swans

Which argument remains,the corporations are owned by the masses through their super/pension funds.

The shareholder list is always the same,largest shareholder HSBC,then J P Morgan,then National nominees then Citicorp.Get down to around number 7,8,9 and they are the OZ LIC's, AFIC, Perpetual etc.Employee shareholder plans come just outside the top ten.

The largest private employer in OZ is Wesfarmers they employ around 200,000 people.They pay them wages,they help to pay their super,(don't forget as a shop steward I argued against the foregone wage rise to kick off super way back when).They have an employee share plan,they can buy shares free of brokerage costs,WES pays those costs.Using their wages they are also free to buy shares on market.

I could be getting mixed up with woolworths but for every $1 I take out as a shareholder the employees take out $7,seems perfectly reasonable to me.On top of that $7 they also benefit from the rising share price,which is caused by the rising profits,which they get their share of just as I do.

Where do you think your super returns come from?


There is only around 1000 yrs of traceable history to point that out so it would be difficult to see it.The facts don't fit in with what they want to see,the facts are wrong,no other possible reason.


A well run company such as Westfield has 80% of the shares owned by pension funds,Frank Lowy gets richer,so does everybody else.You would be better off if you didn't have F. Lowy working for you to make you wealthier?

The shipyard I served my time in (sadly gone) made around 1 million quid profit,sometimes.A really good year was 2 million quid profit,a fortune way back when.
When I left I earned around 4,000 quid a year,the shareholders made around 200 quid a year profit from me.They paid for my trade training,they paid for my education,they paid my bus fares to go to tafe,they paid me 2 quid bonus if I passed my exams,which I did.

I didn't realise that at the time but I would like to meet all those shareholders now and thank them so much for the start in life they gave me.Sadly they will be long dead.

Pack of bastards those rich people aren't they

What is your argument?Are you going to fool yourself that living standards are shocking these days.

Geordie downunder.

knockoff nige

Not difficult to work out. The legal tax dodgers know exactly what their fair share is and work around it to get it as close to zero as they can. They are more aware of what that number is for them than I am for me. The number is not a set amount. If you inherited $1million you'd expect to pay inheritance tax on it. If you inherited $2million do you think you should pay exactly the same amount of tax as $1million?

Alan Collett

It is clearly too difficult for you to work out, nige - because I don't see any %'s or $'s in your comments.

It is always for someone else to work out.

As to inheritance tax - probably not the best example to use, because there isn't any IHT in Australia. And because this is a discussion about income tax, not death duties/IHT.

Regards.

knockoff nige

Percentages are already worked out. Have a read of the tax tier system for income tax. Not sure why you need me to post it here. That system is not the issue. It's the distribution of income in superannuation, company assets and offshoring profits that minimise tax.

Interesting that there is no inheritance tax here but I think you can understand the point. You would pay more if your income is more.

Maybe you can tell me what the correct amount of tax is for say, someone earning $1million a year.

Alan Collett

If an individual has assessable income of $1m a year s/he will pay tax on $1m.

What I think you might be alluding to is the assessable income of an individual being reduced through the use of tax deductions, or an entity such as a family trust or Pty Limited - which is lawful, otherwise the ATO would - or can - audit the taxpayer's annual return of income.

More details please, nige ...

Best regards.

knockoff nige

More details from you please. How much on that $1million should be taxable?

I see you are denying legal tax dodging. Joe Hockey himself has acknowledged it. Is it fair? Answer me that. Is it fair for someone to distribute their income in the form of company assets? No-one is saying this is illegal but is t right that certain benefits are only available to the rich which result in a CEO paying less tax than their secretary?

Please don't make the same mistake as Beoz and assume that those of us that oppose your view are resentful of the wealthy.

Beoz

The problem is Nige, you really never delve into the facts and when presented with them you ignore and go off on another tanget and when the heat really hits you take the moral high ground.

The bottom line is mate, the poor, world wide live a far better existence than they did 30 years ago and whilst the poor are getting a better existence it would be far more productive if you put your efforts into self inititive rather than charity.

knockoff nige

Provide the facts please. Show me what I'm missing. You have yet to do that. All you've done was pluck some from random Pierson here but have none to show.

I'm not taking a moral high ground but nice of you to see my morals as higher than yours. My stance is this, if we want the economy to survive, we need to encourage consumers to spend. Hitting them with GST on basic things such as fresh food does not encourage spending. The issue is not self initiative, people are working and earning but are still struggling. The issue is pushing the wealthy away from their (and our) responsibility of keeping things affordable.

Can I ask you, do you agree with Ayn Rand and her radical nonsense? It sounds like you do.

Beoz

The poor seem to be happy to flash around their iphones and the 55" TV's interest free loans from Harvey Norman. Do you ever see an empty Apple store? Yet we are so hung up on the corporation tax and point the blame at the individual rich people. There the Apple store is generating tonnes of GST whilst we complain about the cost of food. Something aint adding up here right?

knockoff nige

The people buying the TVs and the iPhone's are the people saving the economy. You need to be prepared to accept that I don't beleive being wealthy is bad. Avoiding tax is bad. Not appreciating the importance of lower income earners is bad. Showing contempt for those who cannot afford a GST on fresh food is bad.

Show us your facts please or move on. Or perhaps answer my question on Ayn Rand.

the troubadour

Bottom line being the cake is being less evenly spread and inequality due to the taking on of conservative economic policy mores from the 80's.

I'd say folk were better of 30 years ago.

An average person is not better off today than a dozen years ago. I read an example of this recently when it was given as an example Adelaide, ten houses could be purchased for a million dollars in that time now only two can.

Folk have never been so leveraged. Hardly good for the individual nor for society.

Be deserve and are in need of something far better.

the troubadour

Pretty standard stuff these days. The system allows almost all without regards to the ability to pay in a thing called debt.

Hardly a sign of anything besides more mugs being enticed to get into ever greater debt without fully realising future consequences.

Get those with limited means or even the means to over consume and a passive, indebted population entrapped for their lives on the drudgery work roundabout with little ability to exit especially if a mortgage is in the equation.

the troubadour

It's not the assessable tax that is the issue. It is creative accounting and a tightening of the loop holes and accountability and naming and shaming the big corporates .......

the troubadour

Nothing to do with numbers or percentages. All to do with paying a fair percentage of tax on income earned in country where the profit was gained.

Can't be much simpler than that.

the troubadour

I argue that a super fund dependent on the share market is a dodgy proposition at best. I speak as someone that lost a considerable amount several years ago with the market decline.

Hardly any sort of aged guarantee if reliance is how well the share market is performing as to how one can plan for future retirement but your sold.

Saying that I have used it as part of the gamble and in order to reduce tax.

Having a guaranteed pension from another country, but hardly enough if over stay my time on earth, does allow for some comfort and asset free testing to top it off in comparison to the Australian Aged Pension which is income support at best.

Your words the rich are a pack of bastards. I guess personal experience has pointed you that way. Certainly people regardless of social standing, position, wealth will get away with whatever they feel able to if unlikely to get caught.
Greed knows no class bounds but the pay as you go are of course easier to come after.

Those earning more pay more end off. It is not the total amount paid it is the earnings made. Being too hard to reign in is not an excuse and needs world wide attention.