Society/Culture The tax system explained in beer

[twotooto]

The only reason I can think of that allows g_c26 to keep starting threads and posting is that his utter horseshit keeps generating the clicks and thus, $$ for this site.

 

[sherb]

The only reason I can think of that allows g_c26 to keep starting threads and posting is that his utter horseshit keeps generating the clicks and thus, $$ for this site.

Chief would be loving it.

 

[Bombermania]

We do have that choice but it would a bad choice. I like to make good choices, that's how my dad became wealthy and how I will increase that wealth even further . I also want to see Australia become wealthy by making a good choices.

The only tax we can possible increase is the GST, however given the relative high costs of living I don't like that option either but it would be the only way to increase tax revenue by any meaningful amount.

Closing various loopholes or subsidies would have the effect of boosting revenue without needing to increase tax rates, ultimately the budget is about priorities.

 

[RupieDupie]

No the easiest thing is to actually just take the dole of them and make life as hard as can be. If they commit a crime than they will suffer the penalty for it.

The left need to understand if you want people to do something good such as invest lost of money and create jobs than you need to offer an incentive such as tax cuts. If you want to stop people from doing something bad you also need to offer deterrent such as taking the dole away from people who don't look for work.

Make life tougher for these people and they will get the message.

Would you suggest penalising the people on the top also, as they do not do any work as well?

 

[Lebbo73]

You said this:
"We have a large government deficit and debt so we have no choice but to reduce expenditure."

That's blatantly untrue, bordering on deliberate lying and misinformation on your part.

Because we still have the choice to address the revenue side. It's just that you don't like the idea.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/5506.0

There’s plenty of revenue and rising. Government spending is out of control.

 

[Carn The Berries]

The exact number would differ by person and circumstance, and the value of money increases and decreases, so why put a figure on it? It is better to have an expression such as "have more money than they can utilise at the expense of other societal members", as this can also be used to give the answer to your following question, a person who owns a house and has seen the prices soar, due to investment in property (through thugs, bullies, greedy pigs, human garbage etc), are not really at fault that their house price is rising and are only being subjected to the vicissitudes (sic) of thuggery, the people might actually want to just live in their house and utilise the property as their home - it's not their fault society is run by disgustingly foul degenerates - and therefore they do not have more asset than they can utilise.

If the person decides to sell their house to move into another they may move from a $1M to a $1M house, and once again this is not their problem that they live in a country ruled over by parasitic scumbags (and the person is still living in a house they utilise, so we are still not talking about a person wanting more than they can utilise at the expense of other people). But once the person thinks "cha-ching" and that they are going to use their first house to get equity on a second dilapidated house, have rent paid / negative gearing so they get the house for free, and then sell this years later to another person expecting that this latter person should work 10x to buy their dilapidated property, this person will "have more money than they can utilise at the expense of other societal members", then I don't have any problem calling them a greedy pig.

How exactly do you define "more money than they can utilise"? Do you believe that these people simply collect all the money they accumulate, put it in a sealed room with a diving board and jump in Scrooge McDuck style? The money actually gets invested, quite often in assets that other people also own (most Australians with super would have exposure to the majority of traditional investment types) and this increase in demand drives the price up, generating gains not only for the individual but for everyone who has an interest in the asset.

I work hard and earn a solid wage. I won't be retiring early and have never generated any wealth "at the expense of other societal members". I'm lucky enough that, through good financial management (and a fair share of luck around GFC time) that I am in a position to purchase my second house. The one I'm renting out could be considered dilapidated. Any money I make from it will go into my super so that I be (hopefully) self funded in retirement and not a drain on public funds. I'll also pay tax on the money I earn and the purchases I make, contributing to the public purse. Guess that just makes me a greedy pig? The reality is there will ALWAYS be people who can't afford to buy houses. If there weren't investors in the property market the responsibility for housing these people would fall solely on the Government. Are you advocating bigger Government (= higher taxes) to deal with that burden?

 

[RupieDupie]

How exactly do you define "more money than they can utilise"? Do you believe that these people simply collect all the money they accumulate, put it in a sealed room with a diving board and jump in Scrooge McDuck style? The money actually gets invested, quite often in assets that other people also own (most Australians with super would have exposure to the majority of traditional investment types) and this increase in demand drives the price up, generating gains not only for the individual but for everyone who has an interest in the asset.

I work hard and earn a solid wage. I won't be retiring early and have never generated any wealth "at the expense of other societal members". I'm lucky enough that, through good financial management (and a fair share of luck around GFC time) that I am in a position to purchase my second house. The one I'm renting out could be considered dilapidated. Any money I make from it will go into my super so that I be (hopefully) self funded in retirement and not a drain on public funds. I'll also pay tax on the money I earn and the purchases I make, contributing to the public purse. Guess that just makes me a greedy pig? The reality is there will ALWAYS be people who can't afford to buy houses. If there weren't investors in the property market the responsibility for housing these people would fall solely on the Government. Are you advocating bigger Government (= higher taxes) to deal with that burden?

