Tax the rich?

[Lotte]

The issue I have is that nobody in this thread has said anything with communist ideals, and it's being thrown around like it's an insult.

Communism is the equal distribution of wealth, and the removal of social class and definition.

The notion of a hand up for strugglers is socialism (what's being discussed in this thread). And mild socialism at that.

Call it what it is, not something it isn't.

[MAD]

Entitlement: My business is successful, I should be able to claim a fancy car against my tax.


Sure you've worked hard and deserve a nice car, I have nothing against that, but pay for it your damn self.
You don't need the welfare handout from the ATO. Remember? You have a successful business.


This "age of entitlement" is entwined in ALL of our society.

[xxx000]

How convenient that the demise of our universal health system, Medicare, has begun (or continued) under a conservative govt with the co payment tax.

The conservative side of politics has never supported Gonski and has flip flopped in their 'commitment' to it more times than I can recall. They hid the final nail in the coffin to Gonski in a multi faceted document, the budget, and blamed it on necessity.

Funny how we can't afford to properly and fairly fund and educate our kids but we can afford 20 billion to be squirrelled away for medical research.

And federal politicians pay to be frozen for 12 mths, wow! They got a major payrise recently so of course they can wait 12 mths or more for another rise.

Is anybody happy that the countries richest people pay no tax at all?

This is all about the far right getting what it's always strived for under the guise of 'we all have to chip in to save the country'. So much smoke and mirrors and gullible people believe their rhetoric.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by Lotte

The issue I have is that nobody in this thread has said anything with communist ideals, and it's being thrown around like it's an insult.

Communism is the equal distribution of wealth, and the removal of social class and definition.

The notion of a hand up for strugglers is socialism (what's being discussed in this thread). And mild socialism at that.

Call it what it is, not something it isn't.

I don't think that a helping hand to those who genuinly need it is a socialist ideal at all. It's called charity and that can come from persons of any political persuasion. I think once demands are made by a group of people on wealth that they are not entitled to, it's called greed. I think the socialist tag is applied to the laissez faire nature of rampant welfare dependence this country has developed...

[superyob]

Originally Posted by xxx000

How convenient that the demise of our universal health system, Medicare, has begun (or continued) under a conservative govt with the co payment tax.

The conservative side of politics has never supported Gonski and has flip flopped in their 'commitment' to it more times than I can recall. They hid the final nail in the coffin to Gonski in a multi faceted document, the budget, and blamed it on necessity.

Funny how we can't afford to properly and fairly fund and educate our kids but we can afford 20 billion to be squirrelled away for medical research.

And federal politicians pay to be frozen for 12 mths, wow! They got a major payrise recently so of course they can wait 12 mths or more for another rise.

Is anybody happy that the countries richest people pay no tax at all?

This is all about the far right getting what it's always strived for under the guise of 'we all have to chip in to save the country'. So much smoke and mirrors and gullible people believe their rhetoric.

xxx000, could I suggest that Gonski was not popular with all educators? I think that what was far more important than than that huge bucket load of cash is a changing of societal values to put a greater emphasis on the importance of education. We can spend money on as many shiny things as we want but in the end if today's attitudes remain, they are worthless...

[tranquilized]

The issue I have, and one our neo-liberalist, extreme-right friends here don't seem to give a toss about, is how fundamentally unfair this latest federal budget is.

This sums it up really;


Firstly, the exact figures have probably been exaggerated for political purposes, but the overall point its making is correct - all the "heavy lifting" is being done by the people that can least afford it.

Now I receive absolutely nothing from the government, never have. That's the way I like it - I'm doing just fine, thanks.

Also, I agree that the budget did need fixing. No, it wasn't a crisis. But it definitely needed correcting.

So why is it that they place the entire burden to do so in the worst possible places? Paying to see the doctor, $80billion stripped from education and health, pensions and benefits to those that need them most PERMANENTLY wound back. De-regulating uni fees - watch them shoot through the roof! Increasing the price of petrol - the list goes on.

Meanwhile, those earning over $180,000pa get a tiny, TEMPORARY tax that they won't even notice. Superannuation rorts un-touched. Carbon and mining tax removed.

