Tax the rich?

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by cheap

So paying near 50% in tax for every dollar, that's the incentive that works for you?

It's called being part of a society that cares about the less fortunate and those more fortunate doing a little extra because they are more fortunate. I see no problem with this when I get my hefty five figure tax bill. The top rate is 48 cents in the dollar and is only on eveyr dollar you earn over 180k. So if you earn 380k a year you pay 48 cents in the dollar on the 200k above 180k. But of course then you have those earning millions a year that pay very little tax as they are parking money in trusts and things, THAT should be stopped immediately.

[BENT_8]

Im getting confused about who wants what.

Can we have all the people with investment properties and deposits for the GTF on one side of the argument, and all those renting and driving EA's on the other side.

Then we can count Peter and Paul effectively and move on.

Who'd have thought a few hundred dollars would divide so many.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Hmmm... You are living with a teacher too? May be you can help me out, my wife has been a teacher in the public system (two countries) her whole working life. As such she has reached the income ceiling for a classroom teacher. In spite of that fact she took leave without pay recently to obtain a post graduate diploma. The extra education she obtained (TESOL) to assist her in her work will not increase her income. She will not get another pay increase no matter how long she works.

I have run a successful small business employing staff for the past seventeen years. As such, I know from a business perspective what she is doing is flawed. The sort of capital expenditure our family has invested in my wife should be providing a healthy return, but apart form CPI she is not earning a cent more than she was several years ago.

How can I get my wife to get with the program?

That's an easy one mate.

Get her to apply for a position in an expensive private school where remuneration is based on merit rather than years served.

Sounds like she's got the goods to go further.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by zilo

That's an easy one mate.

Get her to apply for a position in an expensive private school where remuneration is based on merit rather than years served.

Sounds like she's got the goods to go further.

Awesome, please post details of the positions at expensive private schools for teaching English to refugees. Particularly refugee children that have never attended a formal school before, and need to be ready to enter main stream schooling in 6-12 months.

[cheap]

Speaking of tax, here's this gem, I don't care if you're a peter or a paul, but the mining tax has proven to be the most stupid taxation policy by far. At least the CO2 tax raised money which was its intent.

What is the point of keeping the mining tax which is self-harming except to want to perpetuate a political falsehood. Worlds greatest treasurer my ****!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...1226912398621#

NEW figures show Labor’s mining tax is costing more than it is raising as the government has been forced to repay more than $230 million in overpaid tax…

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said the figures ... showed that the Australian Taxation Office had refunded another $175m in previously overpaid Minerals Resource Rent Tax instalments in March. A further $10.6m in MRRT prepayments had been refunded in April....

“This brings total mining tax refunds so far to more than $237m, when the final budget outcome for 2012-13 showed that only $200m in net revenue had been raised from quarterly MRRT prepayments,’’ Senator Cormann said.

He said the mining tax had cost the tax office more than $50m to administer.

“When Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan first announced the MRRT they said it would raise $4 billion in the first year,’’ Senator Cormann said. He said Labor had also pledged spending commitments on the back of money that had yet to be raised by the tax.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by cheap

Back in 1972 (maybe 1973-74) is when the first really big "free" scheme started, back then it was called Medibank and with it came the beginnings of the bloated public service.

Every successive government has either ignored, mismanaged or expanded on the "free" madness to the point where we are now, according to news reports 50% effectively don't pay tax and therefore 50% pay a lot of tax.

I didn't think people needed to be rocket scientists to work out the trajectory of this unsustainable culture, but what has surprised me is that some people seem to believe the problem doesn't exist at all. Don't people every wonder where their tax dollars actually go? I've formed the opinion that the statistics are correct and there are many "Pauls" amongst us.

I quoted actual figures from the Treasury to you earlier in the thread. You claimed Treasury had an agenda and you didn't believe their numbers. Now you are quoting news reports as a viable source?!

Medicare is not free; we pay for it through our taxes. Think of it as mandatory health insurance. It is one of the best systems in the world. Please point to a better system.

The USA has a user pays system, last time i checked they spent over 17% of GDP on medical expences. Unlike the US system, Australias Medicare system provides "universal" cover. Everyone in Australia is covered and our system costs less than 10% of GDP.

So it's not free madness, it's an effective system that keeps medical expences lower in this country.

[NAK302]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Im getting confused about who wants what.

Can we have all the people with investment properties and deposits for the GTF on one side of the argument, and all those renting and driving EA's on the other side.

Then we can count Peter and Paul effectively and move on.

