Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[drron]

So where does casannovawa say that not a single poorer person

Oh FFS! It also says that other "poorer people" DO PAY TAX. Which is exactly my argument and the figure DO support my argument that it is absolutely wrong to claim that NO poorer people pay tax, as per the post that I have quoted about a thousand times now.

Here is the quote DRRON to which I replied. Please try to take it in. It clearly says that not a single "poorer person" pays tax. The figures that I present clearly show that statement is wrong.

Originally Posted by casanovawa
Hmm, i love this mentality... As i think has been establish several times, "poorer people" pay no net tax, they suck out of the system rather than contribute into it so there is a complete inability for them to "pay" middle class people anything...

So it seems we are both obtuse.I now see where you are coming from and that is fine.
And the figures actually do not support that argument because the ATO is quoting taxable income not total income.So those with under $37000 income are not necessarily poorer.Yes splitting hairs but I have learnt that of you.
As by your quoted figures only 40% of australia's population pay nett tax.I dont think it is too much to assume that the majority of "poorer people" fall into the 60% not the 40%.

 

[Pukka]

I think we are getting bogged down in meaningless statistics, so how about agreeing on a few things for a change :-

1. The definition of being in work is quite liberal, due to both sides of politics wanting to put the best spin on the unemployment figures. So the apparent gap in tax-payers vs. workers is partly made up of those that earn SFA.
2. For those below the poverty line it is a waste of time taxing them when you would just have to up the family benefits and other welfare to make their life at least bearable. These would make up the bulk of the remaining gap (along with those with no conscience and morals who hire unscrupulous accountants to avoid paying tax. Allegedly...)
3. People who moan about paying huge amounts of tax and supporting those bludging poor are on obscene amounts of income and have very, very comfortable lifestyles. I work reasonably hard and have a good income. Does a dentist on 6 times my income work 6 times as hard or provide 6 times the value to society? I suppose it depends on your view of life ..... I would say that in the lucky country there is no excuse for everyone to not have a basic standard of living. I guess that "out's" me as a tree-hugging chardonnay socialist. I can live with that just as easily as those that are comfortable being soul-less zealots of elitism.

And painting Julia Gillard's honest emotion as she announced the NDIS scheme as being an affectation or a symptom of being a female is misogyny to a level that even Tony Abbott wouldn't stoop to. This thread really has illuminated some [self redacted insulting term] ... hasn't it?

I think we should leave dentists out of it. I think they work very hard and deserve every cent. I had my first filling in 10 years today and it wasn't that bad.

In my experience its not that they work 6 times as hard but that they employ people who earn money for them, if you own a successful business and employ reliable people who provide a good service you can make a very decent income even in these challenging economic times.

Anyway you should feel sorry for them Swan has reduced the tax deductible amount for further education to $2000. No more dental conferences in Hawaii then

 

[amaroo]

I think we should leave dentists out of it. I think they work very hard and deserve every cent. I had my first filling in 10 years today and it wasn't that bad.

Well, I'm a little embarrassed to say that yesterday saw my second visit to the dentist in 20 years The first one was 3 years ago....getting better!

Anyway, very happy to say my neglect in making regular appointments - resulted in only needing 2 fillings......but two very good cleaning jobs by the hygienist. TBH, the cleaning was more uncomfortable than the dentist:shock:

Still shaking head that someone with private health insurance (me) hasn't found the time to get his cough in the chair......have already made the next check-up appointment.

Starting to think that I should go and get a general health check as I'm nudging the age zone

 

[drron]

Now now amaroo.I go to the dentist every 6 months and the only fillings I have had in 20 years are replacements for those I had as a teenager.

 

[Pukka]

Well, I'm a little embarrassed to say that yesterday saw my second visit to the dentist in 20 years The first one was 3 years ago....getting better!

Anyway, very happy to say my neglect in making regular appointments - resulted in only needing 2 fillings......but two very good cleaning jobs by the hygienist. TBH, the cleaning was more uncomfortable than the dentist:shock:

Still shaking head that someone with private health insurance (me) hasn't found the time to get his cough in the chair......have already made the next check-up appointment.

