Call To Raise GST A Regressive Step?
Jan 12th 2015, 7:25 am
#61
Proudly Deplorable
Joined: May 2003
Location: Alloha snack bar
Posts: 24,246
Re: Call To Raise GST A Regressive Step?
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.
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.
That's not fair either
Jan 12th 2015, 7:27 am
#62
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,404
Re: Call To Raise GST A Regressive Step?
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.
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.
How could I put a dollar amount on anyone as the amount of tax they should pay when it's often a moving target? My income doesn't fluctuate much but I still have to pay more if I earn more.
Or maybe anyone that's rich enough can build a new highway between Sydney and Melbourne and call it quits on tax for the rest of their working life? Is that what you are after?
Jan 12th 2015, 7:35 am
#63
snɐןɔ ʎʇıuɐs
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,558
Re: Call To Raise GST A Regressive Step?
Even the US teabaggers aren't THAT nuts.
Jan 12th 2015, 7:41 am
#64
Migration Agent
Joined: May 2002
Location: Offices in Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Geelong (Australia), and Southampton (UK)
Posts: 6,459
Re: Call To Raise GST A Regressive Step?
I thought I was specific. There is a tax tier system that we use. If you comply with that, you pay your fair share. And what part of 'fair share' do you disagree with? Surely not the 'fair' part?
How could I put a dollar amount on anyone as the amount of tax they should pay when it's often a moving target? My income doesn't fluctuate much but I still have to pay more if I earn more.
Or maybe anyone that's rich enough can build a new highway between Sydney and Melbourne and call it quits on tax for the rest of their working life? Is that what you are after?
How could I put a dollar amount on anyone as the amount of tax they should pay when it's often a moving target? My income doesn't fluctuate much but I still have to pay more if I earn more.
Or maybe anyone that's rich enough can build a new highway between Sydney and Melbourne and call it quits on tax for the rest of their working life? Is that what you are after?
I'm not disputing there is a tiered rate of income tax in Australia.
This concept of "fair" that I see waved around is what I have an issue with. It means different things to different people, and is meaningless.
What % should be the highest rate of income tax? When should it be applied? Do you want more than one half of the income of the highest earners to be deducted in tax? The highest rate of income tax is already some 49%.
To fund the demands on healthcare in Australia (which is where the suggestion of raising the rate of GST comes from) are you proposing that the highest rate of income tax should deduct more than one half of each additional $ of income from those earning more than $180k annually?
Best regards.
Jan 12th 2015, 7:42 am
#65
Migration Agent
Joined: May 2002
Location: Offices in Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Geelong (Australia), and Southampton (UK)
Posts: 6,459
Re: Call To Raise GST A Regressive Step?
I'm not saying that at all.
Regards.
Jan 12th 2015, 7:50 am
#67
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,404
Re: Call To Raise GST A Regressive Step?
I'm not disputing there is a tiered rate of income tax in Australia.
This concept of "fair" that I see waved around is what I have an issue with. It means different things to different people, and is meaningless.
What % should be the highest rate of income tax? When should it be applied? Do you want more than one half of the income of the highest earners to be deducted in tax? The highest rate of income tax is already some 49%.
To fund the demands on healthcare in Australia (which is where the suggestion of raising the rate of GST comes from) are you proposing that the highest rate of income tax should deduct more than one half of each additional $ of income from those earning more than $180k annually?
Best regards.
This concept of "fair" that I see waved around is what I have an issue with. It means different things to different people, and is meaningless.
What % should be the highest rate of income tax? When should it be applied? Do you want more than one half of the income of the highest earners to be deducted in tax? The highest rate of income tax is already some 49%.
To fund the demands on healthcare in Australia (which is where the suggestion of raising the rate of GST comes from) are you proposing that the highest rate of income tax should deduct more than one half of each additional $ of income from those earning more than $180k annually?
Best regards.
The tax tier system as it is works for me. It's not as if the richer you get the poorer you get. What is your definition of 'fair share'?
Jan 12th 2015, 7:58 am
#68
Migration Agent
Joined: May 2002
Location: Offices in Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Geelong (Australia), and Southampton (UK)
Posts: 6,459
Re: Call To Raise GST A Regressive Step?
Consider 100 taxpayers.
2 of them pay a total of $26k in tax. That's $13k each.
98 of them pay a total of $74k. That's $755 each.
That is my understanding of the ATO stats.
What I think you are arguing is that the 2 in the example above should pay more than $26k. My question is, how much more?
And let's not forget that many of these higher income earners who you are pillorying are employers. Employers who employ people who pay PAYG.
