Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by fish.01

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

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by the troubadour

I thought my post may have assisted you in helping to arrive at an understanding of the greater picture.


Tell me how much of the total wealth do the top ten per cent control?






Never ceases to crack me up the Right and how they manipulate figures for their own benefit.

Originally Posted by OzTennis

'My friend' was referring to the total amount of income tax paid by lower income earners vs the total amount of income tax paid by higher income earners but you interpreted that to mean one higher income earner vs one lower income earner and jumped in with your nonsense 50% vs 9%.

Ian Cameron didn't pay UK income tax for 30 years. Understood? His earnings were squirreled away in Panama. Dave's school fees and expenses were paid for as well as his £300K inheritance came from this source.

You don't have to teach granny to suck eggs about how higher income earners might be employing others - we are just talking about the tax burden of higher income earners vs lower.

Originally Posted by OzTennis

Ian Cameron didn't pay UK income tax for 30 years. Understood? His earnings were squirreled away in Panama. Dave's school fees and expenses were paid for as well as his £300K inheritance came from this source.

Originally Posted by Amazulu

Was what Ian Cameron legal? Not was it immoral or wrong, was it illegal? If it was legal then everything else is irrelevant. We've all got different motivations. All that matters in the context of the UK, is Dave Cameron using Panama?

Answer me this: if you could legally reduce your tax (even to zero), would you do it?

Seeing how our governments waste so much on excessive welfare, too many civil servants and red tape and generally spend our money unwisely, I know I would - only a moronic f**kwit pays more tax than they have to

You may see this differently and as it's your money, party on

Originally Posted by Beoz

You are struggling now. In the corner. Fight nearly over.

Dave Cameron had 3 siblings. Let assume they all got 300,000 each. 1,200,000 left for the kids, 1,200,000 or thereabouts in inheritance tax ...... booom.... enough to support you for 25 years.

You should be thanking Ian Cameron you greedy lefty.

Originally Posted by OzTennis

'My friend' was referring to the total amount of income tax paid by lower income earners vs the total amount of income tax paid by higher income earners but you interpreted that to mean one higher income earner vs one lower income earner and jumped in with your nonsense 50% vs 9%.

Ian Cameron didn't pay UK income tax for 30 years. Understood? His earnings were squirreled away in Panama. Dave's school fees and expenses were paid for as well as his £300K inheritance came from this source.

You don't have to teach granny to suck eggs about how higher income earners might be employing others - we are just talking about the tax burden of higher income earners vs lower.

Originally Posted by Bermudashorts

Ian Cameron was an employee. He therefore did pay income tax and probably quite a lot of it.

I think some lefties like yourself will just refuse to see plain and simple facts that higher earners contribute the most to the tax coffers. Look at the tax tables for heavens sake, will you just look at them. The % increases as income increases. Employees in particular stand no chance of avoiding tax, in fact the self employed plumber has a better chance of avoiding (evading actually, trust you know the difference) income tax than the evil banker.

There are extremely wealthy people of all political leanings that manage to pull of elaborate tax avoidance schemes, but we do not all fall into one of two categories being a) minimum wage earner or b) extremely wealthy.