I think the definition is pretty much within the statement, but it is also important to add "at the expense of other members of society" (if you don't feel you are doing this latter part...). Say if there is a person who has ~$200M, let's give this person a hypothetical name such as "Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull", they will not be able to utilise this amount of money, they could if they want buy 200 $1M houses, but once again they could not utilise all of these houses. BUT if they bought these 200 $1M houses and the cost of houses for everyone else in their society stays the same, who gives a shit? That is why the last part of the sentence is important, "at the expense of other members of society", that is, if they are buying 200 $1M houses for investment purposes they would want to see the value on all those houses increase with no further work, which means the cost of property for everyone else in society (through no fault of their own) increases. Therefore one person gets 200 houses they cannot utilise and everyone else has to pay X% more on the cost of a house. Now in any reality this would be called greedy, I'm not going to make up any pleb excuse for this, it is greed, categorically. Fact.

I'm definitely not advocating giving the current dickheads in charge any further power, but I would like to see a more responsible government take over where the private industries and open market have failed.

 

[Carn The Berries]

I think the definition is pretty much within the statement, but it is also important to add "at the expense of other members of society" (if you don't feel you are doing this latter part...). Say if there is a person who has ~$200M, let's give this person a hypothetical name such as "Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull", they will not be able to utilise this amount of money, they could if they want buy 200 $1M houses, but once again they could not utilise all of these houses. BUT if they bought these 200 $1M houses and the cost of houses for everyone else in their society stays the same, who gives a shit? That is why the last part of the sentence is important, "at the expense of other members of society", that is, if they are buying 200 $1M houses for investment purposes they would want to see the value on all those houses increase with no further work, which means the cost of property for everyone else in society (through no fault of their own) increases. Therefore one person gets 200 houses they cannot utilise and everyone else has to pay X% more on the cost of a house. Now in any reality this would be called greedy, I'm not going to make up any pleb excuse for this, it is greed, categorically. Fact.

I'm definitely not advocating giving the current dickheads in charge any further power, but I would like to see a more responsible government take over where the private industries and open market have failed.

I refer to my previous point, are you saying that anyone who has more houses than they personally can utilise (i.e. more than one) is a greedy pleb? Your making grandiose statements that speak to your credibility. If you want to have a serious conversation about tax and wealth as they relate to real estate then that is fine, but you aren't helping yourself by implying that anyone who buys an investment property is greedy (for the reasons I have already outlined).

We get it, you have a problem with people who you perceive as having excessive wealth (though you can only provide an obtuse definition of who those people are).

Always happy to have a constructive debate about the merits of various policy measures, but you're just coming across as petulant and jealous by continuing down the path you're currently on.

 

[RupieDupie]

I think the definition is pretty much within the statement, but it is also important to add "at the expense of other members of society" (if you don't feel you are doing this latter part...). Say if there is a person who has ~$200M, let's give this person a hypothetical name such as "Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull", they will not be able to utilise this amount of money, they could if they want buy 200 $1M houses, but once again they could not utilise all of these houses. BUT if they bought these 200 $1M houses and the cost of houses for everyone else in their society stays the same, who gives a shit? That is why the last part of the sentence is important, "at the expense of other members of society", that is, if they are buying 200 $1M houses for investment purposes they would want to see the value on all those houses increase with no further work, which means the cost of property for everyone else in society (through no fault of their own) increases. Therefore one person gets 200 houses they cannot utilise and everyone else has to pay X% more on the cost of a house. Now in any reality this would be called greedy, I'm not going to make up any pleb excuse for this, it is greed, categorically. Fact.

I'm definitely not advocating giving the current dickheads in charge any further power, but I would like to see a more responsible government take over where the private industries and open market have failed.

...and additionally to this the many median income Australians who have come and are coming into an obscenely priced housing market, may not ever be able to afford a house, so when they retire, through no fault of their own, a much larger proportion of pensioners will need help paying rent on top of the usual costs of living expenditures. If only they could afford housing when it mattered, if only there were a government to govern...

...bonus additional! Say if an ~median income Australian wants to buy some computer hardware, even though some data companies have hundreds of thousands of cores, there still are affordable products available, because in the smart hardware industry they figured out that their commodity is reproducible and can therefore build more hardware to meet demand.

