This is a relatively simple one.
I see it day in, day out, every day of the week.
A new article about how some government department is "wasting" taxpayers money. (Link)
Why are we paying for government chauffeurs? That money could buy us 100 teachers!
Why are we payin for study trips? That money could buy us 432 policeman!
This hypothetical should destroy that argument - why don't shareholders complain that the CEO of a company has a chauffeur, yet they complain about the costs of government chauffeurs?
Similarly, why is a manager allowed to travel to America to investigate potential new contracts, yet a government minister is slammed for taking a "holiday" to America to speak on a casual basis with various departments so that he can hopefully offer a more informed opinion about his portfolio?
I reckon it's because a business returns your direct profit, so it's ok....
...yet a government returns your intangible resources such as national defense, such that you feel your money is wasted.
A Vice-president and a Government minister are both high-ranking employees. If you think one is allowed a driver and the other isn't, then tell me why.
Full Version: Taxpayer's money
If the vice-president's company was severely lacking in several areas that directly impacted your life, and your were forced to invest in more shares or face jail terms/heavy fines, i reckon you MIGHT get a little pissy about chauffers, cheap car rentals, etc...if the tab was picked up by you.
Sorry stazed but I thought I'd point out that your link links directly back to this page...
Wait...I figured it out...it's one of those tricks we play on blondes! They keep clicking the link on the new page until the computer crashes!
ROCK ON
R~R
Wait...I figured it out...it's one of those tricks we play on blondes! They keep clicking the link on the new page until the computer crashes!
ROCK ON
R~R
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1493805.htm
Stupid fricking forum...
It was correct but it wouldn't link... so then I tried that URL box and it screwed it up!
Stupid fricking forum...
It was correct but it wouldn't link... so then I tried that URL box and it screwed it up!
What I've always wanted to know is why Tax officers have to pay tax on their salary when they are paid with the tax they collect off everyone else?
I hate how everything is taxed more than once. You get your pay with tax taken out, you then buy something like petrol which has an excise and 10% GST which the petrol station has to pay tax on their earnings.
I hate how everything is taxed more than once. You get your pay with tax taken out, you then buy something like petrol which has an excise and 10% GST which the petrol station has to pay tax on their earnings.
QUOTE (gavsta @ Nov 1 2005, 12:05 PM)
What I've always wanted to know is why Tax officers have to pay tax on their salary when they are paid with the tax they collect off everyone else?
I hate how everything is taxed more than once. You get your pay with tax taken out, you then buy something like petrol which has an excise and 10% GST which the petrol station has to pay tax on their earnings.
I hate how everything is taxed more than once. You get your pay with tax taken out, you then buy something like petrol which has an excise and 10% GST which the petrol station has to pay tax on their earnings.
However taxes mostly do have reasons behind them, whether for social policy (eg cigarettes, petrol etc), consumption taxes (eg gst) are supposed to work as the more you have the ability to spend, the more tax you should pay etc. So there are reasons behind the taxes, either to try to create equity or to promote social policy.
More importantly, why did we all accept a tax cut when our health system is in crisis?
Do you even notice the difference in your back pocket. I say let them keep the tax cut and double the health budget.
I find it unacceptable that in Australia, in 2005, there are people waiting 6 months or more for necessary surgery.
Sure, I have private health insurance, but that's not in reach of many Australians, I say keep my tax cut and make a difference where it really counts.
Phil
Do you even notice the difference in your back pocket. I say let them keep the tax cut and double the health budget.
I find it unacceptable that in Australia, in 2005, there are people waiting 6 months or more for necessary surgery.
Sure, I have private health insurance, but that's not in reach of many Australians, I say keep my tax cut and make a difference where it really counts.
Phil
Agree with Phil entirely.
I just dont understand our tax system (or any others) full stop. why dont we just have a flat 25% ov every dollar earned. It was proven when they were introducing the GST that even if every dollar earned was taxed @10% then we weould still be in front. tax free treashholds and all the tax rebates and stuff like that should be abolished.. I know my parents pay less tax than I do and they earn over 5 times what i earn (and im not talking about percentages eitehr im talking real $ figures) because of all the tax rebates and crap like that they get through the companies they own and the fact that most of their spendings are done through the companies or soimething - i dunno how it works. Then you have my brother in law who is a pastor of a church and he doesnt get taxed at all yet he earns about 50k per year. at one stage ther was a loophole (which still exists but isnt as effective) where he could by a new car then sell it 15,000klm later and actually make a profit because of the tax that they got back. and what sucks for me is that I got a pay rise earlier this year of 12.5% yet im only about $20 better off per week because i got bumped up to the next tax bracket.
