Originally Posted by GarryP

Only it's not, is it?

The richer you are, the more mechanisms come into play to cut your tax bill, the more you can pay people to fiddle the figures for you. The effective tax rate for the rich can be lower than that for the middle class. In fact you can arrange it so you can be extremely wealthy, and pay no tax at all.

The tenth man would claim that he made a loss on his negatively geared property portfolio, that his bribes to politicians cost him significantly, his international earnings were hidden in an offshore account, and that the cost of paying a tax accountant to find and exploit all these loopholes.

He would regretfully state that he could manage to pay $3.43, but that if they swapped the 'tax' so that it fell more on everyone's consumption equally, it would be fairer. So those four over there should be paying $5, and he would be happy to do the same. Obviously this wouldn't cover the $100, so they would have to borrow the rest.

Meet the 48 millionaires who pay no income tax, not even the Medicare levy


For those that understand, the bias in the argument is obvious.
For those that don't want to understand, no explanation is ever going to go in.

Originally Posted by Amazulu

Which is why consumption taxes are better - one of the simplest, most efficient taxes a government can implement. The wealthy, because they have more money, consume more and would pay more tax. The less well off consume less and would pay less tax - but at least they would be paying some tax towards the services that they, predominately, enjoy. The black economy has to, by and large, pay them too

Increase consumption taxes and reduce income and corporate taxes

The only problem with consumption taxes is that the left hate them because they limit wealth redistribution and cannot be targeted towards their core, lower income, constituency that largely elects them

Originally Posted by the troubadour

A regressive tax that further inflicts pain on the poor and middle class. So the poorer don't need to consume as well? Perhaps you mean a luxury tax on non essentials? Although I doubt it. Any other tax would further burden the load of those already finding it difficult.


The correct way is for those able to pay their fair share.

Originally Posted by the troubadour

A regressive tax that further inflicts pain on the poor and middle class. So the poorer don't need to consume as well? Perhaps you mean a luxury tax on non essentials? Although I doubt it. Any other tax would further burden the load of those already finding it difficult.

The correct way is for those able to pay their fair share.

Originally Posted by Beoz

Luxuries are already GST'ed. Essentials are not. Were you not aware?


Things that are GST-free include:

most basic food
some education courses, course materials and related excursions or field trips
some medical, health and care services
some medical aids and appliances
some medicines
some childcare services
some religious services and charitable activities
supplies of accommodation and meals to residents of retirement villages by certain operators
cars for disabled people to use, as long as certain requirements are met
water, sewerage and drainage
international transport and related matters
precious metals
sales through duty-free shops
grants of land by government
farmland
international mail
exports
sales of businesses as going concerns
some telecommunications supplies
eligible emissions units.

Originally Posted by GarryP

Yeah, that's why I added in the "we'll each pay $5" part of my scenario correction. The rich love the idea of 'consumption' taxes because it means that they don't have to bear their share. GST is effectively levied on the majority of goods, meaning the rich get an effective 'free pass'.

Originally Posted by the troubadour

Which is why not a good idea. The essential things in life being value added taxed only increase the burden on those already finding it tough going.
The greater inequality the more social issues and division. There is a reason Denmark is constantly voted the happiest country or near enough.
Little to do with left/right bulls, just good sense. The role of good government is not just to further the lot of a few..........

Originally Posted by the troubadour

Like this. I'm glad at least someone else has the ability to reason and look beyond self gain and greed.


Although it is only a couple of authors peddling the largely flawed, neo liberal, tired old crXp on here, to a casual observer it must appear Australia is seeking to/or become a bastion of narrow self interest with declining values beyond greed and slugging to the quarter of the population ever slipping down the greasy pole. Not the sort of Australia it once was, most certainly.

Originally Posted by Beoz

Actually most are arguing with your train of thought. Probably because most on here work hard, and contribute to society. You obviously want it all for free and "most" find that attitude a disgrace.

Originally Posted by Beoz

The essentials are not taxed.

Originally Posted by Beoz

The essentials are not taxed.

The ciggies and Foxtel for those on the dole are.

Tell me you aren't going to argue Foxtel and cigs should be tax free because the poor like them?

Originally Posted by GarryP

Yeah, there's no GST on electricity or gas, it would be silly otherwise ....

Originally Posted by the troubadour

A regressive tax that further inflicts pain on the poor and middle class. So the poorer don't need to consume as well? Perhaps you mean a luxury tax on non essentials? Although I doubt it. Any other tax would further burden the load of those already finding it difficult.


The correct way is for those able to pay their fair share.

Originally Posted by GarryP

Only it's not, is it?

The richer you are, the more mechanisms come into play to cut your tax bill, the more you can pay people to fiddle the figures for you. The effective tax rate for the rich can be lower than that for the middle class. In fact you can arrange it so you can be extremely wealthy, and pay no tax at all.

The tenth man would claim that he made a loss on his negatively geared property portfolio, that his bribes to politicians cost him significantly, his international earnings were hidden in an offshore account, and that the cost of paying a tax accountant to find and exploit all these loopholes.

He would regretfully state that he could manage to pay $3.43, but that if they swapped the 'tax' so that it fell more on everyone's consumption equally, it would be fairer. So those four over there should be paying $5, and he would be happy to do the same. Obviously this wouldn't cover the $100, so they would have to borrow the rest.

Meet the 48 millionaires who pay no income tax, not even the Medicare levy


For those that understand, the bias in the argument is obvious.
For those that don't want to understand, no explanation is ever going to go in.

Originally Posted by the troubadour

When you've lived in Australia a little longer, you may well come to the conclusion that this country was based on a fair society, not one that benefits the rich and punishes the vulnerable or ordinary working people just because of some past by date flawed ideology.


Those that work the hardest tend to be the most powerless .....you somehow confuse the accumulation of wealth with hard work.