claim. Some earn a portion of their income in cash which they don't declare.

 

[Lebbo73]

At least you admit that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Obviously very general, but in the ball park:
Lets say the couple are both 50 years old. Lets make it a sole income family and the breadwinner, for the sake of the argument is the wife who runs her own business. She's a professional, a lawyer, and earns herself 300k in a partnership with other lawyers after paying for shared business expenses such as rent, admin staff, utilities etc.

This all goes into a trust. Hubby is the owner of the trust and he pays himself 140k, 40k of which goes into his super, 20k he deducts in "legitimate" expenses (devaluation on the BMW etc) leaving a taxable income of 80k on which he pays $17,547 in tax.

Wife gets 160k pays 40k into super, claims 30k in deductions (devaluation on the merc etc) leaving a taxable income of 90k on which she pays 22,247
So that's bout 40k or about 13% + medicare levy.

On top of this of course is the compounding tax free income they are earning through their super. So if we looked at the likely super of this couple, it would be at least 1mil. At 10% that's an extra 100k income tax free bringing the total tax bill to 10%.

Of course, many people claim much higher deductions (like restaurant meals, family holidays, personal and family internet, personal utilities etc. etc. etc.) that a PAYE tax payer cannot claim. Some earn a portion of their income in cash which they don't declare.

Sounds fair to me. Income tax at their current levels is theft!

 

[Grin]

Sounds fair to me. Income tax at their current levels is theft!

No it's not. That's just what you've been told to believe by those who do your thinking for you.

You see, if you decide to remove all of the income of the very poor rather than taxing the very wealthy say, 15% instead of 10% of their income, what results isn't the magical creation of lots of jobs (despite what you've been told to believe, the economy isn't run by magic) what results is crime and misery, a change in the very nature of our society.

I think you're basically a decent fellow and don't want to see a community where children are forced to sell themselves to wealthy pedophiles and adults forced to resort to other crimes, where the streets become very dangerous places and where the wealthy gate themselves in communities in a new form of apartheid. I don't think that would be liberal paradise that you imagine.
People like you need to think through the likely outcomes of the policies you regurgitate rather than mindlessly following the ideologies sold to you by the puppets of multinationals and the uber rich.
Puppets like Tony Abbott.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Sounds fair to me. Income tax at their current levels is theft!

Ok, i'll play along. If income levels are theft, and should be reduced dramatically, what services are you cutting to fund this cut?

 

[Maggie5]

I wonder how many pages this thread would be if it stated:
'Unions volunteer their thoughts on Senate reform'?

 

[little graham]

Uniting care bosses, salvo bosses, catholic church heads all hate labor administrations.They become less relevant as the social policies kick in. Its part of the human experience in capatlism.

 

[illavitar]

Sounds fair to me. Income tax at their current levels is theft!

I explained that quite clearly to you in another thread where you were too defeated to respond but obviously yet you still state this nonsense opinion? Basically your wage is only worth what other people make it worth who you're lucky to have as consumers. You could die the next day for all they care and they'll go to the competition next door, so you hardly matter at all in comparison to your consumers. So theresome irony there if you want to start reforming taxation to steal from the lower classes by expecting them to foot the difference as a result of your tax evasion, that means their cost of living goes up dramatically and all your useless stupid products and services you market to them making a living off aren't really essential to anyone anymore so you have less money either way.

I've explained this to you before but you're clearly daft. Most the scumbags only pay 30% compared to 47% taxation so you're dead wrong about leaners. It's the working classes that lift this nation not the useless pigs at the top so keep attacking the workers with your filthy misanthropic greed and just see what happens.

 

[telsor]

I wonder how many pages this thread would be if it stated:
'Unions volunteer their thoughts on Senate reform'?

Many of those raging against these thoughts would be supporting them, and vice versa.

Anyone is allowed to have thoughts, and express them. Doesn't mean they're likely to happen though, at least, I hope not.

To have Senate reform, the Senate would need to pass it, and the only way that would happen if the libs and labor were working together, which they'd only do to entrench their own power. (much like their ideas for changing the senate voting system to try and restrict minor parties).

 

[CountryRace]

Lie? The facts speak for themselves.

As for necessities I catch a train past plenty of housing commission flats with satellite dishes plastered all over them. "Necessity" is a very arbitrary word.



This has happened to me as well lately, a common problem?

They are all living like kings

 

[Lebbo73]

I explained that quite clearly to you in another thread where you were too defeated to respond but obviously yet you still state this nonsense opinion? Basically your wage is only worth what other people make it worth who you're lucky to have as consumers. You could die the next day for all they care and they'll go to the competition next door, so you hardly matter at all in comparison to your consumers. So theresome irony there if you want to start reforming taxation to steal from the lower classes by expecting them to foot the difference as a result of your tax evasion, that means their cost of living goes up dramatically and all your useless stupid products and services you market to them making a living off aren't really essential to anyone anymore so you have less money either way.

I've explained this to you before but you're clearly daft. Most the scumbags only pay 30% compared to 47% taxation so you're dead wrong about leaners. It's the working classes that lift this nation not the useless pigs at the top so keep attacking the workers with your filthy misanthropic greed and just see what happens.

I ain't attacking the workers at all. I want to give them all massive cuts to income tax. I also believe that all private sector employees should be paid a percentage of turnover as a bonus every year. Sought of along the lines of our major sports. However, all increases to the minimum wage must stop immediately.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

I ain't attacking the workers at all. I want to give them all massive cuts to income tax. I also believe that all private sector employees should be paid a percentage of turnover as a bonus every year. Sought of along the lines of our major sports. However, all increases to the minimum wage must stop immediately.

So how are we paying for basic services?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I suspect the idea would be a UK/Canadian style 'house of review', allowing for discussion/debate/comment rather than an alternative position of power. The other factor would be having members appointed rather than elected (so as the reduce the tendency to just follow 'party lines' ).

Appointed by who? Surely you'd be more likely to follow a party line if you were given a position, than if you were voted in by the public?

 

[telsor]

Appointed by who? Surely you'd be more likely to follow a party line if you were given a position, than if you were voted in by the public?

Not when you only get voted in because of your party.

As for appointed by who?

Well, England has the House of Lords, which despite it's name, does actually have some non-nobility in there - I knew a guy who had a spot sue to having been the head of the brewers federation (or whatever they called it). But yeah, they're mostly hereditary, but that does allow a certain degree of independence.

As for Canada...I just read up and it seems I had the wrong idea...Apparently it CAN reject bills, but by custom very rarely does (~2/year for the past century). No cabinet ministers can be in the senate. It's appointed by the governor general (on 'advise' from the PM, so effectively appointed by the PM), and is mostly senior ex-political types (cabinet members, provincial premiers) along with a number of 'Eminent Canadians'. Members serve until they're 75 (or miss 2 consecutive sessions of parliament), and need to be appointed based largely on their regions (effectively provinces). Seems the main point though is the custom that bills not be rejected unless they're (presumably) considered to be particularly bad.

 

[Lebbo73]

So how are we paying for basic services?

Out of your own pocket. That is how!

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Out of your own pocket. That is how!

So how do I pay for my share of the roads, police, army, education, hospitals, and various other essential services?