Make the tax rates penal and there'll be no profit motive. No profit motive and there'll be little or no incentive to employ.
Remember the days of the UK's investment income surcharge in the 1970s, Garry? Making the pips squeak? 98% tax on investment income, and 83% top rate income tax generally? That led to fantastic employment outcomes in the late 70s, didn't it - another complete shambles economically left by a Labour Government.
Be careful what you wish for.
Best regards.
Jan 12th 2015, 8:01 am
#69
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040
Re: Call To Raise GST A Regressive Step?
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.
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.
Yes we can nail that. Lets also nail the 2% who contribite 26%
15% on dividends also helps the mum and dad imvestors. It helps people in all wealth ranges. Saying that the wealthy don't need help is not an excuse.
Jan 12th 2015, 8:06 am
#70
Migration Agent
Joined: May 2002
Location: Offices in Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Geelong (Australia), and Southampton (UK)
Posts: 6,459
Re: Call To Raise GST A Regressive Step?
Oh I see, you don't like how the tax tier system works. Do wealthy who pay little to no tax (but legally) pay their fair share? Is that your definition of fair share?
The tax tier system as it is works for me. It's not as if the richer you get the poorer you get. What is your definition of 'fair share'?
The tax tier system as it is works for me. It's not as if the richer you get the poorer you get. What is your definition of 'fair share'?
No, you clearly don't see at all, Nige.
I don't have a definition of "fair share" because it is waffle and nonsense.
I do though have a belief in encouraging employment through the tax system and incentivising those who take risks.
I also have no yearning desire to create an environment in which those who would take risks are demonised and considered to be leeches on society.
As for inherited wealth - I don't have a material issue with that either. The tax you would raise by confiscating capital is relatively minor (IMHO), and isn't the main game. Make life unpleasant and the wealthy will go somewhere else in the world (it's not as if the wealthy can't afford it) and Australia/the UK will lose whatever income tax they would have paid had they not left.
Best regards.
Jan 12th 2015, 8:14 am
#71
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,404
Re: Call To Raise GST A Regressive Step?
No, you clearly don't see at all, Nige.
I don't have a definition of "fair share" because it is waffle and nonsense.
I do though have a belief in encouraging employment through the tax system and incentivising those who take risks.
I also have no yearning desire to create an environment in which those who would take risks are demonised and considered to be leeches on society.
As for inherited wealth - I don't have a material issue with that either. The tax you would raise by confiscating capital is relatively minor (IMHO), and isn't the main game. Make life unpleasant and the wealthy will go somewhere else in the world (it's not as if the wealthy can't afford it) and Australia/the UK will lose whatever income tax they would have paid had they not left.
Best regards.
I don't have a definition of "fair share" because it is waffle and nonsense.
I do though have a belief in encouraging employment through the tax system and incentivising those who take risks.
I also have no yearning desire to create an environment in which those who would take risks are demonised and considered to be leeches on society.
As for inherited wealth - I don't have a material issue with that either. The tax you would raise by confiscating capital is relatively minor (IMHO), and isn't the main game. Make life unpleasant and the wealthy will go somewhere else in the world (it's not as if the wealthy can't afford it) and Australia/the UK will lose whatever income tax they would have paid had they not left.
Best regards.
The wealthy are not the job creators, wealth creators or often not even the risk takers. The risk is quite often on the backs of others. The GFC shows you where the risk of 'sink or swim' gets you if you grow big enough. You get rewarded for being a totally corrupt asshole. Of course, the tax payer should clean up the mess though. It's our duty as we are grateful for the risk these guys took with our money to create the jobs that were actually created by the demand fuelled by the consumer.
If you can't define fair share then you really are not applying your brain. Business owners are not an elite class who deserve their feet kissed. They deserve the profits they make and no more.
Jan 12th 2015, 8:23 am
#72
snɐןɔ ʎʇıuɐs
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,558
Re: Call To Raise GST A Regressive Step?
Consider 100 taxpayers.
2 of them pay a total of $26k in tax. That's $13k each.
98 of them pay a total of $74k. That's $755 each.
That is my understanding of the ATO stats.
What I think you are arguing is that the 2 in the example above should pay more than $26k. My question is, how much more?
2 of them pay a total of $26k in tax. That's $13k each.
98 of them pay a total of $74k. That's $755 each.
That is my understanding of the ATO stats.
What I think you are arguing is that the 2 in the example above should pay more than $26k. My question is, how much more?