Why? Because they're looking after their good mates at the top of the food chain!

Its absolutely disgusting, makes me sick. Anyone who can't see how rotten this government and it's budget is, can only be a selfish piece of ****. Then they go and suggest that anyone who thinks along the lines I do, do so out of selfishness! The irony! I personally will not be 1 cent worse off under this budget, I probably stand to gain.

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by superyob

xxx000, could I suggest that Gonski was not popular with all educators? I think that what was far more important than than that huge bucket load of cash is a changing of societal values to put a greater emphasis on the importance of education. We can spend money on as many shiny things as we want but in the end if today's attitudes remain, they are worthless...

So the bucket loads of cash that some on here spend on their children's private school education ($33,000 p/a per child) is ****ing in the wind?

You're right it wasn't popular with many private school educators, they were worried about the possibility of losing some of their funding, you know that sense of 'entitlement' that many of them have but won't let anyone else use their taxpayer funded facilities

I thought Gonski was about restoring the importance of education by funding it appropriately where needed?

[XBROO]

I think instead of paid parental leave thay should of subsidised child care more for working families. As it would also created more jobs and keep people working (more tax for the government). I'm a bit worried about companies not hiring women because they want to have kids. Even though the government is subsidising the companies, they'll have to find a person to take their job over for 12 months. Then when they come back, do they get rid of the replacement, what if that replacement dose a better job?

As Charliewool has said, this dose affect me so I'm only looking at it from my point of view.

[xxx000]

and then there's the $245 million for school chaplains !!

we're in a 'crisis' but hey let's shove our religion down the throats of school kids

the religious right getting their claws into politics

anybody think that bit of funding was acceptable?

[superyob]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

The issue I have, and one our neo-liberalist, extreme-right friends here don't seem to give a toss about, is how fundamentally unfair this latest federal budget is.

This sums it up really;
image

Firstly, the exact figures have probably been exaggerated for political purposes, but the overall point its making is correct - all the "heavy lifting" is being done by the people that can least afford it.

Now I receive absolutely nothing from the government, never have. That's the way I like it - I'm doing just fine, thanks.

Also, I agree that the budget did need fixing. No, it wasn't a crisis. But it definitely needed correcting.

So why is it that they place the entire burden to do so in the worst possible places? Paying to see the doctor, $80billion stripped from education and health, pensions and benefits to those that need them most PERMANENTLY wound back. De-regulating uni fees - watch them shoot through the roof! Increasing the price of petrol - the list goes on.

Meanwhile, those earning over $180,000pa get a tiny, TEMPORARY tax that they won't even notice. Superannuation rorts un-touched. Carbon and mining tax removed.

Why? Because they're looking after their good mates at the top of the food chain!

Its absolutely disgusting, makes me sick. Anyone who can't see how rotten this government and it's budget is, can only be a selfish piece of ****. Then they go and suggest that anyone who thinks along the lines I do, do so out of selfishness! The irony! I personally will not be 1 cent worse off under this budget, I probably stand to gain.

The top end of town is being taxed extra on money they have earned. The bottom end of town is having less money given to it. So in real terms, who is fixing the budget?

Ps, I do not have an answer, just introducing another POV...

[superyob]

Originally Posted by xxx000

So the bucket loads of cash that some on here spend on their children's private school education ($33,000 p/a per child) is ****ing in the wind?

You're right it wasn't popular with many private school educators, they were worried about the possibility of losing some of their funding, you know that sense of 'entitlement' that many of them have but won't let anyone else use their taxpayer funded facilities

I thought Gonski was about restoring the importance of education by funding it appropriately where needed?

Or public school educators...

[bungarra]

Originally Posted by xxx000

and then there's the $245 million for school chaplains !!

we're in a 'crisis' but hey let's shove our religion down the throats of school kids

the religious right getting their claws into politics

anybody think that bit of funding was acceptable?

You do realise the chaplaincy programme is not preaching religion in schools?

In fact is there due to the high number of people "dumping" the kids in child care or home alone that are coming into the school sytem with behavioural issues that their parents haven't or don't want to deal with or the children who feel they can not speak to their parents about issues.

