Society/Culture The Taxation system is unfair on high income earners

[Scotland]

Im all for small government but rich people have never had it so good in history. So paying a bit extra taxes is a small price to pay.

I reckon the rich had it best when they could just go out and buy other people.

 

[HairyO]

I reckon the rich had it best when they could just go out and buy other people.

Nah. They could die from easily preventable diseases and couldnt just hop on a plane and be on a tropical island resort 7 hours later.

And you can still buy people now.

 

[Scotland]

FYI in Sydney, businessman Dick Smith is launching his $1m advertising campaign calling for a cut to immigration and an increase in tax on the rich.
He says it’s totally ridiculous that there are no inheritance taxes and that billionaires can pass every cent on to their children.
Smith also says Australia cannot sustain a larger population and he said Australia needs to cut immigration as our birth rate will ensure the population is replaced.

Seems fair enough.

Yes and no.

Yes to cutting immigration. We as a nation should have a stable population target. Want to be a world leader in sustainability? Start there.

No to 'tax the rich more'. Yes to tax the rich smarter. If you earn $1m then contributing $300-400k of it is more than enough. There's no point legislating that should be $500k when the people who are meant to be contributing $300-400k aren't even doing that.

Maybe to inheritance taxes. Remember that inherited wealth has already been taxed. If I save $1m then I've really saved $1.8m because 45c in the dollar has already gone to the ATO. If I die and give that $1m to someone else, why should the ATO get $450k of that? Inheritance taxation needs to be smarter than 'ooh money gimme'.

 

[pugsville]

Maybe to inheritance taxes. Remember that inherited wealth has already been taxed. If I save $1m then I've really saved $1.8m because 45c in the dollar has already gone to the ATO. If I die and give that $1m to someone else, why should the ATO get $450k of that? Inheritance taxation needs to be smarter than 'ooh money gimme'.

Rash assumption given the wide spread nature of tax avoidance in this country.

 

[Mofra]

No to 'tax the rich more'. Yes to tax the rich smarter. If you earn $1m then contributing $300-400k of it is more than enough. There's no point legislating that should be $500k when the people who are meant to be contributing $300-400k aren't even doing that.

Maybe to inheritance taxes. Remember that inherited wealth has already been taxed. If I save $1m then I've really saved $1.8m because 45c in the dollar has already gone to the ATO. If I die and give that $1m to someone else, why should the ATO get $450k of that? Inheritance taxation needs to be smarter than 'ooh money gimme'.

That's a very generous leap of faith to suggest anyone earning $1m in income is paying the full rate of tax with minimal deductions, even if they aren't filtering and income splitting through trusts and holding companies.

 

[Scotland]

Rash assumption given the wide spread nature of tax avoidance in this country.

That's a very generous leap of faith to suggest anyone earning $1m in income is paying the full rate of tax with minimal deductions, even if they aren't filtering and income splitting through trusts and holding companies.

I said this:

Yes to tax the rich smarter.

and this:

If you earn $1m then contributing $300-400k of it is more than enough. There's no point legislating that should be $500k when the people who are meant to be contributing $300-400k aren't even doing that.

Was I too subtle?

People's solution to 'taxing the rich' is always to hike tax rates - but tax rates aren't the problem.

 

[pugsville]

Was I too subtle?

People's solution to 'taxing the rich' is always to hike tax rates - but tax rates aren't the problem.

you still said the money had been taxed once which implies a faith in the taxation system. I not in favour of an inheritance tax in general. Fixing the tax system has been my consist line. negative gearing, superannuation, profit shifting, trusts.

 

[Scotland]

you still said the money had been taxed once which implies a faith in the taxation system. I not in favour of an inheritance tax in general. Fixing the tax system has been my consist line. negative gearing, superannuation, profit shifting, trusts.

Income is taxed. Sure if you actually earn $1m chances are that half of it or more never sees the taxable income light of day, but you don't get to accumulate cash in the bank that hasn't been taxed.

 

[pugsville]

Income is taxed. Sure if you actually earn $1m chances are that half of it or more never sees the taxable income light of day, but you don't get to accumulate cash in the bank that hasn't been taxed.

Really? There are many ways of deducting from you taxable income. negative gearing, super and some people with very high incomes pay no tax at all. Do you not follow any of the tax debate?

quite a few very high incomer earners and highly profitable companies pay little or no tax.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...t-even-the-medicare-levy-20170419-gvnkxh.html
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...Post/2015/April/Millionaires-who-dont-pay-tax
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-22/ato-30pc-of-large-private-companies-pay-no-tax/7266454

Australia is a relatively low tax country.
27.8% of GDP compared with 34.3% is the OECD average. 29th out of 34.