Personally I'd say you ensure that everyone has an income that allows them to live, then you tax the amount on top of that at a rising %age rate such that the budget is met. Personally my only wrinkle would be to vary the slope of that %age rate rise with the value to society of that individual (eg the parasite pays more, faster).
And, as I've said a few times now, I'd make the rentseekers and accumulations of wealth pay, at a higher rate - to dissuade from such behaviours. In fact I'd reference ALL tax to the value the entity being taxed is to society.
And you would like the poor to pay more GST, on food say? Right?
Jan 12th 2015, 8:24 am
#73
Migration Agent
Joined: May 2002
Location: Offices in Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Geelong (Australia), and Southampton (UK)
Posts: 6,459
Re: Call To Raise GST A Regressive Step?
So, maybe the wealthy shouldn't pay any tax then? If they are the risk takers that create the jobs and the wealth for others, they should probably get off Scott free and leave the tax burden to the rest of us? Now that's waffle.
The wealthy are not the job creators, wealth creators or often not even the risk takers. The risk is quite often on the backs of others. The GFC shows you where the risk of 'sink or swim' gets you if you grow big enough. You get rewarded for being a totally corrupt asshole. Of course, the tax payer should clean up the mess though. It's our duty as we are grateful for the risk these guys took with our money to create the jobs that were actually created by the demand fuelled by the consumer.
If you can't define fair share then you really are not applying your brain. Business owners are not an elite class who deserve their feet kissed. They deserve the profits they make and no more.
The wealthy are not the job creators, wealth creators or often not even the risk takers. The risk is quite often on the backs of others. The GFC shows you where the risk of 'sink or swim' gets you if you grow big enough. You get rewarded for being a totally corrupt asshole. Of course, the tax payer should clean up the mess though. It's our duty as we are grateful for the risk these guys took with our money to create the jobs that were actually created by the demand fuelled by the consumer.
If you can't define fair share then you really are not applying your brain. Business owners are not an elite class who deserve their feet kissed. They deserve the profits they make and no more.
I think you need to stop exaggerating in an effort to defeat the arguments.
As for: "Business owners are not an elite class who deserve their feet kissed. They deserve the profits they make and no more," at the risk of provoking your (and Garry's ire), I disagree.
Business owners should be revered, cherished, and tax policy should encourage more of them. Because without the business owners there would be no wealth generation, employment growth, and independence from State support. Unless you are of the misguided belief that the public sector creates wealth for a country.
Best regards.
Jan 12th 2015, 8:32 am
#74
Migration Agent
Joined: May 2002
Location: Offices in Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Geelong (Australia), and Southampton (UK)
Posts: 6,459
Re: Call To Raise GST A Regressive Step?
Your "13x the proportionate rate" seems to state that that's your baseline.
Personally I'd say you ensure that everyone has an income that allows them to live, then you tax the amount on top of that at a rising %age rate such that the budget is met. Personally my only wrinkle would be to vary the slope of that %age rate rise with the value to society of that individual (eg the parasite pays more, faster).
And, as I've said a few times now, I'd make the rentseekers and accumulations of wealth pay, at a higher rate - to dissuade from such behaviours. In fact I'd reference ALL tax to the value the entity being taxed is to society.
And you would like the poor to pay more GST, on food say? Right?
Personally I'd say you ensure that everyone has an income that allows them to live, then you tax the amount on top of that at a rising %age rate such that the budget is met. Personally my only wrinkle would be to vary the slope of that %age rate rise with the value to society of that individual (eg the parasite pays more, faster).
And, as I've said a few times now, I'd make the rentseekers and accumulations of wealth pay, at a higher rate - to dissuade from such behaviours. In fact I'd reference ALL tax to the value the entity being taxed is to society.
And you would like the poor to pay more GST, on food say? Right?
More waffle, I'm afraid Garry.
Maybe we should all live on a bowl of rice a day and a cup of water, and have everything else provided by the State?
Or maybe I'm falling into your and Nige's trap of exaggerating to make a point.
Make the rentseekers and accumulators of wealth pay more to dissuade such behaviour? How are you going to do that, Garry - confiscate their capital assets? Pay the 98% tax on investment income I mentioned in a recent post? All that does is make people leave the country. IT DOESN'T WORK!
Extending the GST to food: yes, and do it now. Ditto raising the rate to 12.5% (which I think is now the rate in New Zealand, and they're going OK economically, so far as I know). The poorer in society can be compensated via the benefits system and raising the tax free threshold. In so doing those who can afford the additional GST pay. I thought I had referenced this in an earlier post.
Best regards.
Jan 12th 2015, 8:34 am
#75
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040
Re: Call To Raise GST A Regressive Step?
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.
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.