The Greens

Remove this Banner Ad

Kwality

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2011
39,042
14,622
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
Wealth is just saved/residual income. ie at some point it is income. ie at some point it can be caught by income tax provisions.

I'd say wealth is your assets (net) at any point in time, e.g real estate increases & inflation, aka non cash items.
Investments (shares, property, art,gold,cars) held rather than traded.

Income is usually cash or benefits.

It is not unusual to see headlines claiming a billionaire made or lost $zillions based on the value of shares or minerals rising or falling without a dollar changing hands, aka notional gain/loss.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
20,283
21,905
AFL Club
Sydney
Good luck getting that to hold up when the tax is seeking to do something that has never been done before. Does that mean every person who is no longer a resident is avoiding tax if they move (given their global wealth could be taxed)?

For the 500th time...It is not just residence but source that can lead to taxation.
If the purpose is to avoid tax, you will get caught by Part IVA.


Is every person changing their residence beause they want to avoid tax or because they're changing their residence for some other reason?
Residency for tax purposes isn't the same as citizenship.
For Australian tax purposes you can only be a resident of one tax jurisdiction.

An increasing amount of Part IVA is agreements between countries that is aimed at stopping people from avoiding tax.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
20,283
21,905
AFL Club
Sydney
we should definitely have wealth taxes though

most of the wealth is inter generational and never gets taxed when the assets are transferred

not to mention how easy it is for the billionarres to acquire assets as replacement for income

Deffo.

They are just difficult to enforce and/or very unpopular.
One obvious way of taxing intergenerational wealth is to remove the date limit from Capital Gains. ie make everything subject to CGT, not just those things after September 1985
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Carn The Berries

Club Legend
Sep 16, 2008
1,020
953
Perth
AFL Club
Melbourne
For the 500th time...It is not just residence but source that can lead to taxation.
If the purpose is to avoid tax, you will get caught by Part IVA.


Is every person changing their residence beause they want to avoid tax or because they're changing their residence for some other reason?
Residency for tax purposes isn't the same as citizenship.
For Australian tax purposes you can only be a resident of one tax jurisdiction.

An increasing amount of Part IVA is agreements between countries that is aimed at stopping people from avoiding tax.
For the 1,000th time foreign sourced income has been assessable in Australia for decades (once DTAs are accounted for). My contention is that trying to tax GLOBAL WEALTH is completely un-tested and I would be very surprised if the Part IVA conditions were applicable to a tax such as this (because of the point I made earlier that anyone who moved countries could be accused of moving to avoid having THEIR ENTIRE GLOBAL WEALTH (not income) taxed in Australia).

Your taking current law and trying to apply it to a brand new method of taxation. I don't think its that straight forward.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
20,283
21,905
AFL Club
Sydney
It is not unusual to see headlines claiming a billionaire made or lost $zillions based on the value of shares or minerals rising or falling without a dollar changing hands, aka notional gain/loss.


Most billionaires wealth is in shares or trusts...you can't pass losses from a company to an individual. ie the losses in share value have already been accounted for by the company.
The other issue is valuation. You would have to set up something like accounting standards for individuals in order to have some sort of framework to value things. That would be a nightmare.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
20,283
21,905
AFL Club
Sydney
For the 1,000th time foreign sourced income has been assessable in Australia for decades (once DTAs are accounted for). My contention is that trying to tax GLOBAL WEALTH is completely un-tested and I would be very surprised if the Part IVA conditions were applicable to a tax such as this (because of the point I made earlier that anyone who moved countries could be accused of moving to avoid having THEIR ENTIRE GLOBAL WEALTH (not income) taxed in Australia).

Your taking current law and trying to apply it to a brand new method of taxation. I don't think its that straight forward.

For the 501th time. Residency and source are 2 different & separate things.
Just because you change your residency doesn't mean that you have changed source.
You would have to move BOTH residency and source.
My $25bn in wealth is now also Guatamalan because I am now a Guatemalan resident for tax purposes isn't how it works.
 

Gralin

Super Moderator
Apr 8, 2010
49,664
71,131
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Buffalo Bills
Problem I see with that is double taxation. Or are we setting a limit where there will be a tax-free threshold?

If I've already paid tax on $15,000. Why do I need to pay tax again on it to give it to someone else?
That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about things like, the proposed Greens billionaires tax which is a tax against the net wealth of the billionaire, not their declared income for the year

also things like death taxes, if Rupert dies and his kids inherit billions in assets for free.......