Im happy for the GST to exist and continue on - even if the GST was a flat 15% over every thing and ever dollar earned was taxed @ somewhere between 15-25% the same rate for every one and the only rebates were for income for business that went directly to wages (because those $$ get taxed when they are earned by the employee)
There is more to my rant but i cant think off hand what it is. But things like petrol being taxed like 38,000 times pisses me off and things like the way my parents get charged less tax than I do pisses me off too. I think i remember reading at one stage that someone like Lindsay Fox or someone high profile like that actually got a tax refund because of the way (And it wasnt dodgy) that thier accountant had ballanced the books. how the hell is that fair to Mr and Mrs average Australian
Im sure theres flaws in my theory but meh
Im happy for the GST to exist and continue on - even if the GST was a flat 15% over every thing and ever dollar earned was taxed @ somewhere between 15-25% the same rate for every one and the only rebates were for income for business that went directly to wages (because those $$ get taxed when they are earned by the employee)
There is more to my rant but i cant think off hand what it is. But things like petrol being taxed like 38,000 times pisses me off and things like the way my parents get charged less tax than I do pisses me off too. I think i remember reading at one stage that someone like Lindsay Fox or someone high profile like that actually got a tax refund because of the way (And it wasnt dodgy) that thier accountant had ballanced the books. how the hell is that fair to Mr and Mrs average Australian
Im sure theres flaws in my theory but meh
Yes Komodo basic economic theory says there is a flaw.
Quite simply, you have three possible tax structures - progressive (more tax per extra $1), proportional (same percentage of tax, this is your system), and regressive (less tax paid per extra $1).
Most nations aim for a progressive system, like the one we have now. Simply because those with more money should be paying more tax. Yes, I understand that with more money there are more ways to exploit workings of the tax system so that you don't pay tax.
Such is the nature of things! It is not in itself a flaw in the tax threshold system we have today.
An interesting argument I've heard concerns proportional taxes, such as GST, not being proportional but regressive. The basic reasoning was that yes, the cost of bread will now be $3.30 instead of $3. But for those who spent a large proportion of their income on essential goods and services (low income earners), this tax had a larger impact than on those who funnelled the majority of their income into real estate, business ventures, shares, etc.
In effect, the argument was saying that, as a percentage of a person's income, the GST would tax more out of a poor person's pocket than a rich person's pocket (not in dollar terms, but in % terms).
The problem with a proportional tax system as you've outlined is that people who don't even have enough income to buy essentials with, are being taxed and they can't afford it.
Yet the people who are making $18'000'000 per year, would pay the same amount of tax on the next $1 they earned, as the person on $2000 earning $2001 - hardly fair. It puts a larger proportion of the tax burden on low income earners. Hence a progressive tax system!
And changing the tax structure as you've outlined wouldn't solve people exploiting the loopholes which are really just permitted income schemes.
And there are downsides to owning everything through a business... someone I know built properties then sold them, and owned his own house and everything through the business. He built three properties and sold them, all three defaulted on their payments to him, the business he owned went belly up due to his own debt commitments, and all of sudden he has no car, no house, no money, no nothing.
There are always risks to running your life as a business.
Quite simply, you have three possible tax structures - progressive (more tax per extra $1), proportional (same percentage of tax, this is your system), and regressive (less tax paid per extra $1).
Most nations aim for a progressive system, like the one we have now. Simply because those with more money should be paying more tax. Yes, I understand that with more money there are more ways to exploit workings of the tax system so that you don't pay tax.
Such is the nature of things! It is not in itself a flaw in the tax threshold system we have today.
An interesting argument I've heard concerns proportional taxes, such as GST, not being proportional but regressive. The basic reasoning was that yes, the cost of bread will now be $3.30 instead of $3. But for those who spent a large proportion of their income on essential goods and services (low income earners), this tax had a larger impact than on those who funnelled the majority of their income into real estate, business ventures, shares, etc.
In effect, the argument was saying that, as a percentage of a person's income, the GST would tax more out of a poor person's pocket than a rich person's pocket (not in dollar terms, but in % terms).
The problem with a proportional tax system as you've outlined is that people who don't even have enough income to buy essentials with, are being taxed and they can't afford it.
Yet the people who are making $18'000'000 per year, would pay the same amount of tax on the next $1 they earned, as the person on $2000 earning $2001 - hardly fair. It puts a larger proportion of the tax burden on low income earners. Hence a progressive tax system!
And changing the tax structure as you've outlined wouldn't solve people exploiting the loopholes which are really just permitted income schemes.