Who'd have thought a few hundred dollars would divide so many.

twisted logic there.
if folks don't buy investment properties, the "renters" wouldn't have anywhere to live. to be honest, my rental property runs at a loss, therefore the folks who live in it are being subsidised by me and are probably (financially) better off in this instance. i'm better off investing in bank shares. but then supply and demand for housing would skyrocket along with rents, which would mean higher renatal assisatance, which would mean higher taxes to pay for it from Peter and round and round and round we go....
i'd suggest the tax system involves a fair bit more than a few hundred dollars you speak of.
how many of those GTF's will be leased to bring taxable income down? i may even look into it myself next year if the threshold moves up, after-all, i may as well have some sort of reward for working nights, weekends and public holidays.

[BENT_8]

I would be interested to know what it costs the system for people to visit the doctor for something other than actual medical care.

I've often wondered why a doctor should command what ever they get an hour to simply write me a script for medication I have been taking for over a decade.
It never changes, and its nothing more than a case of print and sign anyway.
The actual 'medical' care consists of a BP check which is all of 30 seconds.

The local medical centre I use has a couple of nurses and a treatment room on site, wouldn't it be cheaper for someone like me who only ever visits for a blood pressure check and associated scripts, to simply wait in queue to see the $30hr nurse and leave the $150hr Dr's for sick people.

Its the same with sickie certificates.
Who hasn't sat in a DR's surgery for ages whilst people pass through the revolving door every minute or so and exit with a slip of paper.
C'mon, we've all pulled sickies, and many of us have done so with tax payer funded medical certificates for gastro or some other 24hr bug, which see's us miraculously recover to full health the next day, @ $150hr from our GP.
Its insider trading, they know your not sick really, but can regard you as sick and profit from it.
Why cant there be a system which provides cover for genuinely sick (not work cover injury etc.) employees and stop every Tom Dick and Harry, or Paul heaven forbid, from clogging up Dr's surgery and creating unnecessary strain on the public system.

Thoughts.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by GT-0733

twisted logic there.
if folks don't buy investment properties, the "renters" wouldn't have anywhere to live. to be honest, my rental property runs at a loss, therefore the folks who live in it are being subsidised by me and are probably (financially) better off in this instance. i'm better off investing in bank shares. but then supply and demand for housing would skyrocket along with rents, which would mean higher renatal assisatance, which would mean higher taxes to pay for it from Peter and round and round and round we go....
i'd suggest the tax system involves a fair bit more than a few hundred dollars you speak of.
how many of those GTF's will be leased to bring taxable income down? i may even look into it myself next year if the threshold moves up, after-all, i may as well have some sort of reward for working nights, weekends and public holidays.

And if renters didn't rent investors wouldn't have investments to offset taxes.
Its a two way street.
If housing was cheaper I could afford to buy and wouldn't need to rent.
Why is housing so dear?
It cant be demand as there are about 10 empty houses in my street alone, and i'm in a 5yr old estate.

My post was supposed to bring some light humour to what has been an eye opening thread.
Clearly your sensitivity meter has redlined as a result of the topic.

Oh, you'll have to go Auto, the rich people already bought the manuals....

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

I quoted actual figures from the Treasury to you earlier in the thread. You claimed Treasury had an agenda and you didn't believe their numbers. Now you are quoting news reports as a viable source?!

Medicare is not free; we pay for it through our taxes. Think of it as mandatory health insurance. It is one of the best systems in the world. Please point to a better system.

The USA has a user pays system, last time i checked they spent over 17% of GDP on medical expences. Unlike the US system, Australias Medicare system provides "universal" cover. Everyone in Australia is covered and our system costs less than 10% of GDP.

So it's not free madness, it's an effective system that keeps medical expences lower in this country.

And the forward projections of the worlds greatest health system - what would they be? Any ideas on how or who is going to pay for the system (besides higher taxes)?

I'd be interesting in knowing how much you spend on your total health care, as we contribute a lot and not surprisingly we don't use anywhere near this.

As they say, if you think health care is expensive now, wait until they make it free. very true words my friend, very true.

[MAD]

Our Government is supposed to use their income (my money, your money) to their best ability for the betterment of the country.
Is one class of people having better healthcare 'betterment'?

If our Government retained essential supplies, they would have a constantly growing income as population increases.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by cheap

And the forward projections of the worlds greatest health system - what would they be? Any ideas on how or who is going to pay for the system (besides higher taxes)?

I'd be interesting in knowing how much you spend on your total health care, as we contribute a lot and not surprisingly we don't use anywhere near this.

As they say, if you think health care is expensive now, wait until they make it free. very true words my friend, very true.

Your posts are full of doom and gloom but no facts.