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=REV

 

[Scotland]

Why are you telling me what I already know?

I'm not arguing that taxable incomes aren't reduced.

 

[pugsville]

Income is taxed. Sure if you actually earn $1m chances are that half of it or more never sees the taxable income light of day, but you don't get to accumulate cash in the bank that hasn't been taxed.

Because you said this.

 

[Scotland]

"Sure if you actually earn $1m chances are that half of it or more never sees the taxable income light of day".

 

[pugsville]

"Sure if you actually earn $1m chances are that half of it or more never sees the taxable income light of day".

Lets be clear here you said.

Income is taxed. Sure if you actually earn $1m chances are that half of it or more never sees the taxable income light of day, but you don't get to accumulate cash in the bank that hasn't been taxed.

And the I provided a link were the taxation office said 75 individuals will over 1 million dollar income, average 2.4 million income, paid no tax what so ever.

thats 2.4 million on average coming in , not a cent of tax paid.

These people DO get to accumulate cash in the bank that has not been taxed. It's been offset by deductions which many very very generous ones except in the taxation system.

 

[madmug]

Lets be clear here you said.



And the I provided a link were the taxation office said 75 individuals will over 1 million dollar income, average 2.4 million income, paid no tax what so ever.

thats 2.4 million on average coming in , not a cent of tax paid.

These people DO get to accumulate cash in the bank that has not been taxed. It's been offset by deductions which many very very generous ones except in the taxation system.

Income splitting, Trusts, buying into asset growth investments with limited or zero income components are used by those with the money to do such things. The simple PAYE taxpayer is stuffed. Remember that currently wages aren't growing but the assets of some are doing very nicely thank you. Deductions & unearned income needs to be limited so that it is a level playing field along with earned income streams.

Overall, aiming to get people off welfare & into meaningful work is a sound idea. If we dont, then who is going to pay for necessary infrastructure building? Defence? Education? Health? Aged & disability pensions?. So some mantra about cutting tax is meaningless if you dont consider what the country needs to spend money on & how it gets paid for.

The 'wealthy' get far more out of living in our society than many of them put in. They need to pay their fair share.

 

[pugsville]

Overall, aiming to get people off welfare & into meaningful work is a sound idea. If we dont, then who is going to pay for necessary infrastructure building? Defence? Education? Health? Aged & disability pensions?. So some mantra about cutting tax is meaningless if you dont consider what the country needs to spend money on & how it gets paid for.

And I would point out thats hardly a new concept. Many many people in many different countries in different political parties have tried many different solutions. It's not working. You really think some political leader is going to magically find a policy that will make a whole bunch of productive meaningful jobs appear. That the decades of failiure isn't a repeating pattern that will go one for ever?

The Idea that unemployment is going be magically fixed and disappear tomorrow is not new. But it's denial of basic reality. Robots/Computers are going continue to take more jobs. It's not nesscarily a bad thing, a more productive society is making us richer as a society. Just the increase in wealth is gong into fewer hands. Wages are stagnant, and full time work is decreasing. There's actually a lot of crap jobs now, where society would be better off if they were not done.

It's time to wake up and actually adapt society and the economy to the reality of work and the future of work. To actually innovate and embrace the future. But oh no there's still votes in bashing dole bludgers and welfare fraud.

if you frame the problem wrong , you never solve the problem.

The change in work is a crisis but it's also a great opportunity but here we are with all our leaders still on the jobs, growth mantra which is just the endless re-run of failed policies.

 

[madmug]

And I would point out thats hardly a new concept. Many many people in many different countries in different political parties have tried many different solutions. It's not working. You really think some political leader is going to magically find a policy that will make a whole bunch of productive meaningful jobs appear. That the decades of failiure isn't a repeating pattern that will go one for ever?

The Idea that unemployment is going be magically fixed and disappear tomorrow is not new. But it's denial of basic reality. Robots/Computers are going continue to take more jobs. It's not nesscarily a bad thing, a more productive society is making us richer as a society. Just the increase in wealth is gong into fewer hands. Wages are stagnant, and full time work is decreasing. There's actually a lot of crap jobs now, where society would be better off if they were not done.

It's time to wake up and actually adapt society and the economy to the reality of work and the future of work. To actually innovate and embrace the future. But oh no there's still votes in bashing dole bludgers and welfare fraud.

if you frame the problem wrong , you never solve the problem.

The change in work is a crisis but it's also a great opportunity but here we are with all our leaders still on the jobs, growth mantra which is just the endless re-run of failed policies.

