Spineless wonder

[Leper]

I dare say what they would receive on the dole would be less than half on average of what they earn in the PS.

I'll give you that one Medders. In fact it's probably 25% if you include the on costs, like rental of the buildings and so on.

I also like someone else's suggestion of cutting out state governments.

Could throw in things like Abstudy, but couldn't be bothered winding up Crocman (who incidently, hasn't been around for a while).

 

[Pessimistic]

I dare say what they would receive on the dole would be less than half on average of what they earn in the PS.

Then you could make them 'work for the dole' and they are public servants again, just earning a fraction of their wages.

Is that what you want, a general lowering of wages around the place ?


How woulsd it be if a private firm sacked a few thousand workers then rung up the local ces and said they had some work for 'work for the dole' people. Is that OK too ?

 

[demon_dave]

I can't get over the fact that med called him a spineless wonder, finally seeing the forest???

 

[Rookie]

are you capable of ever producing some logic??

The top rate of tax could be lowered to 30% just by reversing the Howard spending decisions of the last term. It wouldnt even be necessary to touch the wider health and education budget. However, while we are at it, there is no reason that health and education spending shouldnt be cut/ revenue from them increased. Average income earners should pay to go to the doctor and should pay far more for prescription drugs. Massive savings from those two and wouldnt affect the lowest income earners. Arts students for one should pay far closers to the full cost of their degrees via HECS as should lawyers. This would enable hecs to be reduced for graduates we actually need like engineers, scientists, doctors etc and provide additional revenue to cut tax with.

In addition 200k plus public servants could be sacked without any noticeable drop in output.

Thus it would be extremely easy to get to a top rate of tax of 30%. If Howard really had some courage he could make the first $15k tax free to help stop poverty traps, eliminate all middle class welfare, have the top rate at 30% and eliminate CGT. Its actually quite feasible.

As for defence spending, the F111's are decades old, we have something like a dozen ships to defend our coastline, we dont even have an aircraft carrier and much of our equipment is substandard. We need to spend a huge amount more on our armed forces not less.

However I see you have been to the Bob Brown school of misology so making sense is a bit beyond you.

Good post there. Many, many public servants could be set free very easily IMO, and the rest of what you said is fair.

I wouldn't be cutting funding for pescription drugs though. Cut welfare for sure though.

 

[mantis]

Good post there. Many, many public servants could be set free very easily IMO, and the rest of what you said is fair.

I wouldn't be cutting funding for pescription drugs though. Cut welfare for sure though.

Of course you wouldn't, because that would affect the rich as well yes cut funding to welfare let's face it, giving money to the poor is waste of tax payers money, better use that money to give the rich tax cuts.

 

[Frodo]

The 30% rate is actualy 31.5% with medicare levy and cuts out at $58,000

What Liberals are doing is raising the level again from July 1st to alleviate some of the very high burden that is on middle Australia.

With the exception of government workers the higher paid will generally pay a maximum of 30% in tax as their income will go through a company or a trust.

From my own perspective my personal tax rate will be araound 14% for this year and so will be that of my wife. And we would both be considered high earners. A fundemental aim in wealth creation is to reduce taxation to a minimum.

Reality is that elections are won by parties who best satisfy the middle income earners and these policies are a step in the right direction.

The other important moves are removing the super guarantee levy (it stifles savings) and reducing FBT to at least 30% so that employers can give rewards to those on less that the top marginal rate without being penalised. For example paying for private medical insurance. Currently the employer would have to pay 48.5% FBT for a employees med insurance even though their marginal rate may be 17 or 30%, so it becomes not worth doing.

 

[Frodo]

Of course you wouldn't, because that would affect the rich as well yes cut funding to welfare let's face it, giving money to the poor is waste of tax payers money, better use that money to give the rich tax cuts.

Can you please define "the rich"

I think you mean the middle income earners who are the major tax contributors and significantly pay for the funding to welfare, as opposed to the 'real wealthy' who pay no more than 30% and often much less.
Do you think that these middle income earners should be penalised so unfairly?

 

[demon_dave]

Can you please define "the rich"

I think you mean the middle income earners who are the major tax contributors and significantly pay for the funding to welfare, as opposed to the 'real wealthy' who pay no more than 30% and often much less.
Do you think that these middle income earners should be penalised so unfairly?

anyone except the rodent and his mates

 

[mantis]

Can you please define "the rich"

I think you mean the middle income earners who are the major tax contributors and significantly pay for the funding to welfare, as opposed to the 'real wealthy' who pay no more than 30% and often much less.
Do you think that these middle income earners should be penalised so unfairly?

No I am talking about people like you, the poor bastards that have to pay over a million in tax, because they make so much, or are you saying that you were lying about what you pay in tax, because you rort the system

 

[Frodo]

No I am talking about people like you, the poor bastards that have to pay over a million in tax, because they make so much, or are you saying that you were lying about what you pay in tax, because you rort the system

I pay very little in tax. My companies pay a significant amount at 30%, which is imputed. I do not rort the system but I do take full advantage of what is legally available to reduce tax.
And I don't, knowingly, lie (except horizontally)

Now if you can come up with a better tax system please put it forth...and I'd still like to hear your definition of "the rich", because your post was about proposed tax cuts to middle income earners and not the likes of me.