In the car industry, even though some people collect cars there are still cars available for an ~median income Australians to buy, they might not be able to afford a Dino ferrari but they can still find an affordable vehicle, this is because in the smart car industry they figured out that their commodity is reproducible and can therefore build more cars to meet demand.

Yet in the ~6.8 trillion dollar housing industry in Australia if an ~median income Australian wants to buy a house they cannot do so, because this dumb multi-trillion dollar industry has not figured out how to build houses to meet demand, and therefore the current crop of scumbag, for example, nurses, teachers, soldiers, police etc in Australia, who need housing, are prevented from buying a product from this industry.

 

[RupieDupie]

I refer to my previous point, are you saying that anyone who has more houses than they personally can utilise (i.e. more than one) is a greedy pleb? Your making grandiose statements that speak to your credibility. If you want to have a serious conversation about tax and wealth as they relate to real estate then that is fine, but you aren't helping yourself by implying that anyone who buys an investment property is greedy (for the reasons I have already outlined).

We get it, you have a problem with people who you perceive as having excessive wealth (though you can only provide an obtuse definition of who those people are).

Always happy to have a constructive debate about the merits of various policy measures, but you're just coming across as petulant and jealous by continuing down the path you're currently on.

So Malcolm Turnbull doesn't have ~$200M? Am I being unreasonable in suggesting that a person with this amount of wealth, at the expense of other people in his own society, is not greedy?

 

[Carn The Berries]

So Malcolm Turnbull doesn't have ~$200M? Am I being unreasonable in suggesting that a person with this amount of wealth, at the expense of other people in his own society, is not greedy?

Your conflating 2 different arguments (and conveniently missing the point I was making). By your definition anyone who owns more than one house is greedy, I disagree. To try and prove that the example you used was irrelevant because it is hypothetical. I don't know what Turnbull's net wealth is, it may be significantly more than the $200m you make reference to for all I know. Regardless of what MT's total wealth is it is highly unlikely that his entire wealth is invested in property and even less likely that if it is that it is invested in such a large number of residences.

You didn't just accuse him of being greedy (albeit by using a made up proposition) - you accused everyone who has an investment property of being greedy.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

No, but if they earn 80% of all money earned and only pay 52% of the tax you'd say they're not paying their way or their share.

Let's face it, taxation is the price paid for living in a civilized society. I don't agree with some of the junk our governments seem to piss money away on (Workplace Gender Equality Agency for example) but I'd rather live where I do and pay the tax that I pay compared to what many around the world have to deal with.

Great way to go about running a successful economy, punish people for being successful.

 

[Carn The Berries]

So Malcolm Turnbull doesn't have ~$200M? Am I being unreasonable in suggesting that a person with this amount of wealth, at the expense of other people in his own society, is not greedy?

Your conflating 2 different arguments (and conveniently missing the point I was making). By your definition anyone who owns more than one house is greedy, I disagree. To try and prove that the example you used was irrelevant because it is hypothetical. I don't know what Turnbull's net wealth is, it may be significantly more than the $200m you make reference to for all I know. Regardless of what MT's total wealth is it is highly unlikely that his entire wealth is invested in property and even less likely that if it is that it is invested in such a large number of residences.

You didn't just accuse him of being greedy (albeit by using a made up proposition) - you accused everyone who has an investment property of being greedy.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

The government could increase any tax they want to. This is such a BS statement.

Yes it can but that would have very bad consequences.

Increasing taxes will just lead to lower wages, job loss and higher costs of living.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

I'm going to assume we have differing views on big government. I think the level of government we see now in Australia and most European countries is roughly about right, give or take.

One thing I think everyone can agree on is it would be nice to cut down on government wastage.

This is so far from the truth it's not funny.

There are barely any strings attached to the dole now and there is hardly an "explosion" of younger people on the dole. The unemployment rate has hovered around 5-6% for the last 20 years with the only significant change just after the GFC.

Very few people actually want to be on the dole. Living on the dole is a nightmare for most people. Most of those who go on to the dole are off it within six months and roughly three quarters within a year. These are people who are looking for work.

The rest are what you would typically call "dole bludgers" who are long term dole recipients and the main targets of "work for the dole". But this is such a small percentage of society it's not even worth worrying about. It compromises about 1 to 1.5 of the overall population. Some people have made a decision to check out of society, either through choice or because life has thrown them a ton of problems they just can't overcome.

Your point about understanding that if you go on the dole you have to look for work is moot. This is already a thing. I don't know how strigintely it's enforced.

Better of putting more resources into finding work for those on newstart who genuinely want to work, and for those don't ensure they have what they need to survive.

Government of either side will always be wasteful, the incentive to be efficient is simply not there like it is in the private sector.

Why cant Dole bludgers simply look for work and if they decide not to have it taken away from them?

