the troubadour

In per cent terms it is those on PAYG that contribute the most by far according to earnings. How darn decent of the top players to contribute something towards the nation.
Be even better if they at the top levels paid their just dues. Remind me again. Just how much of the wealth is in the control of the top ten per cent? Not a bad gig if you can get it I suppose. Then again some have morals and a sense of fair play and don't necessary think winner should take all or most.

paulry

No, I did it a while ago and it placed me midway between Nelson Mandela and Mother Theresa

scrubbedexpat098

Worst threesome ever

Beoz

Are you kidding??

The approval of the Elephant and Castle refurb and the demolishion 1000's of council flats and removal of those residents was approved on Ken Livingstons watch.

paulry

Maybe true, but I reckon socially the three of us would get along quite well and have a good laugh!

Beoz

Absolute rubbish

Someone on a $1,000,000 salary pays 50% of that in tax.

Some on a $50,000 salary pays 9%.

What on earth are you talking about?

Beoz

Here's another prime example of the stupidity and hypocrisy of the lefties ..... coupled with Tony Abbotts inability to sell.

Remember the maternity policy.

http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/tony-abbotts-paid-parental-leave-scheme-to-begin-july-2015-20130817-2s4jc.html

The country is losing brain power and subsequent tax dollars by forcing women to return to the workforce too early and forcing them out again with the juggle of work and family, many of those women we never see again in the workforce.

Forget the feminist part, forget the welfare, think about the talent and tax dollars lost.

Typical short sighted lefties.

http://m.huffpost.com/au/entry/9155852

Amazulu

Bollocks

The income tax take in Australia breaks down roughly as this:
10% pay 90%
40% pay 10%
50% pay 0% (in fact most take more out than they put in)

Hope this helps

Beoz

2 lies in as many posts. The left can't be trusted. Lying to suit their own personal free ride agenda.

Amazulu

I detest the fact that the left believes that if you are wealthy, then you are therefore evil - no matter if you acquired that wealth through your own effort and work and pay all your taxes. The fact that some rich people avoid or reduce their taxes does not deflect from the rrality that it is rich people carrying the country - paying for the welfare of those who scream and shout the most

fish.01

So if I don't think like this I'm on the right

OzTennis

Let's analyse this lie:

"Someone on a $1,000,000 salary pays 50% of that in tax.

Some on a $50,000 salary pays 9%."

You don't indicate whether you are talking total tax burden, income tax burden or what. You inflate the rich person's tax burden and understate the comparatively poor person's tax burden in order to suit your right wing agenda it must be said.

The facts - assuming purely rates of income tax and you are talking Australia not USA,

BOTH pay no tax on the first $18,200.
BOTH pay 19 cents in the dollar on the next $18,800.
BOTH pay 32.5 cents in the dollar on the next $43,000
BOTH pay 37 cents in the dollar of the next $100,000
BOTH pay 45 cents in the dollar on an income in excess of $180,000.

The someone on $50,000 in fact pays 15.6% and any overtime or pay rises will be taxed at 32.5 cents in the dollar.

The someone on $1 mill in fact pays 42.3% and their marginal rate is 45%.

That is not factoring in the much greater deductions the someone on $1 mill will claim on their return or the tax savings they are able to achieve by investing big chunks of their huge salary in tax free and low tax investments.

Perhaps you'll argue for a Thatcher/Portillo flat rate for income tax as progressive taxation is so unfair on the highest income earners?

Ian Cameron (Dave's father) paid NO income tax in the UK on his company's profits for 30 years because he took advantage of the laws introduced by Thatcher in 1979 which legally permit money earned in the UK to move to tax havens such as Panama, Channel Islands, Isle of Man, British Virgin Islands........... and so avoid paying what they should. The 'someone on $50K'* has UK tax taken out of their pay and passed on to HMRC; Ian Cameron and their ilk register shell companies in Panama etc and don't pay HMRC. * or ATO

Beoz

Aw bless .... you worked all that out by long hand arithmetic. So retro. I just used one of these.

https://www.ato.gov.au/Calculators-a...#STC/questions

pay calculator

Enough of the details. Your school teacher friend said the following

In per cent terms it is those on PAYG that contribute the most by far according to earnings.

Whether you choose the retro method or one of the calculators, the statement is incorrect and no matter how much you fluff it up. The wealthy contribute more to your teacher salary than the poor. (FWIW I'm not in the rich end so I have no selfish personal bias)

That's an incredible sweeping statement and does your cause no good as I'm about to trip you up badly. Also lets leave resentment at the door for starters. It has no place in this discussion.

The person on 1 million has more or less half a million to play with after the government has their piece. Remember we are talking PAYG here - taxed at source. You can't get out of it.

Lets say they choose to invest 200,000 of that and spend the other $300,000 on the mortgage, Ferrari's, lavish holidays and the like. You know, keeping the minimum wage hotel worker in a job because the wealth spend money in their hotel.

Most people who have $200,000 to invest also don't like spending time in jail, and a criminal record looks no good either. Lets remember that $200,000 is theirs - they have already paid tax on it. But what they want to do is make more money from that $200,000. Its kind of like Super or a Pension. It comes from your salary, you invest it, there are tax reliefs for doing so and its not restricted to the wealthy - the resentment class can participate in that too.

So they invest it. It might be in an investment property which has some tax benefits (whether they are right or wrong is for another discussion) it might be in some shares, it might be in something that pays an annual dividend, but at the end of the day, whatever profits are made, are taxed - that tax benefits you and me. Oh and where ever they choose to invest it, generally requires people to make it happen - more jobs more tax.

Now if someone chooses to make profits in a place where their country of residence cannot see those profits, then that's an illegal activity in the eye of most countries and I can assure you, most wealthy people don't want a criminal conviction - it f**ks your life up. But there will be people who push the system, and that's their risk - most people don't want that risk in their lives.

Also, I might add, the million dollar salary earners I know generally own their own companies. They employ lots of people. In turn those people pay tax which helps provide your teachers salary. It also provides those workers with an income, which keeps the out of the welfare system.

Are you suggesting Ian Cameron's personal salary was never tax. I ask because you relate to the "someone" - "individual" on 50K. I think, but I could be wrong, you are referring to Ian Camerons company, rather than the individual?

Things change all the time. If Thatchers policies help get Britain out of the gutter at that time in history, which they did, then so be it. It doesn't mean a policy has to remain in place forever.

Its a bit like Ireland. It was screwed but attracted large corporations from all over Europe to set up Headquarters in Dublin by offering low corporate tax rates. Those companies gave people jobs, those people paid tax. Also the corporations weren't paying no tax, it was a competitive tax designed to attract money.

I do hope this helps.

Amazulu

Most people earning $50k in reality pay no net income tax (married. children etc) and in fact, the vast majority of these people take more out of the system than they put in

Thankfully because we an excellent consumption tax called GST which means that these people at least pay some tax. It should be 15%

Hope this helps

GarryP

The interesting question is what percentage of 'disposable' income gets taken in tax. Let's assume it takes ~$35k to just live. Using paycalculator we get :And that's before we get to the impact of the regressive GST, the opportunities to reduce your tax spend if you can take advantage of negative gearing, and the other tax games you can play as the total income number goes up. You'd have to expect the effective rate of tax on disposable income is in the 30%s, or even 20%s, for higher earners.

Effectively, in terms of the pain felt and the reduction in opportunities that would otherwise be available, it's the poor that pay a disproportionately higher burden.