 

[mantis]

OK tomorrow I am searching where you said you pay over a million in tax, if I remember correctly the figure was closer to 2 million.

 

[Frodo]

OK tomorrow I am searching where you said you pay over a million in tax, if I remember correctly the figure was closer to 2 million.

A bit futile really because whether it's personal tax or company tax "I pay it"

 

[mantis]

I pay very little in tax. My companies pay a significant amount at 30%, which is imputed. I do not rort the system but I do take full advantage of what is legally available to reduce tax.
And I don't, knowingly, lie (except horizontally)

Now if you can come up with a better tax system please put it forth...and I'd still like to hear your definition of "the rich", because your post was about proposed tax cuts to middle income earners and not the likes of me.

Show where I said that, never said middle income earners, by the way, I pay 30% tax, even though I am in the low income bracket.

Going what you are saying, you & I pay the same percentage of tax, that seems fair, seeing as you earn over 100 times my wage

 

[Frodo]

Show where I said that, never said middle income earners, by the way, I pay 30% tax, even though I am in the low income bracket.

Going what you are saying, you & I pay the same percentage of tax, that seems fair, seeing as you earn over 100 times my wage

No, I pay less personal tax than you. I don't reach the 30% bracket. But you can do the same. Just take $21,600 and salary sacrifice the rest to super.

But why do you think that some people should pay more tax than others when we all get the same services? The Robin Hood system is great as long as you are a recipient rather than the 'robbed'.

 

[- PC -]

No, I pay less personal tax than you. I don't reach the 30% bracket. But you can do the same. Just take $21,600 and salary sacrifice the rest to super.

.

Do you then use the ''company ''credit card to top up that $21,600? Because I dont think that amount would go far in these times.

I am not asking to pry into your financials..just interested in your comments in regards to trusts and company rorts which I believe impact on the middle income earners by creating a false tax level IMO

 

[Frodo]

Do you then use the ''company ''credit card to top up that $21,600? Because I dont think that amount would go far in these times.

I am not asking to pry into your financials..just interested in your comments in regards to trusts and company rorts which I believe impact on the middle income earners by creating a false tax level IMO

NOPE...no such subterfuge. No rorts either. I am paid $21,6000, I pay up to the SGL to my super fund. I pay $1000 after tax to my super and receive $1500 from government as a result. The rest stays in my companies which pay 30% on profits, which end up as imputed credits. Simple and honest.

You are quite correct in your assumption that my tax rate is well below most middle income earners. I too believe that this is unfair, but our taxation/government system leaves this as a natural way. The goal is the swinging voter. But recognize this, if the system was changed to penalize the wealthy then funds would just go offshore. Result would be less income for any government, liberal or Labour.

 

[Mossie]

N The goal is the swinging voter. .

Bunney can,t do it alone

 

[medusala]

Do you then use the ''company ''credit card to top up that $21,600? Because I dont think that amount would go far in these times.

I am not asking to pry into your financials..just interested in your comments in regards to trusts and company rorts which I believe impact on the middle income earners by creating a false tax level IMO

The advantages of trusts and companies has been steadily eroded. The ATO looks very poorly at loans between shareholders and companies, thin capitalisation rules have been tightened, FBT has also eliminated many benefits, etc etc. Likewise the rules on trusts are quite strict now.

You are barking up the wrong tree re rorting the tax system. The real rorters are those who simply dont declare tax at all rather than try to minimise it. In the case of the rich this involves offshore accounts and in the case of the less well off it involves cash transactions.

 

[Bombers 2003]

I pay very little in tax. My companies pay a significant amount at 30%, which is imputed. I do not rort the system but I do take full advantage of what is legally available to reduce tax.

Ah,A tax cheat and a fraud.Good one Frodomir.

 

[Qsaint]

The advantages of trusts and companies has been steadily eroded. The ATO looks very poorly at loans between shareholders and companies, thin capitalisation rules have been tightened, FBT has also eliminated many benefits, etc etc. Likewise the rules on trusts are quite strict now.

You are barking up the wrong tree re rorting the tax system. The real rorters are those who simply dont declare tax at all rather than try to minimise it. In the case of the rich this involves offshore accounts and in the case of the less well off it involves cash transactions.

Yes but a trust can still own shares in a company and then destribute to another company to be used as an investment vehicle. As long as you don't need the money the tax rate that most people pay in Business is 30%

The answer in my view is to make the Company rate the same as The top MTR, increase GST and maybe reduce some deductions. The amount of money that is spent minimising tax to 30% is a drain on the economy

 

[medusala]

Yes but a trust can still own shares in a company and then destribute to another company to be used as an investment vehicle. As long as you don't need the money the tax rate that most people pay in Business is 30%

The answer in my view is to make the Company rate the same as The top MTR, increase GST and maybe reduce some deductions. The amount of money that is spent minimising tax to 30% is a drain on the economy

You are talking sense and the vast majority of people on both sides of parliament know that it is mindless stupidity not to have both rates in line. The GST doesnt have to go up at all. All Howard needs to do is a couple of very simple things like bring back indexation to fuel, eliminate a bit of middle class welfare and basically roll back his idiotic spending increases of the last term.

I can imagine the boards of the big accounting firms must love all the cash they rake in from the anomaly.