What is the real state of the economy?

[Grin]

Hey the government can start up their own mines. No law against it.

I think the real reason people are so keen on 'making the most of the mining boom' is that deep down they realize how woefully uncompetitive Australia is in a lot of industries. Outside of mining and agriculture we have very few internationally competitive industries.

Which is why it's such a stupid idea to cut funding to CSIRO, not have a Minister for Science and Technology and cut funding to university education and research. Cutting funding to the car manufacturing industry when our dollar was at historical highs and off shoring the subs and discouraging investment in renewables to the point where investment in wind farms has almost come to a holt probably isn't terribly clever either.

Interestingly, per capita, Australia has one of the highest patent applications for new ideas. Unfortunately most of the viable ones get off shored.

Also the Government deliberately doesn't buy Australian.
I know a bloke well who manufactures a very specialised type of engineering equipment. The Government refuses to buy his product. So he sends it to America, it gets rebadged and sold back into Australia at 3 times the price.
He's told the department what is happening, but they still prefer the 'American' product.

 

[madmug]

Good article by Bernard Salt in today's Australian

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sub...tory-e6frg9jx-1227239020347&memtype=anonymous

It contains a paywall so inaccessible to non-subscribers

Basic summary

ATO provides tax figures on its website

Richest 2% of Australians contribute 26% of all tax revenue at a rate of well above 40% on gross income

Conclusions

Rich can pay more and do

Claims that they avoid tax on a wholesale basis are nonsense

Rich cant do it all and virtually everyone else is being massively subsidised by them

We pay less tax than most other OECD countries.

Someone on $8million may pay a tax rate up to 47% but a real tax rate after deductions, family trusts & superannuation payments etc tax may be closer to 25%.

Thats $6million left to spend. Heart breaking really.

Someone on $80k, no smart accountant, no deductions, with 3 kids, wouldnt pay much tax but still would struggle to pay the mortgage, school fees, rates, phone, power bills etc, etc

I think I know who's doing it toughest & still contributing a lot to the nations future

 

[Tomjas00]

We pay less tax than most other OECD countries.

Someone on $8million may pay a tax rate up to 47% but a real tax rate after deductions, family trusts & superannuation payments etc tax may be closer to 25%.

Thats $6million left to spend. Heart breaking really.

Someone on $80k, no smart accountant, no deductions, with 3 kids, wouldnt pay much tax but still would struggle to pay the mortgage, school fees, rates, phone, power bills etc, etc

I think I know who's doing it toughest & still contributing a lot to the nations future

We pay less tax than most other OECD countries.

Someone on $8million may pay a tax rate up to 47% but a real tax rate after deductions, family trusts & superannuation payments etc tax may be closer to 25%.

Thats $6million left to spend. Heart breaking really.

Someone on $80k, no smart accountant, no deductions, with 3 kids, wouldnt pay much tax but still would struggle to pay the mortgage, school fees, rates, phone, power bills etc, etc

I think I know who's doing it toughest & still contributing a lot to the nations future

Facts are facts

Rich are subsidising the less well off to a massive degree and arguments to the contrary are nothing more than cheap politics

And get over the OECD btw

Most of their economies are screwed and if that is what we aspire to be then good luck

 

[Max zero]

We pay less tax than most other OECD countries.

Someone on $8million may pay a tax rate up to 47% but a real tax rate after deductions, family trusts & superannuation payments etc tax may be closer to 25%.

Thats $6million left to spend. Heart breaking really.

Someone on $80k, no smart accountant, no deductions, with 3 kids, wouldnt pay much tax but still would struggle to pay the mortgage, school fees, rates, phone, power bills etc, etc

I think I know who's doing it toughest & still contributing a lot to the nations future

So if there are not paying much tax why are they still struggling? Is it because our cost of living is extremely high? Now why would that be?

There is no such thing as a free lunch. High wages, cheap education and healthcare and low tax? It has to be paid for somehow.

 

[madmug]

So if there are not paying much tax why are they still struggling? Is it because our cost of living is extremely high? Now why would that be?

There is no such thing as a free lunch. High wages, cheap education and healthcare and low tax? It has to be paid for somehow.

