Beoz

"Most" people don't vote for equality. Hardly a theme to take to an election.

the troubadour

Which is why is wrote inequality. Obviously with decades of neoliberalism the onus has become on self centred 'what's in it for me' policies. That surely goes without saying. But with a policy that promotes even greater inequality, that is rather a different thing. With more coming to the realisation that they are not better off and a party that obviously in the game to provide for the better off, afraid there are just more, many more being left behind, and they vote. No altruistic reasons wouldn't win alone, on that sadly I agree.

Beoz

"What's in it for me" is your attitude of riding on the coat trails of people, most people for that matter, who work hard and pay a lot in tax. You are a leech and your ideals are well and truly known round here.

old.sparkles

I find some of your language seriously distasteful at times.
Someone who is out of work (and I don't believe that this is the case with Troubadour) doesn't deserve to be called a leech, a dole bludger, or any of the other names you have used over time.
Whilst you are fortunate to be in a good place in terms of financial security, education and work prospects, this is not the case for all.

Whilst some people will choose to stay on benefits that wouldn't be the case for the majority.

But with many roles being casual, there is considerable financial insecurity amongst many in those situations - a fulltime role one week, can be zero hours the next. And when you are trying to ensure you can cover the bills, nothing is left to try and better your situation as all qualifications cost in terms of money and time which can be too costly.

Beoz

Hey .... let's get one thing straight.

I have always said, we as a society should support those who cannot support themselves.

But this is far from a welfare comment.

What Troubadour continually pursues in his madness is more welfare for a wider selection of people who are indeed capable of providing for themselves.

At the same time he doesn't believe the top 50 or 60% of earners in society pay their fair share (a script continually peddled out) and he would rather those of us (you and me) support his self righteous goals.

We are givers. Troubadour is a taker, and not a very gracious one at that.

GarryP

I wonder what could ever have given him the idea that the changes proposed would bring about a flat tax system that would benefit the top earners ....

https://i.imgur.com/rwNXu2F.png

Looks like those 'with' are trying to 'take' more ....

Beoz

And that is exactly how it should be. The top earners pay more in tax and if you are fairly going to give reductions, you earn more, you pay more, and you get a reduction, and that reduction for higher income earners will be large, why, because that is fair.

It should always be all about fairness.

If you live your life spending time worrying about how you can gouge as much as you can out of those who earn more than you, you are wasting time, and not giving back to society.

Speaking just days before the budget is handed down – expected to be the last before any election is fought – Senator Cormann said it was "very important" that Australia's tax policy settings remained "competitive".

"We will be prioritising low and middle income earners when it comes to tax relief but of course it's important that the tax policy settings are appropriate over all," he said.

He referred to data released by the government showing that the roughly 400,000 taxpayers who earn over $180,000 per year have a median tax bill of $85,000 which equates to an effective income tax rate of 36 per cent. The same analysis showed the effective tax rate for those earning less than $87,001 (the second highest marginal tax rate) was just 19 per cent.

$85,000 in tax. That's a lot of money.

GarryP

A nice example in creative lying there. First the quote of "$180,000" so you think that's the salary they are talking about. Then "a median tax bill of $85,000" which you are supposed to tie to the 180k.

"I wouldn't think paying $85k on $180k is fair", you are supposed to think. Thing is, of course, the median will be for people getting paid more than $180k. In fact it's going to be more like $238k.

So, if you are paid nearly a quarter of a mil, is $85k in tax OK?

BTW, if you actually earn $180k then you only pay $58k in taxes.

And if you earn $87k, you pay $21.5k in taxes

And, of course, as we have covered previously, the cost of living makes a big difference.
If you are paid $87k, you take home $65k. However the cost of living is $61k. Leaving you $4k
If you are paid $180k, you take home $122k. Even with an enhanced cost of living, you only pay $75k. Leaving you $47k, or 1075% more disposable income.
If you are paid $238k, you take home $153k. Even with a lavish cost of living, you only pay $88k. Leaving you $65k, or 1525% more disposable income.

Yep, it really should.

Beoz

Its exactly what it says. The median tax bill for those earning over $180,000 is $85k.

Did you make these numbers up? How do you know what the disposable income of someone on $180k is? And what they spend it on is quite frankly none of your business - nor mine for that matter.

What is your business is their contribution to tax and society.

As you point out, someone on $180,000 contributes $58,000 worth of tax per year.

Someone on $87,000 contributes $22,000 per year.

Notice the vast difference.

