Tax the top 1-10% more?

[Todman]

Generally, yes, the wealthiest in society don't pay enough in taxes. More should be done to address that and curb their wealth.

Unfortunately right now, with the economy on the brink of recession due to the Coalition's ideological madness, it's probably a bad time to raise taxes, unless some stimulus came from elsewhere. Labor's carbon tax compensation package was the right idea. Raising taxes, mid-economic downturn, with no plan for accompanying increased spending, is poor strategy.

2 per cent of individuals are collectively paying 22 per cent of all personal income tax.

 

[Todman]

No it's about equality.

Okay so everyone pays the same amount of tax. Now that is fair.

 

[spinynorman]

2 per cent of individuals are collectively paying 22 per cent of all personal income tax.

You've got to be kidding. That's an absurdly selective statistic. 2% of individuals collectively own more than 22% of all wealth in the country.

 

[Todman]

You've got to be kidding. That's an absurdly selective statistic. 2% of individuals collectively own more than 22% of all wealth in the country.

statistics don't lie.....................much

 

[The Punter]

Turnbull has also been quoted as saying that tax should primarily be paid by those who can afford to pay it.

 

[Power Raid]

Generally, yes, the wealthiest in society don't pay enough in taxes. More should be done to address that and curb their wealth.

Unfortunately right now, with the economy on the brink of recession due to the Coalition's ideological madness, it's probably a bad time to raise taxes, unless some stimulus came from elsewhere. Labor's carbon tax compensation package was the right idea. Raising taxes, mid-economic downturn, with no plan for accompanying increased spending, is poor strategy.

holy s**t

do you really think starting with a compensation package before deciding on whether you would implement a change in the tax system and what that change would be is the right order?


"right boys we need a compensation package"
"why, what for?"
"kids want free s**t"
"yep, but what for"
"I don't know yet, we'll have to think of the tax later. let's just promise them a compo"

 

[Power Raid]

You've got to be kidding. That's an absurdly selective statistic. 2% of individuals collectively own more than 22% of all wealth in the country.

yep and that's why we need to reform our income tax, reform our consumption tax and more importantly a better wealth tax (property tax).

 

[Maggie5]

To balance the health budget, just increase the medicare levy. Very fair.

 

[The Punter]

2 per cent of individuals are collectively paying 22 per cent of all personal income tax.

To balance the health budget, just increase the medicare levy. Very fair.

Ok, everyone, you have your goalposts. Your target is somewhere between these two.

 

[Maggie5]

Ok, everyone, you have your goalposts. Your target is somewhere between these two.

Your point is?

 

[spinynorman]

holy s**t

do you really think starting with a compensation package before deciding on whether you would implement a change in the tax system and what that change would be is the right order?


"right boys we need a compensation package"
"why, what for?"
"kids want free s**t"
"yep, but what for"
"I don't know yet, we'll have to think of the tax later. let's just promise them a compo"

No, but nice strawman.

yep and that's why we need to reform our income tax, reform our consumption tax and more importantly a better wealth tax (property tax).

Agreed. Remove the consumption tax, increase the other two.

 

[The Punter]

Your point is?

Your argument is raise enough revenue to cover whatever it is you are spending on.

I would have thought there were efficiencies in the health system that are unrealised and could be implemented before we raise the Medicare Levy again.

 

[CbayT]

To balance the health budget, just increase the medicare levy. Very fair.

No its not its just an increase in income tax which is certainly not fair as rich people don't pay it . Unfortunately we need both direct and indirect taxation.

 

[Maggie5]

Your argument is raise enough revenue to cover whatever it is you are spending on.

I would have thought there were efficiencies in the health system that are unrealised and could be implemented before we raise the Medicare Levy again.

Not sure about in/efficiencies but if there aren't then increase the levy. I don't have a problem with that, especially if not enough to cover NDIS.

As to the link in previous post, can't view it because of paywall.

 

[Maggie5]

No its not its just an increase in income tax which is certainly not fair as rich people don't pay it . Unfortunately we need both direct and indirect taxation.

I seriously don't understand your posts.

 

[The Punter]

We can't afford the NDIS.

I would have thought the first thing to keep in mind when operating in deficit is don't introduce massive spending programs without having the money to fund them first. I understand it is an eminently noble program and something we should aim to provide, but we need to get the money first, and that should be done through a mix of spending reductions and revenue increases.

But not before we can afford it.

 

[Power Raid]

Your argument is raise enough revenue to cover whatever it is you are spending on.

I would have thought there were efficiencies in the health system that are unrealised and could be implemented before we raise the Medicare Levy again.

Labor's own estimate was either $14b or $19b of savings could be had by tackling inefficiencies in health.

I will see if I can dig up that report and understand if all of that was on the govt's tab.

 

[Power Raid]

No, but nice strawman.



Agreed. Remove the consumption tax, increase the other two.

if at first you don't succeed, try doing the same thing the same away and expect a different result.



globally there is a recognistion that a broader tax base that includes wealth taxes, consumption taxes and income taxes is better than a reliance on income tax.

yet you want to increase income taxes and tax the very thing you want..........wealth creation? we agree on taxing the storing and amassing of wealth and tying in up on something that isn't productive (property) but you seem to be adverse to taxing consumerism. why?

 

[Affidavit]

Get rid of Payroll Tax first!

 

[Vintage]

Are unrealised option gains still being taxed? Have heard some Perth boys livid with anger about having to pay tax for that and then the share price falling below the option strike price.

Another idiotic Wayne Swan policy.

NB Wasn't Bob Hawke off the booze when he was PM? I reckon you are harsh on Bob, IMO he was the best leader the ALP have ever had.

I've had to pay tax on unrealised gains when shares come into my name each year for the last ~3 years - so you either have to sell half the shares to pay the tax, or hope they don't drop in value. Either way it's a load of BS

 

[Power Raid]

I've had to pay tax on unrealised gains when shares come into my name each year for the last ~3 years - so you either have to sell half the shares to pay the tax, or hope they don't drop in value. Either way it's a load of BS

formally the rules have change but the rule was in fact an incorrect interpretation by the ATO. re-submit your tax return and request a refund.

 

[medusala]

I would have thought the first thing to keep in mind when operating in deficit is don't introduce massive spending programs without having the money to fund them first.

NBN for the lulz

 

[Gough]

Much better by a whole lot more dud jet fighters, than finishing the NBN properly. Why are people kidding themselves that this government is somehow fiscally prudent? Having declared a "debt, and deficit emergency", they're spending more than all but one of the ALP's budgets in government, and they're buying crap.

 

[Whit3y]

geez i make 19 a hour as a truck driver, were do i sign up to be a cleaner

those cleaners seem like millionaires compared to me

 

[Maggie5]

We can't afford the NDIS.

I would have thought the first thing to keep in mind when operating in deficit is don't introduce massive spending programs without having the money to fund them first. I understand it is an eminently noble program and something we should aim to provide, but we need to get the money first, and that should be done through a mix of spending reductions and revenue increases.

But not before we can afford it.

https://newmatilda.com/2014/06/10/ballooning-military-spending-comes-cost/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-12/defence-to-receive-$750-million-boost/6464304
http://www.ncoa.gov.au/report/appendix-vol-1/9-8-defence-and-national-security.html

Can't afford the NDIS but can afford dud fighter planes that other governments are pulling out of and also spend some $29 billion this financial year on military which is comfortably one of the country’s largest fiscal outlays, well ahead of big-ticket items such as higher education or family tax benefits.

With comments like yours nothing would ever be built and services cut to the bone. Good one.

BTW, the only place I have seen the 2%/22% is in the Murdoch press, do you have any other more reputable sources?