So if we reduce middle class & corporate welfare, invest in education & research & the new economy (renewable energy sources, sunrise industries), as well as reducing the divide between welfare & work with a more graded change in welfare payments & work payments so as to limit the welfare trap where currently moving from welfare into some part time work attracts a massive financial penalty to work.

Then we might actually get somewhere.

No their is no free lunch. But their is a need for some intelligent thinking & investment in people & the future, not just simple minded ideological dictates based somewhere in the early part of the last century.

 

[Eagle87]

No their is no free lunch. But their is a need for some intelligent thinking & investment in people & the future, not just simple minded ideological dictates based somewhere in the early part of the last century.

You mean like Soak the Rich?

 

[clogged]

You mean like Soak the Rich?

Are they being soaked at present?

 

[Eagle87]

Are they being soaked at present?

I believe statistically, they are paying a decent chunk, income tax wise they are paying a lot more than others in our region.

But my reference was to the theme of a seemingly substantive chunk of the posters in this thread who seem to be pushing for what amounts to soak the rich type approach... which in the context of my post isn't a particularly new idea...

 

[clogged]

I believe statistically, they are paying a decent chunk, income tax wise they are paying a lot more than others in our region.

But my reference was to the theme of a seemingly substantive chunk of the posters in this thread who seem to be pushing for what amounts to soak the rich type approach... which in the context of my post isn't a particularly new idea...

The rich have never been richer, in Australia and globally. It would seem they could be soaked a little more.

I wouldn't suggest taxing income, it is pretty easy to hide income. But for example, I wonder why nations let the super rich buy premium property and let it sit vacant. It's a massive problem in London for instance, and a growing one in Sydney.

I will note that Abbott's recent efforts with foreign property investment are meant to deal with this, although it's a token effort.

 

[Eagle87]

The rich have never been richer, in Australia and globally. It would seem they could be soaked a little more.

I wouldn't suggest taxing income, it is pretty easy to hide income. But for example, I wonder why nations let the super rich buy premium property and let it sit vacant. It's a massive problem in London for instance, and a growing one in Sydney.

I will note that Abbott's recent efforts with foreign property investment are meant to deal with this, although it's a token effort.

All of this presumes of course that bigger government, with a bigger budget is inherently a better outcome than leaving that money in the hands of the private sector.

I do agree that there are issues with the wealthy buying up big chunks of large cities. Living in Asia it is clear that enormous wealth is just as capable of poor asset allocation/investment decisions as government is capable of waste and pointless but well meaning programs.

Taxation (of whatever kind) that made certain investment options unattractive and others more attractive I can certainly support. Not so much just for the hell of taxing the rich more but more "punishing" harmful investment decisions.

This would take planning, a strategy and some knowledge of the private sector and the operation of markets. Unfortunately these aren't traits widely held in our political circles

 

[clogged]

All of this presumes of course that bigger government, with a bigger budget is inherently a better outcome than leaving that money in the hands of the private sector.

I do agree that there are issues with the wealthy buying up big chunks of large cities. Living in Asia it is clear that enormous wealth is just as capable of poor asset allocation/investment decisions as government is capable of waste and pointless but well meaning programs.

Taxation (of whatever kind) that made certain investment options unattractive and others more attractive I can certainly support. Not so much just for the hell of taxing the rich more but more "punishing" harmful investment decisions.

This would take planning, a strategy and some knowledge of the private sector and the operation of markets. Unfortunately these aren't traits widely held in our political circles

In bold, it may have to be. No one knows what the economic situation is in a world where no one has to work, except for a few who are employed in innovative/creative industries. Your average checkout chick is driven out by self-serve registers, your taxi driver is being Uber'd out of existence as both they and their largest investor develop self-driving cars (and Apple are meant to be going there). Do governments establish a living wage? Who pays for it? These are the questions that need to be answered, where the old class warfare arguments may not have any value.

For the rest I think we have discussed Henry's idea about taxing land and bad investment in hard (real estate) assets before. I agree with you.

 

[Max zero]

In bold, it may have to be. No one knows what the economic situation is in a world where no one has to work, except for a few who are employed in innovative/creative industries. Your average checkout chick is driven out by self-serve registers, your taxi driver is being Uber'd out of existence as both they and their largest investor develop self-driving cars (and Apple are meant to be going there). Do governments establish a living wage? Who pays for it? These are the questions that need to be answered, where the old class warfare arguments may not have any value.