They have, as in the case of my youngest child, to provide information and support to the children, parents and co workers of a much loved teacher who passed away suddenly.

They also do a lot of crisis care for children at the school that have lost loved ones or had other trauma in their life.

[Work Horse]

Would it not be a better use of government money to employ health care professionals directly, instead of well meaning little old ladies?

The funding for schools to employ a trained Welfare Officer has been removed. Is this in the best interests of children, or a back hander to the previous government?

[Mosquito]

Back on topic... Is income tax the answer?... Are the hardest hit with the budget changes those who can least afford it?

[Lotte]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

People get confused with Fascism, they think hitler was a communist.

People tend to just get confused about the political sciences and what each branch of thinking stands for.

[Dash_XR]

That and the systems so broken now days by the time a pollies done enough deals to get to the top they don't know what they are anymore.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by superyob

The top end of town is being taxed extra on money they have earned. The bottom end of town is having less money given to it. So in real terms, who is fixing the budget?

Ps, I do not have an answer, just introducing another POV...

I hear you. I wasn't necessarily saying high income earners should be taxed to high heaven. Maybe a little bit more, on a more permanent basis wouldn't go astray, but who knows. The balance between rewarding and encouraging hard work and success, and having wealthy people pull their weight is a tough one.

I think the biggest problem is all the tax loopholes that exist for people at the higher end of the wealth scale. Close a few of those and you wouldn't need to be so savage to people on the other end.

Everyone should remember also, that when people can't afford the basic necessities of life, ie health care, shelter, food, they get desperate. Desperate people do desperate things. It costs everyone more in the long run.

[Lotte]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

I hear you. I wasn't necessarily saying high income earners should be taxed to high heaven. Maybe a little bit more, on a more permanent basis wouldn't go astray, but who knows. The balance between rewarding and encouraging hard work and success, and having wealthy people pull their weight is a tough one.

I think the biggest problem is all the tax loopholes that exist for people at the higher end of the wealth scale. Close a few of those and you wouldn't need to be so savage to people on the other end.
Everyone should remember also, that when people can't afford the basic necessities of life, ie health care, shelter, food, they get desperate. Desperate people do desperate things. It costs everyone more in the long run.

There were so many ways they could have increased revenue without slashing and burning the lives of the most vulnerable.

Ok. Sure. Make under 30's wait six months for their dole. But don't then take it away for another six months, if they've failed to find a job within a six month time period. Yes folks. They're planning six months on, six months off the dole. Which is hard enough to live on as it is 12 months of the year (been there, done that). They also want to make them work 25 hours a week (I'm all for work for the dole, but the dole needs to be able to support you to GET to that work, I remember scrounging in the back of the couch for a train fare just to get to an interview, and not eating anything for a couple of weeks except noodles because an electricity bill came through). When, as it stands, people can't obtain the necessities as it stands, cutting it further isn't going to solve anything. Prepare for insurance premiums to go up - thefts in your area coming to you!

Taxing earnings of over $100,000 on super accounts. Not super accounts off 100k. EARNINGS on those accounts over 100k.
Tightening up on CGT and negative gearing.
Closing up tax loopholes for the rich; and not cutting staff from the ATO, so they can actually have the man power to assess potential tax cheats. Like these guys:

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/bud...512-zr9o3.html

To Note:

The latest tax statistics show 75 ultra-high-earning Australians paid no tax at all in 2011-12. Zero. Zip.

Advertisement
Each earned more than $1 million from investments or wages. Between them they made $195 million, an average of $2.6 million each.

The fortunate 75 paid no income tax, no Medicare levy and no Medicare surcharge, even though 60 of them had private health insurance.

The reason? They managed to cut their combined taxable incomes to $82. That’s right, $1.10 each.

Forty-five of the uber millionaires claimed a total of $64.4 million for the “cost of managing their tax affairs”. That’s a staggering $1.4 million each. (As a point of comparison an entry-level H&R Block consultation costs $49.)