I don't understand your logic, we are not talking about people who are intellectually disabled who would be on the disability pension.

Not all have it tough on the dole, obviously many do but some especially younger people are living with their parents and have very little costs.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

If you really want to help balance the government's books a Universal Basic Income to replace the majority of the current welfare system is the best way forward.

Provided the difference between taxes raised and welfare paid out remained the same, then the financials are in the same position then there is plenty of money to be saved by cutting out the bureaucracy of managing the welfare system.

The obvious retort is won't it discourage people from working but the UBI would be pretty much roughly equivalent to newstart. Once again - very few people want to live on $270 a week.

It would increase taxes (which is heart attack materials for most) but it's almost all circular tax anyway.

Number of problems the first that comes to mind is that you are paying everyone to do nothing so it is very bad for productivity and will lead to inflation.

To improve our quality of life we need productivity to increase and this is extremely counter-productive to doing so.

 

[Bombermania]

Yet in the ~6.8 trillion dollar housing industry in Australia if an ~median income Australian wants to buy a house they cannot do so, because this dumb multi-trillion dollar industry has not figured out how to build houses to meet demand, and therefore the current crop of scumbag, for example, nurses, teachers, soldiers, police etc in Australia, who need housing, are prevented from buying a product from this industry.

Not sure if the housing industry is that large, that value seems to be the total value of Australian property rather than an industry value, there isn't any confusion on how to increase supply to meet demand, town planning involved a range of local and state government planning regulations, processes and plans which impact on property development, ironically many of the people that want more affordable housing are also the same people that oppose development applications regardless on the merits of the purposed development.

 

[11sjw]

Great way to go about running a successful economy, punish people for being successful.

How is it punishing to pay X% of the total tax take if you earn X% of the total income. Is that not equality?

 

[RupieDupie]

Your conflating 2 different arguments (and conveniently missing the point I was making). By your definition anyone who owns more than one house is greedy, I disagree. To try and prove that the example you used was irrelevant because it is hypothetical. I don't know what Turnbull's net wealth is, it may be significantly more than the $200m you make reference to for all I know. Regardless of what MT's total wealth is it is highly unlikely that his entire wealth is invested in property and even less likely that if it is that it is invested in such a large number of residences.

You didn't just accuse him of being greedy (albeit by using a made up proposition) - you accused everyone who has an investment property of being greedy.

Yes but when does it become absurd, after three houses, four houses? At least you’re admitting it is absurd, that is a step in the right direction.

I’ve always stated “...at the expense of other members of society” you can’t discard this part of the sentence. If you feel people who own an investment property’s goal is to increase the price of property at the expense of other members of their society then why isn’t this not greedy? Why not invest in something that isn’t essential?

 

[Bombermania]

Number of problems the first that comes to mind is that you are paying everyone to do nothing so it is very bad for productivity and will lead to inflation.

To improve our quality of life we need productivity to increase and this is extremely counter-productive to doing so.

Not necessarily the case nor would it be a bad thing, central banks have spent most of the last decade running QE programs hoping to increase inflation, then a UBI might actually active that objective, extra inflation would allow central banks to reach their inflation targets.

 

[RupieDupie]

Not sure if the housing industry is that large, that value seems to be the total value of Australian property rather than an industry value, there isn't any confusion on how to increase supply to meet demand, town planning involved a range of local and state government planning regulations, processes and plans which impact on property development, ironically many of the people that want more affordable housing are also the same people that oppose development applications regardless on the merits of the purposed development.

The reason why they don’t is obvious, housing is an investment, the Australian Gubmint need to protect their own.

 

[Bombermania]

The reason why they don’t is obvious, housing is an investment, the Australian Gubmint need to protect their own.

Governments are not blocking housing development, the Victorian government has a short and long term plan but it needs to go through a planning process which involved the public that often opposes development.

 

[11sjw]

The reason why they don’t is obvious, housing is an investment, the Australian Gubmint need to protect their own.

or the government take the investment component out of it and shoulder 100% of the housing burden for those that can't afford or choose not to own a home. Watch the taxes go up.

 

[RupieDupie]

or the government take the investment component out of it and shoulder 100% of the housing burden for those that can't afford or choose not to own a home. Watch the taxes go up.

See, this is what I don't understand, "can't afford a home" - are they made from diamond? Does a house worth $35K in the 50s need to be worth $2.8M now?

 

[RupieDupie]

Governments are not blocking housing development, the Victorian government has a short and long term plan but it needs to go through a planning process which involved the public that often opposes development.

Nah, I can guarantee you the ministers who can only get through life on ~$200M are not thinking to themselves "Oh I better make housing affordable". If this crisis were a war the other guys would have taken over the country 70 times over.