I'd say wealth is your assets (net) at any point in time, e.g real estate increases & inflation, aka non cash items.
Investments (shares, property, art,gold,cars) held rather than traded.

Income is usually cash or benefits.

It is not unusual to see headlines claiming a billionaire made or lost $zillions based on the value of shares or minerals rising or falling without a dollar changing hands, aka notional gain/loss.
they do however use that unrealised value as assets for loans and other purposes, they get a lot more value out of their assets than most people can

Deffo.

They are just difficult to enforce and/or very unpopular.
One obvious way of taxing intergenerational wealth is to remove the date limit from Capital Gains. ie make everything subject to CGT, not just those things after September 1985
yes there is a lot of stuff grandfathered in that shouldn't be, that stuff bakes inequalities into the system, on purpose of course
 

Maggie5

Moderator
Apr 3, 2010
46,479
53,124
Victoria
AFL Club
Collingwood
For the 1,000th time foreign sourced income has been assessable in Australia for decades (once DTAs are accounted for). My contention is that trying to tax GLOBAL WEALTH is completely un-tested and I would be very surprised if the Part IVA conditions were applicable to a tax such as this (because of the point I made earlier that anyone who moved countries could be accused of moving to avoid having THEIR ENTIRE GLOBAL WEALTH (not income) taxed in Australia).

Your taking current law and trying to apply it to a brand new method of taxation. I don't think its that straight forward.
What are you thinking of as global wealth?

 
Last edited:

Tyberious Funk

Club Legend
May 13, 2005
2,716
2,740
Melbourne
AFL Club
West Coast
I quoted your words & asked if you can support that claim. You have chosen not too, fine.

You didn't quote my words... you quoted someone else, but it's probably moot.

You were challenging the assertion that free university previously 'worked'... and I simply pointed out that it depends what you mean by 'work'.

Were we able to previously provide free university without our budget collapsing and all chaos breaking loose? Yes. So in that sense... it 'worked'.
And it 'worked' in other countries around the world.

Or are you looking for another definition?


Giving a kid a degree simply takes them closer to the day an employer needs to decide if they are who they claim to be, & whether they can earn the money they think the degree entitles them to be. Most clear that obstacle, some stumble.


Bit like a truck driver, the licence is the easy bit.

I'm really not sure I understand what this means?

A population that is well educated is generally more productive. Productivity is an important driver of economic growth.
 

Maggie5

Moderator
Apr 3, 2010
46,479
53,124
Victoria
AFL Club
Collingwood
It won't be the ALP you can bank that.
Maybe not this term if they get in but if they can do a good job, I believe they will attack it in a second term if there is one.

Needs to be addressed without favouring one side. Big job I know.

Negative gearing was a good one but LNP put paid to that with scaremongering.
 

Kwality

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2011
39,042
14,622
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
You didn't quote my words... you quoted someone else, but it's probably moot.

You were challenging the assertion that free university previously 'worked'... and I simply pointed out that it depends what you mean by 'work'.

Were we able to previously provide free university without our budget collapsing and all chaos breaking loose? Yes. So in that sense... it 'worked'.
And it 'worked' in other countries around the world.

Or are you looking for another definition?




I'm really not sure I understand what this means?

A population that is well educated is generally more productive. Productivity is an important driver of economic growth.

Lots of motherhood claims, e.g 'A population that is well educated is generally more productive'
No facts to support free university for all who want.

That you dont understand the analogy of a truck driver & a licence, with a kid & a piece of paper, as a claim to fame suggests you & I live in a different world.
 

Kwality

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2011
39,042
14,622
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
they do however use that unrealised value as assets for loans and other purposes, they get a lot more value out of their assets than most people can

Yes they do.
Remembering that you need to delve a little deeper to understand if its a house of cards, smoke & mirrors, too big to fail ...

Remember Lex Greensill:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Forward Press

Hall of Famer
Jul 5, 2011
36,505
54,385
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Man Utd
At the end of election night, it looks like:

  • Greens have a 12% primary vote
  • Pick up Brisbane, Griffith and Ryan to make 4 House of Representatives seats (and possibly wield balance of power in the House)
  • Pick up 6 Senate seats (1 in each state) to also possibly wield the balance of power in the Senate

They have done a great job.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad