Abbott in Government

[Pukka]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Finally I agree with that idiot leader of the Greens says; she reckons TA won't have the guts to go for a double dissolution and I think she's right.

Everything else that comes out of her mouth is garbage but for once I think she's right.

 

[11sjw]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Everything else that comes out of her mouth is garbage but for once I think she's right.

It has to be or they wouldn't have let her into the party.

 

[Isochronous]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

You cannot be a country that supports initiative, creativity or aspiration if your income tax rate is 48.5% and the adjective rich is a pejorative.

One of the key reasons why I moved to HKG.

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

You cannot be a country that supports initiative, creativity or aspiration if your income tax rate is 48.5% and the adjective rich is a pejorative.

Then how do all those Northern European countries do it ? How did Australia, the UK and USA do it before the '70s ?

 

[SQ421]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

You cannot be a country that supports initiative, creativity or aspiration if your income tax rate is 48.5% and the adjective rich is a pejorative.

One of the key reasons why I moved to HKG.

Except, the "income tax" rate is not 48.5%, the marginal tax rate for the top tier is 45% + 1.5% medicare levy; bringing the marginal top tier rate to 46.5%

Even at a taxable income of a million dollars, you'd be paying tax at an effective rate of 43.75%, including the medicare levy; which blows out to an effective tax rate of 46.23 for ten million dollars of taxable income.

Nice rant though.

 

[knasty]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

:which blows out to an effective tax rate of 46.23 for ten million dollars of taxable income.

Nice rant though.

Wow only 4.623 million in tax contributed to society as a result of their work....that's definitely not enough - Surely we can gouge a bit more from them? How about a hundred grand in stamp duty on that fancy house they dare to buy with the proceeds of their work, or luxury car tax on that fancy 61 grand + car? After all I am sure they were a massive drain on public hospitals, public schools etc. When will they pay their "fair share"?

 

[knasty]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

I think NZ's rates are more appropriate IMHO. Top rate approx 35% provides more incentives to earn and less incentive to avoid tax, whilst collecting a very decent amount of revenue. Maybe I should F off there...

 

[Moody]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

I think NZ's rates are more appropriate IMHO. Top rate approx 35% provides more incentives to earn and less incentive to avoid tax, whilst collecting a very decent amount of revenue. Maybe I should F off there...

Sure - why not buck the trend?

But seriously .... everyone thinks they pay too much tax and everyone else pays too little. It's called greed and it's natural so don't be too hard on yourselves.

I pay more tax than average (2-3 times depending on your definition of average) but that's OK because I have the income to support it. Go figure!

 

[knasty]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

I don't think people paying 46.5% are paying too little...(assuming they are properly declaring). What is "fair" is subjective but for me a marginal contribution of more than a 1/3 is unfair. The debate would be better served by acknowledging and appreciating contributions such as yours rather than seeing "the rich" as some sort of leach on society.

 

[medhead]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

I don't think people paying 46.5% are paying too little...(assuming they are properly declaring). What is "fair" is subjective but for me a marginal contribution of more than a 1/3 is unfair. The debate would be better served by acknowledging and appreciating contributions such as yours rather than seeing "the rich" as some sort of leach on society.

Who has said anything about the rich being a leech on society? The problem is paying welfare to the rich. It is inefficient at the very least. Why collect tax and then pay it out again. Why not just not employ people to collected tax and pay it out, then reduce the tax rates inline with the reduced cost of the public service.

Those who are "rich" and expect their welfare, and scream when the welfare is taken away should be seen for what they represent.

It is also worth remember that the effective tax rate only exceeds 33% for people earning $200000+, or $250000 if we account for super payments.

I'd also suggest that the disadvantage in society shouldn't be seen as leeches either.

 

[SQ421]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

I don't think people paying 46.5% are paying too little....

I don't think more than a handful of people are paying 46.5% of their income in tax. No seriously, how many of Australians have a Taxable income of 10 million dollars.

 

[knasty]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

As in anyone paying top marginal rate is already paying $60k+ p.a. Tax at a minimum. That's a significant contribution to society let alone those who pay considerably more.

I agree with Medhead. Across all income brackets there is too much reliance on what the government "gives" ie. Redistributed. Welfare should be for those who can't help themselves, not those who choose not to or can afford ti do without it, with lower tax rates across the board encouraging more productivity, albeit the marginal rate has a much higher effect on such decisions than average rate.