And there are downsides to owning everything through a business... someone I know built properties then sold them, and owned his own house and everything through the business. He built three properties and sold them, all three defaulted on their payments to him, the business he owned went belly up due to his own debt commitments, and all of sudden he has no car, no house, no money, no nothing.
There are always risks to running your life as a business.
I heard an interesting point on the radio a couple of months ago that proposed the tax free threshold be raised to something like $25,000 to help out low income earners as most of their money gets spent on groceries e.t.c. that will get taxed anyway.
This lets them spend more on these things allowing them to buy more and it not like any self supporting person on $25,000 will be able to amass any kind of savings.
But I spose a move like that would boost the economy which would lead to an interest rate rise which would probably negate any savings, especially if its in the early years of the loan.
This lets them spend more on these things allowing them to buy more and it not like any self supporting person on $25,000 will be able to amass any kind of savings.
But I spose a move like that would boost the economy which would lead to an interest rate rise which would probably negate any savings, especially if its in the early years of the loan.
Yes thats all very well and true Stazed but I still think that there should be no tax free threshold and no tax rebates. AT ALL. wether business or individual. therefore you wouldnt have things like my parents who buy more things though the business (They've been running 3 businesses for over 20 years and dads managed a couple before that so he has a fair clue) because they would get taxed the same either way - therefor there would be less "businesses" going broke - you know the theory you can go bankrupt 6 times in your life and still be infront.
Plus things like churches and that sort of thing should also pay tax - they would get more back from the governmemt any way in the way of grants for community projects etc
Plus things like churches and that sort of thing should also pay tax - they would get more back from the governmemt any way in the way of grants for community projects etc
*Sets himself up to be shot down - just remember its my opinion, doesnt mean im RIGHT )*
Komodo makes a good point - how many people do we know with companies/businesses, that buy stuff (EG, XR8/SS Utes for example) that are not essential for their business, then claim it back on tax. You cannot tell me a bricky/electrcian trully needs a ute with spoilers, a body kit, and mags for his business, but we have to partially pick up that tab because they claim the cost of it back on tax.
)*Komodo makes a good point - how many people do we know with companies/businesses, that buy stuff (EG, XR8/SS Utes for example) that are not essential for their business, then claim it back on tax. You cannot tell me a bricky/electrcian trully needs a ute with spoilers, a body kit, and mags for his business, but we have to partially pick up that tab because they claim the cost of it back on tax.
It takes them long enough to get to jobs, and you want to slow them down with non performance cars??
BWAHAHAHAHA
But seriously Kicker does have a point. I know one of my freinds owns a business as builder. I couldnt tell you the last time i saw him with even a hammer in his hand - yet he always buys XR8 utes because he can claim them as a tax write off (and fair enough if i was in that position I would too). And I can understand that the tax depart ment cant really discriminate between a XR and a poverty pack ute as far as taxation is concered (although there is a limit in $$ value before it goes into the luxury threshold i belive?)
Any way my train of thought is gone and I cant remember the rest of what i was going to say - so make up your own conclusion and I shall go to bed.
But seriously Kicker does have a point. I know one of my freinds owns a business as builder. I couldnt tell you the last time i saw him with even a hammer in his hand - yet he always buys XR8 utes because he can claim them as a tax write off (and fair enough if i was in that position I would too). And I can understand that the tax depart ment cant really discriminate between a XR and a poverty pack ute as far as taxation is concered (although there is a limit in $$ value before it goes into the luxury threshold i belive?)
Any way my train of thought is gone and I cant remember the rest of what i was going to say - so make up your own conclusion and I shall go to bed.
QUOTE (Komodo @ Nov 6 2005, 12:35 PM)
Any way my train of thought is gone and I cant remember the rest of what i was going to say - so make up your own conclusion and I shall go to bed.
That's just gold
QUOTE (stazed @ Oct 30 2005, 03:07 PM)
A Vice-president and a Government minister are both high-ranking employees. If you think one is allowed a driver and the other isn't, then tell me why.
Beacuse the average person is to ignorant to realise that efficent government is a myth. The only way for government to be efficient is if it approaches omniscience. Of course that is never going to happen in practice, so that is why I believe an authoritarian government is inherently flawed.
Back to the topic of tax though, I agree with what stazed said in his last post. But what do people think about the 30/30 tax system proposed by the LDP?
http://www.geocities.com/humphreyseconomics/reform3030.html
http://www.libertarian.org.au/blog/readArt...ticleID=7538101
http://www.ldp.org.au/tax.html
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.