I agree, thats is why i said 'meaningful'. I understand the new job disrupting technologies that are coming on line. That adds another level of difficulty for people struggling to get a stake in society now, even including those in school now.

A major problem is the disparity of value & mobility between Labour & Capital. That too has compounded our current 'employment' problems. The flow of money, both earned & 'laundered' flows to rip the best value for itself out of whatever community it can find a profit, at any 'cost'. Capital demands the use of the environment at little, or no cost to itself.

We need a valid form of economics which fairly values all its inputs & outputs. Right now it is a badly unbalanced a its a system which harbours the seeds of its own destruction. Its not sustainable. Never ending greed is just not sustainable.

 

[Run n Spread]

The top 20% of income earners receive c.50% of all income, ie as much as the other 80% of earners combined.

Hence they pay the most tax.

Don't really see the problem.

Taxes pay for roads, schools, Police Forces (to prevent the rich from simply having their wealth stolen as happens in some parts), Hospitals. Hence you have income taxed.

Agree the Tax Rate is too high across the board and money is wasted absurdly and we definitely do not need to be taxed more. Fail to see how this is specifically unfair on the rich.

 

[Run n Spread]

I worked out that if you had two children in school then you needed to be earning above $74,000 a year and never get sick to not be a net negative on the nation's finances.
.

Not really has taxes pay for Schools, which we all benefit from.

Yet $74000 we truly have expenses that have blown well out of the water. We are a very expensive country to live.

 

[Taylor]

Not really has taxes pay for Schools, which we all benefit from.

Yet $74000 we truly have expenses that have blown well out of the water. We are a very expensive country to live.

The two children in WA cost $10,000 per student for public school and $3,000 per student if they go to private school. That is government spending.

We are really expensive but the full time worker average income is about $74,000

 

[Run n Spread]

uh huh.

let's pretend you're the CEO of, say, woolworths. the company you lead is dependent upon transportation infrastructure built by the government. the vast majority of its financial transactions are carried across wires and pipes built by the government. your employees were prepared for working life by schools funded by the government. the products you import, must meet specific quality controls set by the government. its assets, are protected by a legal system which enshrines property rights, and you are far more able to make use of it than those "you support with your taxes". you and your business also have unfettered access to the government; access so far beyond the norm it's unfathomable to the "lower 50%".

but no, that salary is "all yours" and you shouldn't have to pay more than others, even though you make more use of public services or infrastructure than most, and benefit from that use to a larger extent.

your threads are s**t.

Look I can agree that we are taxed too much all across the board and the gov always have their hand out. Get rid of those taxes. Some which target the rich.

But what shits me is the same wannabe Barry Battlers made good through nothing but their own sweat and toil who claim they have risen from the ashes have used and benefited from the same taxpayer funded services and infrastructure they now wish to deny others because welfare and you know leaners and blah blah. Why this country is fast becoming stuffed.

 

[Run n Spread]

I agree, thats is why i said 'meaningful'. I understand the new job disrupting technologies that are coming on line. That adds another level of difficulty for people struggling to get a stake in society now, even including those in school now.

A major problem is the disparity of value & mobility between Labour & Capital. That too has compounded our current 'employment' problems. The flow of money, both earned & 'laundered' flows to rip the best value for itself out of whatever community it can find a profit, at any 'cost'. Capital demands the use of the environment at little, or no cost to itself.

We need a valid form of economics which fairly values all its inputs & outputs. Right now it is a badly unbalanced a its a system which harbours the seeds of its own destruction. Its not sustainable. Never ending greed is just not sustainable.

What is a fair value and how can they be fairly measured? Commies tried Government- Failure. The neo Liberalists have tried Free Market Abandon -Failure.

Same thing happening in Australia like you say profit without cost to the environment. We are about to be ripped dry if current policies continue.

 

[pugsville]

The two children in WA cost $10,000 per student for public school and $3,000 per student if they go to private school. That is government spending.

thats only state government spending, Federal government comes on top on that and they fund private school students more. bringing the numbers to roughly $13,0000 and $7,0000 IIRC

 

[blured]

Seems that quite a few corporations around pay sfa tax. According to ATO records, 678 of Australia’s biggest corporations didn’t pay tax in Australia in 2014-15.

I wondert if any murdoch owned companies were in this group

 

[RupieDupie]

Warren Buffett - 'My life couldn't be happier. In fact, it'd be worse if I had six or eight houses. So, I have everything I need to have, and I don't need any more because it doesn't make a difference after a point.'