Quoting P.J.O'Rourke does nothing for credibility.

Your opinions are based on a flawed ideology IMHO

[turboclown]

whats become clear to me lately is that getting welfare if you are poor is evil, getting welfare if you are rich is what you deserve

[mechanic]

Originally Posted by turboclown

whats become clear to me lately is that getting welfare if you are poor is evil, getting welfare if you are rich is what you deserve

Well said.
Or put it this way, if you think welfare is so great you've always got the option of throwing the job in, giving all your money away, and just live on welfare.

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by xxx000

It does because public education isn't free either. There's books, uniforms, excursion fees, school fees etc etc.
Both services are effectively provided and subsidised however by govt.
We've been brainwashed to feel that it's ok to subsidise non govt schools.
IMHO It's a rort and stopping this could save the govt billions which is one of a range of measures I've already suggested

You are clutching at straws, those charges apply at all schools. You do not pay for the "education" component do you? It is like saying you had to pay extra for a resturaunt dinner cause they made you wear clothes.........

Rort? If I chose to send my kids to a private school (and I dont. I went to a public school, and I believe parenting plays a bigger part in what a child will learn rather than the actual schooling) then considering the tax I pay, I still expect to get back the proportion that I have contributed in whatever schooling I choose for my kids. Anything extra that I add personally is up to me.

I am sick of people whinging about high earners and calling things that they have provided for as rorts. Maybe you have never experienced being in Australia's most descriminated against class - the high earning, healthy, divorced white male with kids that is in his mid forties.

Try having to have private health insurance or you get penalised when you have visited a GP 2 times in ten years for a grand total of a hundred bucks, but being hit with extra levies for medicare, flood levies, missed out on first home buying grants, no family A or B benefits, no plasma tv payouts........

I have never avoided a cent of tax and pay it willingly, High earners deserve a bit of respect for financing a lot of what the masses recieve, and if they choose to send their kids to a private school how can you say that they should lose anything for it. But as i posted earlier, State contribution per child should always be the same.

[turboclown]

the above post is the perfect example of someone removed from the reality of discrimination and its effect on those who actually experience it.

So tough being born a white male in Australia, should sell up and move to Afghanistan and start dressing as a woman

[Lotte]

Originally Posted by tweeked

But as i posted earlier, State contribution per child should always be the same.

That model means that you end up with the issues we have now:
State schools who are under resourced in teacher power
State schools who can't provide resources to teach certain subjects
State schools who can't provide adequate anything because they're so run down.

It would be great to only need to have 'x' funding per child, don't get me wrong.
But you can't do that with the funding we have for it and it ignores the issues that are very real; and happening right now. And that requires funding that will bring up each school to a certain level, so that each kid has the opportunity to achieve.
That also ignores the requirements of students with disabilities etc etc etc.

Additionally. High earners are not the only people who pay tax. They are not the only people who's tax provides these services. Get off your high horse and stop taking credit for things that every hard working, tax paying australian contributes towards. Cool fact. 38.6% of income tax paid is paid by the $35k-$80k bracket.

[pottery beige]

generations of australian born, smoking bongs all day and dont get out of bed bums

thank you all

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by Lotte

That model means that you end up with the issues we have now:
State schools who are under resourced in teacher power
State schools who can't provide resources to teach certain subjects
State schools who can't provide adequate anything because they're so run down.

It would be great to only need to have 'x' funding per child, don't get me wrong.
But you can't do that with the funding we have for it and it ignores the issues that are very real; and happening right now. And that requires funding that will bring up each school to a certain level, so that each kid has the opportunity to achieve.
That also ignores the requirements of students with disabilities etc etc etc.

That bit was edited from my earlier post to save repeating myself too much - i early posted that the per child component was after setting up each school with the right infrustructure

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by turboclown

the above post is the perfect example of someone removed from the reality of discrimination and its effect on those who actually experience it.

So tough being born a white male in Australia, should sell up and move to Afghanistan and start dressing as a woman

And your post is perhaps a perfect example of not reading, or maybe a lack of funding in the teachings of geography - I said "in" Australia.

[BHDOGS]

I feel for ya tweeked being a high earning single healthy male what a terrible life you live you should start up a charity like the ones for africans and poor people can donate so much of there meager pays a month to supporting your lifestyle LMFAO.

[Lotte]

Originally Posted by tweeked

And your post is perhaps a perfect example of not reading, or maybe a lack of funding in the teachings of geography - I said "in" Australia.