Do you go to the pub with your mates who earn more than you and expect them to buy more rounds? If they did do you give them thanks? I bloody well hope so.

GarryP

That's taking numbers from a cost of living calculator, obviously if they were living to the same standards the cost of living would be the same and the disparity even more stark.

And, of course, the attempt to force a flat tax will make the situation even worse. The family on $180k won't have a tax amount of $58k, but instead only $53k. Whereas the family on $87k won't pay $21.5, but instead ...... $21k.

That means you go from 1075% more disposable income, to about 1200% more disposable income.

A progressive tax system is a hallmark of a civilised country .... which is what the Libs want to move away from.

Beoz

How is that a "Flat Tax"?

According to your figures:

Someone on 87K pays 24% at $21K
Someone on 180K pays 29% at $53K

That's not flat at all.

So the two arguments are this.

1. We should not penalise people for earning more but instead encourage people to earn more and pay more tax.
2. A progressive tax system is a hallmark of a civilised country.

The sound bites of no. 2 has no depth.

This is much better

"If we want to ensure that Australians are incentivised and encouraged to work hard, to stretch themselves, to be the best they can be, obviously there has to be a reward for effort as well," Senator Cormann said.

GarryP

It's much flatter, and from 2024 the aim is to have one band for most salaries - a flat tax. Obviously given tax free bands and lower tax rates at the low tax levels the net effect isn't totally flat, but the definition of flat tax varies.

See Budget 2018: Income tax brackets and how the Government's plan really works - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) if it's too complicated for you.

Or, if you want to look at it another way, since the cost of living becomes proportionately less as salary increases, a real progressive tax system would increase the tax rate with higher salaries. Whereas the reality is the reverse.

Hence unfair.

Beoz

You don't need to post articles to explain how it works. I get how it works.

What you really need to explain is why you feel higher income earners should be slapped even further into paying for the rest. Repeating phases such as "Progressive Tax Systems" and "Flat Tax" (glad you admitted your error on that) are just sound bytes, have no substance, and usually reserved for people who would like more at the expense of others.

Mattias Cormann has explained why the government have decided to do what they are planning. I will repeat.

"If we want to ensure that Australians are incentivised and encouraged to work hard, to stretch themselves, to be the best they can be, obviously there has to be a reward for effort as well," Senator Cormann said.

Given the tax breaks everyone is getting, you can't get much fairer than that, at the same time encouraging earnings which pays for all.

I don't understand the mentality of penalising people who earn. Its completely counter productive for a society who already and will continue to rely on the biggest earners in society.

There's some morals people should really learn. David Cameron summed it up nicely when elected in 2010.

And I want to help try and build a more responsible society here in Britain. One where we don't just ask what are my entitlements, but what are my responsibilities.

One where we don't ask what am I just owed, but more what can I give.

And a guide for that society - that those that can should, and those who can't we will always help.

I want to make sure that my government always looks after the elderly, the frail the poorest in our country.

We must take everyone through with us on some of the difficult decisions we have ahead.

Above all it will be a government that is built on some clear values. Values of freedom, values of fairness, and values of responsibility.

I want us to build an economy that rewards work.

GarryP

OK, looks like you are going off into la la land again, claiming all sorts of things that ain't so. Kind of pointless trying to explain fairness to someone who professionally won't listen. When you can demonstrate with some kind of logic how it's 'fair' that someone earning double the other person can end up with 10x more disposable income under the kind of tax system you favour - well then hell will well and truly have frozen over.

Beoz

You plucked the disposable income thing out of thin air ...... It was like .... puff .... magic.

You have no idea what different people's disposable income is or what their expenditure is. Mr & Mrs $180K might be sending their children through day care at $150 per child per day, because why, because its worth sending Mrs $180K back to work, because they can afford day care. Government collects Mrs $180K's tax, day care, and the 10 teachers they employ make money, pay tax.

But even if we took your bizarre rational which would never be the case because humans don't just put money like that in the bank - they buy stuff with it:

If you are paid $87k, you take home $65k. However the cost of living is $61k. Leaving you $4k
If you are paid $180k, you take home $122k. Even with an enhanced cost of living, you only pay $75k. Leaving you $47k.

So you really think its fair that someone who has managed to get themselves up to a $180K salary should have the disposable income of those on $87K? Really? You really think that's fair?

Lets put the shoe on the other foot. What are you on Garry? Lets say you are on $90K. I'd say ball park there for a guy like you. Do you really think you should have the same disposable income as someone on $50K? Do you really believe that? Really?

Please, common sense man.