Originally Posted by stevenglish1

For starters I don't think my point of view has changed one bit, I don't think I've mentioned off shore before this post.

As for gathering the actual facts and figures, now that interests me. These 'facts and figures' , you, Zulu, Beoz, Austennis et al (and I'm not precluding myself) have all read and digested the same facts and figures and come to vastly different conclusions.

Soooo, it seems the facts and figures mean nothing to us because we simply manipulate them to reflect our own preconceptions / political slant.

Originally Posted by GarryP

Primary difference is absolute numbers vs percentages.

The right wingers will push "look the rich are paying so much" and make statements about $m that come from them.

Those in the centre/left point to the percentage taken in tax, particular of the disposable income and say there is more pain heaped on the poor, particular since most tax avoidance approaches are only open if you have stacks of cash.

In the end, I guess, it again comes down to if you take an individual centric viewpoint, or a society centric one. Perspective - tight in on wods of cash, or broader on how big the original pile is.

As I said above, the question is in breaking that contradiction and getting everyone to willingly pay their fair share. For some reason this is seen as contentious.

Originally Posted by Beoz

Well the argument comes from the facts and figures. Those at the right/centre would rather deal in facts and figures first then move to the fluffy stuff which makes common sense doesn't it, but the social democrats refuse to acknowledge the facts and figures and pedal the propaganda that every wealthy person has their savings of in a tax haven. And there's no doubt some wealth people do, but whether or not they are dodging tax is not even known. We have only had one social democrat on here admitting where the retirement is stored. The others run and hide, Garry where is yours making money?

Here are the facts. You decide.

FactCheck: is 50% of all income tax in Australia paid by 10% of the working population?

The other non factual argument which amazes me is that the social democrats seem to believe the wealthy have disposable income that they can hand out. Debatable - depends on their expenses. We don't know.

Now on my own personal agenda, would I benefit from greater taxation of the rich? yep of course. Its not about me, its about society as a whole, everyone, rich and poor,

So where we are today, where the poor people in society receive some very generous benefits and the wealthy are contributing the most to make that happen, we are probably in a good place. Not perfect, never will, but a good place. Of course the social democrats will moan about the tax havens, and so will the right to be fair, but it tends to be the basis of an argument which really is a small minority of people a small minority of money - clean it up, be done with it.

Originally Posted by stevenglish1

Interesting fact from there, if everybody of working age, had actually worked, earned a decent wage and paid 11,500 in income tax, it would have raised the same amount. I paid $90,000 last year I should have a nice cruisy 7 years ahead of me

Originally Posted by Amazulu

You raise interesting points

One thing you learn when you do graduate study is to filter and interpret stats, numbers etc. Anything can be put into a graph or table to put any viewpoint or opinion across - and this happens all the time. Many economists do this ad nauseum for instance - they cherry pick data to reinforce their viewpoint (Yes AEP, Keene, I'm looking at you). When examining stats, you need to look at the quality of the source, the quality and relevance of the data eg crap in, crap out

You don't need to be studying to realise this but it does open your eyes

Originally Posted by Beoz

Well according to pay calculator you earned $260,000, and depending on how many people you support you probably make it into the top 10% - maybe the top 5% of income earners in Australia. Good for you.

And you have mentioned before that you came from a poor background, so well done again. ..... and I'm serious.

Originally Posted by stevenglish1

Interesting fact from there,

Originally Posted by OzTennis

There seems to be an inherent observation in there that coming from a poor background means it is unusual to 'make it to the top' (by your criteria of how much you earn)? Discuss

A vital point I'd make in all this discussion is everyone is discussing income tax as though it is the only tax which people pay and which contributes revenue to the government coffers. In the UK for example income tax contributes less than half the tax take for the government (48% in last year of figures); other direct taxes such as corporation tax (which we know can be avoided easily) make up just over 20% and the rest comes from indirect taxes.

As we know, indirect taxes are flat rate and therefore regressive - your $1 mill guy and your $50K guy pay the same amount which is a much larger % of income for the lower income person. Your 2% pay very little of the GST, VAT, petrol tax etc, etc; the bulk of the population pay most of the indirect taxes.