Your claim was still ridiculous - and something I wasn't even going to address, because I honestly thought it was tongue in cheek.
In some respects, yes, you are disadvantaged - the main area being child custody. And that ****** me off. My ex only saw his kid six hours a week, while his ex used the baby bonus to buy a tv and xbox while his son slept on the floor (to my knowledge anyway). That was court ruling, and it was awful. And it killed him. That's not an exaggeration.
But to say you're the most discriminated against is like me saying that because I went to university I know aaaaallll the things. And I don't. I don't even know all the things about my degree.
Providing other groups with the opportunities afforded you is not discrimination against you.
Missing out on bonuses etc form govco not available when you were younger is not discrimination against you.
As for insurance, do you have a problem insuring your car? It's the same thing. I don't like it being enforced either, but something had to be done about the burden on the public health system.

Originally Posted by tweeked

That bit was edited from my earlier post to save repeating myself too much - i early posted that the per child component was after setting up each school with the right infrustructure

Well then. Statement retracted. *tips hat*

[Trump]

I've learned something from this thread.

That thing is that 99.9% of the posters in this thread (and a straw poll away from the forum would reveal the same sorts of numbers) are defending one side or the other of the same system.

I am not referring solely about govco. I am referring to the whole corportate/governmental/social-contract that encompasses our lives almost completely. As such I pose the following question:

What if the entire system we have been indoctrinated to believe in and trust with our lives at times is the problem?

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Lotte

you'll find the average is a bit higher than 55k these days, I think it's closer to 70k (which is before tax) from memory.
The disparity between average and real high income is phenomenal. You just need a couple of people like Rinehart and Murdoch earning what they do and it drags the average up, without the average person actually earning it.

What $70K? Me and the rest of your average joe auto electrician/light vehicle mechanics are on between the $35-$45K mark.

Originally Posted by zilo

I had 3 kids at a private school all at the same time and tell you what...I could have been posting on the Lamborghini forum instead of Ford if I had used the public system...$33k a year per kid we paid...for 6 years,

The only difference between private school and public school kids is your kids will be snorting coke where as the public school kids will be inhaling meth.

[Lotte]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

What $70K? Me and the rest of your average joe auto electrician/light vehicle mechanics are on between the $35-$45K mark.

Average of weekly wage of a full time worker is $1437, average of all employees is $1115. Please see here
First is just above 70k annual, second is just under 60k annual.
So yes, average full time earnings are that. It has nothing to do with the arbitrary definition of who is considered an "average Joe" and what they earn, and everything to do with the maths behind determining an average.

[danzvtil]

[QUOTE=Lotte;5093553]That model means that you end up with the issues we have now:
State schools who are under resourced in teacher power
State schools who can't provide resources to teach certain subjects
State schools who can't provide adequate anything because they're so run down.QUOTE]

My Exwife and I toured schools both public and private for our daughter a few years ago, our overwhelming impression was that private schools are there to build their facilities and opportunities for students, while the public ones are there to save the govt money.
I have no doubt that teachers in both systems are dedicated and passionate about their jobs, but private schools seem better resourced.

[Lotte]

Originally Posted by danzvtil

My Exwife and I toured schools both public and private for our daughter a few years ago, our overwhelming impression was that private schools are there to build their facilities and opportunities for students, while the public ones are there to save the govt money.
I have no doubt that teachers in both systems are dedicated and passionate about their jobs, but private schools seem better resourced.

Is this an argument for or against better funding?
It most certainly sounds like it is. State isn't there to save money, it is there to spend the money it is allocated while providing a set level of education.

[Windsor220]

Originally Posted by Lotte

Average of weekly wage of a full time worker is $1437, average of all employees is $1115. Please see here
First is just above 70k annual, second is just under 60k annual.
So yes, average full time earnings are that. It has nothing to do with the arbitrary definition of who is considered an "average Joe" and what they earn, and everything to do with the maths behind determining an average.

Average is a bit misleading because the top earners inflate the figure. Median is bit more accurate and about 57k last time I checked.

[Lotte]

Originally Posted by Windsor220

Average is a bit misleading because the top earners inflate the figure. Median is bit more accurate and about 57k last time I checked.

That's precisely the point I made in a previous post a couple of pages back. In fact I made it in the post quote by me that I was responding to.
The disparity between average and higher income earners is radical. With that kind of wage disparity, you don't even need to look at medians to know there's something wrong.
edit: was looking for a source I was reading on actual disparity numbers, when I find it will quote definites.

[gtfpv]

look at the peasants arguing dear !!!!

cannot recall where i read this a few days ago , i could even be making it up , or may have lived it in a passed life .

The lowest income of the top 1% is $15 000 000.
the average income of the top 3% is $183 000 .
now . i think we can see that the lowest 97% cant fix much .