 

[SQ421]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

albeit the marginal rate has a much higher effect on such decisions than average rate.

I don't know of any individual with a tuppence worth of brains who'd turn down a new job, a promotion, whatever, solely because their taxable income would push into the next marginal rate. I know of a few stories of people wanting to not cross certain thresholds because they'd lose benefits. Which I guess circle's back to, just who are getting these benefits.

 

[knasty]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

"Welfare trap"..."effective marginal tax rate". Average tax rate is not that relevant. The largest EMTRs are at the lower end. Perverse disincentives caused by interaction of tax and welfare. A raise or promotion is not a decision of the taxpayer. The decision to work more or not is. The NZ tax system has less of this issue due to lower rates and thresholds.

 

[Pukka]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Except, the "income tax" rate is not 48.5%, the marginal tax rate for the top tier is 45% + 1.5% medicare levy; bringing the marginal top tier rate to 46.5%

Even at a taxable income of a million dollars, you'd be paying tax at an effective rate of 43.75%, including the medicare levy; which blows out to an effective tax rate of 46.23 for ten million dollars of taxable income.

Nice rant though.

It was 48.5% last year with the flood levy if I remember correctly

 

[Pukka]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Who has said anything about the rich being a leech on society? The problem is paying welfare to the rich. It is inefficient at the very least. Why collect tax and then pay it out again. Why not just not employ people to collected tax and pay it out, then reduce the tax rates inline with the reduced cost of the public service.

Those who are "rich" and expect their welfare, and scream when the welfare is taken away should be seen for what they represent.

It is also worth remember that the effective tax rate only exceeds 33% for people earning $200000+, or $250000 if we account for super payments.

I'd also suggest that the disadvantage in society shouldn't be seen as leeches either.

So if you pay the top rate I would guess the only "welfare" you qualify for is negative gearing & 50% reduction in CGT which comes straight off your tax bill or is the definition of "rich" lower than that these days.

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Wow only 4.623 million in tax contributed to society as a result of their work....that's definitely not enough - Surely we can gouge a bit more from them? How about a hundred grand in stamp duty on that fancy house they dare to buy with the proceeds of their work, or luxury car tax on that fancy 61 grand + car? After all I am sure they were a massive drain on public hospitals, public schools etc. When will they pay their "fair share"?

Are you suggesting their ability to earn that sort of income is independent of being in a stable, lawful, well-educated country ?

 

[knasty]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Of course not I am asking when is enough enough? I have stated approx one third as top marginal rate is fair in my opinion. Do you agree that almost 50% is fair? Whatever the rate I think the view often stated that "the rich" don't pay their fair share of tax is a bit rich when 9% of taxpayers contribute 50% of personal income tax.

 

[Pukka]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Of course not I am asking when is enough enough? I have stated approx one third as top marginal rate is fair in my opinion. Do you agree that almost 50% is fair? Whatever the rate I think the view often stated that "the rich" don't pay their fair share of tax is a bit rich when 9% of taxpayers contribute 50% of personal income tax.

Don't waste your breath he thinks 75% is ok if it's on income over €1M

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Of course not I am asking when is enough enough?

Well the obvious answer is when tax revenue equals or exceeds expenditures. But that can be a tad circular.

I have stated approx one third as top marginal rate is fair in my opinion.

What is the basis for that number ?

Do you agree that almost 50% is fair?

I can see that in the '50s and '60s tax rates much higher were commonplace and those decades encompass some of the most widespread and rapid improvements in knowledge, industry, prosperity, wealth, productivity, living standards, class mobility and income disparity in human history.

So clearly high tax rates are not an impediment to economic growth, entrepreneurialism, innovation, or any other measure of economic success you care to apply.

I can see that since tax rates started crashing in the late '70s, real incomes for the majority have remained relatively stagnant (while debt has ballooned), but they have grown substantially for the top ~10% and even more for the top 1%. In that same time public services have been reduced and infrastructure gone unmaintained.

So it looks like low taxes are awesome for the well-off and wealthy, but pretty bad for the other 90% of the population.

Whatever the rate I think the view often stated that "the rich" don't pay their fair share of tax is a bit rich when 9% of taxpayers contribute 50% of personal income tax.

What percentage of the wealth does that same 9% own ? What percentage of the income do they earn ?