Starting to think that I should go and get a general health check as I'm nudging the age zone

I'm the worlds worst patient but when the wife has the drill in my mouth I tend to behave

 

[Pukka]

Well one things for sure if you don't have a decent income I think life's going to be tough under an Abbot government.

He's getting much better at speeches though much more controlled, the coaching is paying off still has a tinge of smugness ; I think he thinks he's home and hosed. Which he probably is.

 

[lovestotravel]

A great speech!

Well done Tony

 

[amaroo]

A great speech!

Well done Tony

+ 1 Really liked how he spoke to the camera & talked to the person watching at home.

 

[lovestotravel]

+ 1 Really liked how he spoke to the camera & talked to the person watching at home.

Seeing Wayne and JuLiar just sitting there stone faced was priceless as well

 

[Pukka]

Seeing Wayne and JuLiar just sitting there stone faced was priceless as well

Julia looks ill I think the stress is hitting home

 

[straitman]

[mod hat/on]

A few posts have been deleted and a few posts have been modified.

Unless someone specifically wants a holiday from AFF then let's stick to the subject please people and stop attacking each other.

[mod hat/off]

 

[medhead]

The exemption of sale of family home for centre link is totally impractical. In order to qualify you needed to have owned the home for 25 years! What! And have the money in a special account and touch neither it nor interest. Whomever dreams these things up and then tries to sell it as a favour to the aged should be put on the aged pension themselves and not their bureaucratic salary.

I wasn't really comment on the practicality of it. Just trying to provide information that might help with the concerns you raised.

Went to write something last night, but lost it and couldn't be bothered rewriting, so will put a few words down now... I think as drron has been writing, those tax bracket stats you provided medhead quite clearly show who is paying most of the tax and supporting the country, demolishing all that tripe about only the poor pay tax and the poor are paying for the middle class etc, etc...

I said nothing about who pays what share of tax and neither did you.

As to my point about the poor paying no net tax, you seem to have responded with a totally different set of stats (the tax brackets) and then believed you actually made some telling point... Putting aside the fact that the tax brackets show that the lower 30% pay a whopping 4% of tax,

Right so the people in the tax brackets that include some of the "poorer people" do have net tax payable. So you statement is demonstrably false.

Other that that, I don't GAF about you campaign about who pays what share. It is class warfare and envy based. If you think it is so great 'bleeding the other tax payers dry' why not quit your job, sell your assets and go get on the dole? Otherwise, you might like to read the title of the table I presented then you might understand that it contains much more than just the tax brackets.

Here's a couple of more numbers for you narrative about the "poorer people" sucking you dry. Median income about $45000, average income about $66000.

which in the greater picture of keeping the country running and paying for all the welfare recipients who pay no tax, amounts to about 2/3 of 4% of SFA... I was talking about the poor while your precious 2nd tax bracket includes people earning from $6,000-$37,000.... I don't, and not sure many others would, consider the people near the top of that tax bracket (almost $40,000) as being 'poor', so its relevance eludes me...

Just before rewriting this, i thought i would go and have a quick look for a definition of the poor (coz you have this fetish for citations) and found from some material printed in 2012 that quoted data from 2010, that they had two definitions of the poverty line...

http://www.acoss.org.au/uploads/ACOSS Poverty Report 2012_Final.pdf

"In the case of a single adult, in 2010 this poverty line was $358 per week. In the case of a couple with two children it was $752 (Table 1). This is the main poverty line used in this report.

A less austere but still low poverty line, that is used to define poverty in Britain, Ireland and the European Union, is 60% of median income. In the case of a single adult, this poverty line in Australia was $430 per week in 2010."

So whether you use the more austere one of $358/week or the less austere of $430/week, multiplying by 52 gets me $18,616 or $22,360, all well and truly below the top of that $37,000 tax bracket you seem to think has such significance, and at that level i would surmise that they would largely pay almost no net tax... A few individuals might that may not qualify for much welfare, but as i stated, as a group the poor, would largely contribute no net tax to the Government, do not keep Australia afloat and certainly don't pay anything of any significance to the middle class or the rich...

So stop using only partially or peripherally relevant BS information to try and make a point... The tax brackets quite clearly show who is paying what even if it doesn't necessarily quantify exactly what the 'poor' are paying...