For the rest I think we have discussed Henry's idea about taxing land and bad investment in hard (real estate) assets before. I agree with you.

Indeed who will pay a wage for simply existing? You could argue a living wage is a symptom of having too many people and not enough work.

Will the living wages have conditions attached? Such as how it must be spent or obligations in return for receiving it?

 

[clogged]

Indeed who will pay a wage for simply existing? You could argue a living wage is a symptom of having too many people and not enough work.

Will the living wages have conditions attached? Such as how it must be spent or obligations in return for receiving it?

Why should there be obligations?

 

[madmug]

Indeed who will pay a wage for simply existing? You could argue a living wage is a symptom of having too many people and not enough work.

Will the living wages have conditions attached? Such as how it must be spent or obligations in return for receiving it?

So? Bring back the work house system? transportation? ( to Tassie again), stocks in the town square, public floggings etc

'Please sir, can I have some more?'

 

[Lebbo73]

We pay less tax than most other OECD countries.

Someone on $8million may pay a tax rate up to 47% but a real tax rate after deductions, family trusts & superannuation payments etc tax may be closer to 25%.

Thats $6million left to spend. Heart breaking really.

Someone on $80k, no smart accountant, no deductions, with 3 kids, wouldnt pay much tax but still would struggle to pay the mortgage, school fees, rates, phone, power bills etc, etc

I think I know who's doing it toughest & still contributing a lot to the nations future

What is heartbreaking about someone paying $2m in tax you greedy socialist. It is not yours. It is his money that you want stolen.

 

[Showbags]

The rich 1% also have a large share of the national income and are given massive subsidies in return for that high level of tax. They also have access to various financial instruments and investment options that the average punter doesn't have access to. The rich at the top have vastly increased their wealth over the last 20 years while the bottom rung of society has seen their wealth stagnate or go backwards.

 

[crackerjack4X4]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-seem-a-bit-rich/story-e6frg9jx-1227239020347

 

[Qsaint]

We pay less tax than most other OECD countries.

Someone on $8million may pay a tax rate up to 47% but a real tax rate after deductions, family trusts & superannuation payments etc tax may be closer to 25%.

Thats $6million left to spend. Heart breaking really.

Someone on $80k, no smart accountant, no deductions, with 3 kids, wouldnt pay much tax but still would struggle to pay the mortgage, school fees, rates, phone, power bills etc, etc

I think I know who's doing it toughest & still contributing a lot to the nations future

This what is wrong with this country, a country of lazy souls who expect things to be handed to them on a platter

 

[Max zero]

Why should there be obligations?

So you just get free money? So if someone proceeds to gamble away their living wage or buys booze and smokes what then? Do we give them more money?

 

[clogged]

So you just get free money? So if someone proceeds to gamble away their living wage or buys booze and smokes what then? Do we give them more money?

Yeah why not?

What is your proposal to deal with a future of intractably high unemployment?

 

[Max zero]

Yeah why not?

What is your proposal to deal with a future of intractably high unemployment?

Is there a limit to this pool of money?

My idea is that there has to be balance. If society owes its citizens a living wage then it's citizens owe something to society.

 

[clogged]

Is there a limit to this pool of money?

As much as everyone can get a basic income.

My idea is that there has to be balance. If society owes its citizens a living wage then it's citizens owe something to society.

Owe what? If society can produce things in abundance without requiring mass human labour, what does the average individual owe?

 

[medusala]

So you just get free money?

The free lunch brigade have long been in large numbers on SRP. NBN thread a classic example.

 

[Max zero]

As much as everyone can get a basic income.


Owe what? If society can produce things in abundance without requiring mass human labour, what does the average individual owe?

Just because a production method may not use mass human labour does not mean it's free.

If there is no one working where is the government going to collect the tax revenue from to pay for the basic wage? Especially if that basic wage has no obligations attached and will simply be supplemented by more free money if wasted?

Wealth without productivity simply leads to inflation. Money only retains its value if linked to productivity.

 

[madmug]

What is heartbreaking about someone paying $2m in tax you greedy socialist. It is not yours. It is his money that you want stolen.

Heartbreaking to pay $2mill in tax!!! Geez what was the gross wage for christmas sake? What was his job?, selling drug?s, or a bank manager ripping money of pensioners?

The rich bastard