So we should look at the total tax burden, not just income taxes. I think I'm still waiting for proof of this 2% pay 26% claim?

Originally Posted by GarryP

It's quote illuminating. It says that 90% of people earn less than $100k and therefore pay significantly less tax than the 10% who earn above that level.

It also doesn't really break down those high figures, so you can't look at the 10%:1%:0.1% breakdown. Given that tax at those types of income are pretty flat, and the fall off in numbers at higher salaries is quite extreme, what it says is that some people have very high incomes. eg

http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20A...ax-3.gif?la=en
that tail has to be looooooooong.

What can you deduce from this?

1. If wages were higher, that large chunk of people on the left would pay a whole lot more in total tax.
2. Dealing with the avoidance of tax by the ultra rich, who are well to the right on the above graph, would make a substantial different to tax take - since they are such a big contribution.
3. The stepped nature of those thresholds plays merry hell with the tax take - probably as accountants play games to keep certain people's 'incomes' below that lower threshold. Really doesn't make a lot of sense otherwise. Looks like grand scale fiddling to me to have graph inflection points and thresholds coincide like that.

At a rough guess, at least 20% of the population are fiddling their tax -that's what the graph says to me.

Originally Posted by Amazulu

You raise interesting points

One thing you learn when you do graduate study is to filter and interpret stats, numbers etc. Anything can be put into a graph or table to put any viewpoint or opinion across - and this happens all the time. Many economists do this ad nauseum for instance - they cherry pick data to reinforce their viewpoint (Yes AEP, Keene, I'm looking at you). When examining stats, you need to look at the quality of the source, the quality and relevance of the data eg crap in, crap out

You don't need to be studying to realise this but it does open your eyes

Originally Posted by Beoz

Lot of "probably", "rough guess", "looks like". How about some facts. How's your super fund doing?

Originally Posted by Beoz

Another reason why we may be wanting to slow down the foreign investment - tax is a good answer to that.

http://www.domain.com.au/news/chines...160415-go7504/

Originally Posted by Beoz

I knew some clown would say its unusual for the poor to make it to the top and right on cue the prize goes to Tennis.

Point being Trab mentioned it earlier that wealth usually remains in the family and the poor never have a chance - you know the poverty cycle. More propaganda. Don't ask me to find it - you go nuts in the search thing.

I know first hand this is not always the case. My father grew up with an alcoholic father, shared a bedroom with 4 siblings, no money, left school at 14, but managed at times in life to be very wealthy and at other times through some pretty bad business decisions be pretty poor. The point is having a poor background doesn't mean it remains that way.

So the question is should we encouraging the poverty cycle or activity helping people to get out of it? What do you think? I doubt you will agree.

You can always use the search for the 2 of 26. Go nuts. Its been documented before. The latest is 10 of 50. If that doesn't give you a boner there's this ........FactCheck: is 50% of all income tax in Australia paid by 10% of the working population?. ....... again.

Or try this.

Tax brackets as a percentage of income earners and total tax paid

If its up for dispute, post the evidence.

A flat sales tax is fine. The wealthy already cough up more. If you choose to buy, you can be equal.

Originally Posted by the troubadour

Don't concern yourself how others super are going. The fact being the present system has to change. When the rich have shown that tax is optional and a thing for the working poor it is clearly not functional.

Originally Posted by the troubadour

No one can claim it impossible for the poor to make good. Just the onus is stacked more against them to not succeed. Whatever the definition of success may be.

It matters not what happened before, in fairer times when education was free, or cheaper and more assistance was available to those from disadvantaged backgrounds to attend higher education. Education has become but another business with even TAFE's becoming rather expensive when all other costs are taking into account.
We certainly do not compete on a level playing ground.

A sales tax disadvantages the poor so the word equality should not be used. Hence it being a regressive tax that obviously favours those already advantaged with far greater tax home earnings than those on wages, many of whom are referred to as the working poor.