Edit: Actually i thought those numbers looked pretty close to the tax brackets so assumed that's what your were quoting from the ATO, but couldn't figure out the relevance of that $6,000 figure, so after a quick check on the ATO site the real 1st tax bracket is $18,200-$37,000, so no surmising is needed, if the official poverty line according to ACOSS (in 2010 anyway, it might have moved a few bucks by 2013) amounts to $18,600 and no one starts paying any tax till $18,200 then by definition, and you can take it as a given, the poor pay SFA tax of any description net or gross...

So where does casannovawa say that not a single poorer person

"poorer people" pay no net tax

People is plural and the statement is inclusive of all "poorer people". There are no exclusions of "poorer people" at all. Despite his revisionist attempts to change the basis of his statement it does not define "poorer people" by any measure. In fact, it does quite the opposite. Poorer than who? It does not say "the poor". Just "poorer people" Besides part time uni work, I have never had a full time job that earned less than the current median income. So there are 50% of Australian's that are possibly poorer than me, by way of an example.

So it seems we are both obtuse.I now see where you are coming from and that is fine.
And the figures actually do not support that argument because the ATO is quoting taxable income not total income.So those with under $37000 income are not necessarily poorer.Yes splitting hairs but I have learnt that of you.
As by your quoted figures only 40% of australia's population pay nett tax.I dont think it is too much to assume that the majority of "poorer people" fall into the 60% not the 40%.

Trouble is, as per above the statement was completely unqualified by percentages or any other such things. Also again the statement was "pay no net tax". Not total income. Net tax payable seems appropriate. That table contains a lot more than just tax brackets.

 

[Pushka]

Its cool medhead. My comment about the housing thing was more a general comment and not directed at you. I did give you a like for your help.

 

[medhead]

Its cool medhead. My comment about the housing thing was more a general comment and not directed at you. I did give you a like for your help.

I did see that like and worked it out. Just making a general statement that I wasn't supporting that thing. I think it'd be more beneficial if annual withdrawals were allowed, which were taxed on withdrawal. That might roughly save $35000 in tax as a maximum. And what happens after 10 years. You take the money out and still pay tax? So where's the saving for downsizing houses?

 

[Pushka]

Medhead the thing which struck me was having to live in the house for 25 years. That doesn't apply to many people. Even my parents who rarely moved in their life and were in their original home, for that long, downsized Before they came onto the aged pension. Even they wouldn't have qualified.

 

[drron]

People is plural and the statement is inclusive of all "poorer people".

The fact remains that "poorer people" DO pay tax and are not a drain on tax revenue.

So you can see why I thought you were referring to most poorer people.

 

[Skyring]

Don't know .... haven't seen any recent footage but he looked quite frail last year.

BTW - was there a point to that comment or does that pass for repartee on the far right???

LOL! Far right.

Well, let me put it this way. When was the last time Gough, an "elder statesman" to be sure, made a public statement?

 

[medhead]

I see tony Abbott is going to give people money from revenue that he is never going to collect.

*waits for the indignant outrage about economic novices etc. from certain posters*

*not holding my breath*

 

[serfty]

I see tony Abbott is going to people money from revenue that he is never going to collect.

*waits for the indignant outrage about economic novices etc. from certain posters*

*not holding my breath*

Slow day huh?

Let's brighten it up - see this article from Annabel Crabb: Abbott's budget reply delivers a perfect political score - The Drum - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

...Mr Abbott reserves the right to do all the nasty things Labor promised to do on Tuesday night. Not because he wants to, he explained this evening.

But because the Government has been so very dreadful, he argues, it leaves him no choice.

It is better to seek forgiveness than to ask permission, a less vigilant Mr Abbott once said.

But it is better still to reassign the culpability for one's offence, and that is exactly what the Opposition Leader has managed to do tonight.

 

[drron]

I see tony Abbott is going to people money from revenue that he is never going to collect.

*waits for the indignant outrage about economic novices etc. from certain posters*

*not holding my breath*

Quite often I dont know where you are coming from but your first sentence makes me wonder where you have gone.?English as a second language.