the troubadour

Yes afraid it is really the case. There is very substantial amounts squirreled away. I will when time seek out the figures but the amount of dormant money is staggering.

What is difficult is getting the rich to pay their fair share. Which is why it is far easier to go after middle class tax payers and those pay as you earn.

The influence and power of those with the real wealth just add to the inability or desire to round them up.

We saw the power of the mining interests in destabilising if not bringing down a former Australian government with their anger at increased impost at a time of increased profits.

GarryP

Err, a pretty important part of this here, is to be very careful about income, taxable etc.

There is the straight income, such as Joe Shmo might have, but in the terms we are interested in, its peanuts. There are also options, bonuses, benefits in kind, dividends, etc. etc.

Worth remembering that Steve Jobs took a $1 salary from apple, but wasn't berefit of a penny or two. He didn't have a boat, he had a jet, paid for the company, for his personal use, nice and tax deductible by the company.



The rich don't do anything as plebeian as to buy a jet or boat. Nah, they play tax games via the company such that they still effectively own it, but very little tax is paid - hell, they probably even get paid for owning it when you do all the maths.

knockoff nige

I never said that they have yachts at all, you did. Do the wealthy hoard their money? Of course they do. I also never said that the rich don't pay tax but the poor do and I can't think how you came to that conclusion.

I have suggested this before but I urge you to watch a documentary called 'inequality of everyone'. It's not going to show you biased views, it will show you facts and it might give you more insight into how reliant everyone is on lower income earners and who exactly are the people creating the wealth.

Beoz

...... and all legal to date, nothing right or left wing governments have chosen to change. If you ever chose to own your own business, you would employ accounts to do the same, you even do it now when you see your account every financial year.

You pointed at one individual lets not forget the rest that must be contributing somehow - data shows that the top 0.01 per cent pay an astonishing 4.2 per cent of all income tax. That means that the top 3,000 contribute more than the lowest-paid nine million taxpayers put together.

Beoz

"Of course they do" ... as in "I think they do but I don't know for sure"? How we doing Eddie?

We could call it hoarding or we could call it saving. After all wealthy people have needs. They might be paying for a private jet or a mansion or 2. We shouldn't be resentful of that

On a serious note, I do understand the social issues associated with gap wealth. When helping the problem, some tend to say "lets take from the rich to give to the poor". Some tend to say "lets work out a way to try and help the poor bridge the gap with the rich". I tend to feel the second way is far more constructive and has a better long term beneficial outcome than the first.

knockoff nige

Look, I didn't use the word hoarding in a derrogatory way. Hoarding is hoarding is saving. My point was that is what they do. That's how they are wealthy, they hold onto their wealth.

I'm not necessarily trying to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. We just have to be conscious of how doing things like increasing GST, cutting welfare and introducing a GP tax affects us all, not just the poor. If we approach it like that and see how much we need products and services to be affordable for everyone, we help the poor and help ourselves. In my opinion, that's a positive capitalist environment which doesn't encourage greed or selfishness.

GarryP

Did I say it wasn't legal, within the context of the laws they have bought? No.

The exam question is rather, where should the tax burden fall?

And I'd suggest it much more reasonable to let it fall on that type of head, as opposed to some wondering where the money is coming from for next month's rent.

Even more, its better to have it fall on the rentseekers and the accumulations of wealth - in order to make the whole economy more healthy.

Beoz

Its a company jet. Its not Steve's personally. Sure Steve flew in it, but so did other employees. Lets not again do an Ed Milliband and exaggerate the fact to prove a point.

The tax burden should fall with all of us. We are all responsible for our society, and the accumulations are not earned by you and are not yours to seek and these accumulations are what is left after they have already been taxed. Its not fair to go seeking more because you feel aggrieved.

..... and lets not forget the 3000 people who contribute more than 9 million people. (conveniently swept under the carpet of course)

Beoz

.... and we can all moan about being PAYE servants. I am. But there's no point in moaning and forming an argument to suit our own circumstances and frame it around the poor. The ball is in our court should we want to change our circumstances and for those who can't we have welfare and for those who can't welfare is unlikely to change.

Alan Collett

So how much tax should the "rich" pay?

ATO stats show those earning the top 2% by way of income pay some 26% of the total income tax received by Government.

That is already some 13x their proportionate share.

On top of that we have the "rich" paying a deficit levy and a flood levy.

Still not paying enough?

How much exactly do you want high income earners to pay?

Best regards.

knockoff nige

The tax burden does fall on us all. It just needs to be done fairly. If a barista can afford to pay $5000 a year in tax, should a bank CEO only pay the same? No and the reason for that is a very good one. We'd not have any public services and probably very crappy infrastructure.

A business owner who pays himself minimum wage in order to avoid tax and yet lives comfortably off his businesses assets is legally paying his way. Yet, we know that he has used loopholes that are designed purely for his greed and his like. If the same option was available to a standard worker and all our possessions could be salary sacrificed, we'd all have massive perks that the nation couldn't afford. Super concessions for the rich is a perk that is just not required and is not available to most people.

We can all be responsible for the tax burden if we are all willing to pay a fair share. not just merely the amount we can get away with. I don't resent anyone being rich. Honestly acquired wealth is very respectable. Getting welfare/perks when you don't need it goes against exactly what you say we should be doing.

How many employees other than Steve Jobs flew in his jet? Don't know? Of course not. You have no way of knowing so please save bullshit.

GarryP

Nope, it was Job's 'bonus', not a 'company' jet as such
Steve Jobs is back in the air - Fortune

Can we just nail that one

They are not taxed at the same rate you are, let alone at a higher rate - that's the problem - they aren't even paying a fair share.

knockoff nige

How about their fair share? I don't have a set amount I pay in tax. Yet, I still obey the tax tier system, as should anyone. That's how you can justify the policing, ambulance trips, street lighting etc that you get.

GarryP

Hang on, how are you coming up with that '13x'? You're not just saying that 26% of the income tax from 2% of people = 26/2 = 13x are you?

You do know that taxing everyone exactly the same amount isn't proportionate, don't you?

Alan Collett

Paying a "fair share" is socialist nonsense - I saw this with the last labour administration in the UK, and they were a complete shambles economically.

As were the ALP here in Australia.

The "fair share" argument is waffle and unless it is backed up with concrete numbers means anything you want it to mean.

Be specific and stop making motherhood and apple pie statements.

Regards.