And just to be fair to the wealthy:

It isn’t only millionaires. Tax Office figures show there are 1095 Australians earning in excess of $150,000 who pay no tax. Half of them sought tax advice and shelled out an impressive total of $98 million, which works out to $223,000 each. Their biggest lurk is negative gearing. Most lose large sums on properties they rent out in order to destroy their taxable incomes, hoping to make it up later when they sell the properties for a lightly taxed profit.

If you still think it's the kid who's 25 and can't find a job who's rorting the system, you've got your head well up where the monkey shoves it's nuts (dunno why it shoves them there, gran never told us).

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

commies? would you explain how that works? ive always been confused why people feel the need to use derogatory comments like commies to describe anybody who doesnt support there way of thinking its as bad as the stupid American capitalist pig dog infidels who rave on about free health care being communism.

WOW,

Maybe you should ship yourself off to the Middle East or Nigeria so you can take advantage of all those wonderful benifits they have, without having to put up with capitalist pig dog infidels. I bet those lucky buggers over there don't have to worry about the Abbott / Hockey Budget.

[karj]

All political parties are driven by ideology, but it's been interesting to observe just how extreme this Coalition Government has been in applying their ideology to pretty much every area of policy. Labor were not like this when they were elected in 2007; they did not seek to make sweeping changes to a heap of existing policies based purely on ideology.

But now with the Coalition Government in power, the approach is completely different.

• They are removing Labor's change to the school chaplaincy program that allowed a non-religious person to be employed so that now only a religious person can be employed (back to how it originally was), plus they are providing $245 million in additional funding for the program during a so-called budget emergency.
• Brandis decided that the Human Rights Commission was too left of centre, so employed Tim Wilson (a "classical liberal") with a salary of $389,000 salary + $56,000 expenses package to deal with human rights violations relating to the freedom of speech or political opinion... although the Human Rights Commission only receive on average about 3 out of 17,000 complaints each year relating to this.
• They are repealing section 18c of the racial discrimination to keep conservative mouthpiece Andrew Bolt happy and on-side so that he can publicly "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person or a group of people without consequence. 18c has only ever specifically applied to public comment, not private comment.
• They are axing the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, purely because it was part of the "Carbon Tax" despite the fact that those loans are actually expected to make a return for the Government.
• They are keeping the Clean Energy Supplement, which was a payment for eligible households to reduce the impact of the carbon tax... but simply renaming it "Energy Supplement"

None of the policy changes above exemplify evidence based policy, all of them are ideologically driven.

[xxx000]

The repeal of 18C is a big thank you to the key media people who got the conservatives back in power.
the attitude seems to be that their win was so decisive that they have a chance to get the most extreme stuff through the Parliament and that's what they're doing.
Here's your thank you Bolt and co, here's yours churches, take that welfare recipients, take that uni students

[bArNsY]

A simple to view our tax system.

Originally Posted by David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. – Professor of Economics

Tax System Explained in Beer

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing The fifth would pay $1 The sixth would pay $3 The seventh would pay $7 The eighth would pay $12 The ninth would pay $18 The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a h higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!” “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by bArNsY

A simple to view our tax system.

What this leaves out is the part where the high earner gets a deduction of what he needs to pay because he bought an expensive wine earlier.

[xxx000]

^ simplistic answers to complex questions
was that on talkback today?

"simple to view our tax system" they can't even get the title right let alone the guts of it

[BHDOGS]

Originally Posted by MAD

What this leaves out is the part where the high earner gets a deduction of what he needs to pay because he bought an expensive wine earlier.

Plus he claims 8 million dollars for having to work out his own portion of the bill lmao

[NAK302]

yaaaaaawn!

[GasoLane]

This thread has been given a lot of leeway in the last 2 weeks regarding the T&C's.

If you want to keep arguing debating about the Budget outcome please try to keep posts reasonably close to the original topic.

[xxx000]

and we do appreciate the leeway given

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

This thread has been given a lot of leeway in the last 2 weeks regarding the T&C's.

If you want to keep arguing debating about the Budget outcome please try to keep posts reasonably close to the original topic.

If everyone would simply agree with me we could all move on

[xxx000]

He's right
I'll agree with your thoughts