Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

For people complaining about so called tax cuts for the rich, the statistics show that for at least the last decade, the top 10% of Income earners pay 45% of total income taxes in this country.

That means the remaining 90% of the population only pays 55% of total income taxes.

The aim of any tax system should be for all taxpayers to shoulder a fair and equitable burden.

Obviously a poor man can't pay large amounts of tax from a small income base. But its also a fair point that the current system acts as a disincentive for people to work harder, take risks, and achieve higher rates of income, when half ends up going back into the hands of wasteful governments.

That disincentive for rich people to earn more could be a plus. It could result in them being less money-oriented and having a more balanced life. As well as giving less fortunate people a chance to earn more income and to get ahead. After a certain amount of income happiness does not increase in proportion as well as distorting decisions being based on financial considerations rather than more human reasons.

I can understand for example health professionals completing full hours as is necessary for many reasons but their income would probably be below $750K pa and could be ;justified substantially for the responsibility and everything else involved. But for someone like Zuckerberg being worth hundreds of millions etc. is just absurd.

 

[Silentio]

Strangely I've never heard any real debate or explanation about the tax cuts. It seems a little odd given the noise about projected increasing costs of healthcare, ageing population etc.

But when you scratch beneath the surface, it gets weird.

From 2025, the tax cuts are massively skewed to benefit those on high incomes. I did these calculations showing annual wage, tax cut and the tax cut as a % of income:

$25,000 $200 saving 0.8% of income
$50,000 $540 saving 1.08% of income
$100,000 $1125 saving 1.13% income
$150,000 $3375 saving 2.25% income
$200,000 $7225 saving 3.61% income

Seems really unfair. A 3.61% saving to someone on a lower income would make a big difference whereas Mr/Ms $200k will probably use it to further rort the tax system through negative gearing a useless unproductive asset (i.e an investment property).

Some of the politicians who claim they supported the legislation to help working class families are nothing short of disgraceful.

Nice try Labor Party Stooge! The people who pay the most tax in OZ are set to get a decent tax cut. Wow! Meanwhile, we actually have to borrow money and pay billions of interest just so we can keep paying the terrorist Hamas Palestinians $40m & Indonesia $400m helicopter fleet and the Muslims terrorists in the Philippines $20m! Yep & don't forget the waste to fund Labor's unfunded NDIS & unfunded Gonski crap! Meanwhile Part 2 - We are so stupid to think Coal is the problem when we sell it to China & India etc yet we don't use it ourselves to reduce our power costs! I am sick of Lefty Lunacy. More than 300 new coal fired power stations are being built around our region and we are closing ours! Global Warming and Climate Change are s***! Just sayin!

Welcome to the forum, Andrew Bolt.

 

[Silentio]

For people complaining about so called tax cuts for the rich, the statistics show that for at least the last decade, the top 10% of Income earners pay 45% of total income taxes in this country.

That means the remaining 90% of the population only pays 55% of total income taxes.

The aim of any tax system should be for all taxpayers to shoulder a fair and equitable burden.

Obviously a poor man can't pay large amounts of tax from a small income base. But its also a fair point that the current system acts as a disincentive for people to work harder, take risks, and achieve higher rates of income, when half ends up going back into the hands of wasteful governments.

Siphoning income through trusts, SMSFs and company structures is pretty common place for big earners.

Saying half ends up as tax is beyond laughable.

As for "wasteful Governments" that's just a subjective call.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Catch up. It has started.

Poor Col. Hate to say it but it hasn’t

Get off the fake news channels. It has.

Then you should have no dramas finding a source to show that it has. Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon's Twitter does not count either.

I was just watching a reporter during a live cross to Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon’s latest ego rally and the crowd were chanting “build the wall” ?

 

[Tim Sheens]

Poor Col. Hate to say it but it hasn’t

Get off the fake news channels. It has.

Then you should have no dramas finding a source to show that it has. Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon's Twitter does not count either.

I was just watching a reporter during a live cross to Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon’s latest ego rally and the crowd were chanting “build the wall” ?

Might need it to keep more tariff affected companies in the country. On a serious note, it was great that his wife wore the pants and sorted out the disgraceful separation of children crap.

 

[Abraham]

For people complaining about so called tax cuts for the rich, the statistics show that for at least the last decade, the top 10% of Income earners pay 45% of total income taxes in this country.

That means the remaining 90% of the population only pays 55% of total income taxes.

The aim of any tax system should be for all taxpayers to shoulder a fair and equitable burden.

Obviously a poor man can't pay large amounts of tax from a small income base. But its also a fair point that the current system acts as a disincentive for people to work harder, take risks, and achieve higher rates of income, when half ends up going back into the hands of wasteful governments.

Siphoning income through trusts, SMSFs and company structures is pretty common place for big earners.

Saying half ends up as tax is beyond laughable.

As for "wasteful Governments" that's just a subjective call.

What's laughable is your lack of Financial awareness.

There are already laws in place, and they just got a whole lot stricter, preventing people from illegitimately 'siphoning' personal income to lower earning individuals. The government is playing hard ball, and the opportunities for tax minimization through business and super structures is getting small and smaller every year.

And while I don't have any urge to give you a detailed rundown of our income tax legislation, there is one rock solid fact i can pass on : nobody will ever be given a job by a poor man.

So stop complaining about those already doing the heavy lifting in the tax system, and be grateful we have a system where people can actually get ahead through hard work, innovation, and risk taking. And if we throw them a bone and tell them they don't have to lose half their income just for being successful, then good for them.

 

[Abraham]

For people complaining about so called tax cuts for the rich, the statistics show that for at least the last decade, the top 10% of Income earners pay 45% of total income taxes in this country.

That means the remaining 90% of the population only pays 55% of total income taxes.

The aim of any tax system should be for all taxpayers to shoulder a fair and equitable burden.

Obviously a poor man can't pay large amounts of tax from a small income base. But its also a fair point that the current system acts as a disincentive for people to work harder, take risks, and achieve higher rates of income, when half ends up going back into the hands of wasteful governments.

That disincentive for rich people to earn more could be a plus. It could result in them being less money-oriented and having a more balanced life. As well as giving less fortunate people a chance to earn more income and to get ahead. After a certain amount of income happiness does not increase in proportion as well as distorting decisions being based on financial considerations rather than more human reasons.

I can understand for example health professionals completing full hours as is necessary for many reasons but their income would probably be below $750K pa and could be ;justified substantially for the responsibility and everything else involved. But for someone like Zuckerberg being worth hundreds of millions etc. is just absurd.

Yes, because a strong economy is built on the most successful participants all deciding to lay on the beach and stop being productive.

Out of curiosity, are you stoned at the moment ??

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

For people complaining about so called tax cuts for the rich, the statistics show that for at least the last decade, the top 10% of Income earners pay 45% of total income taxes in this country.

That means the remaining 90% of the population only pays 55% of total income taxes.

The aim of any tax system should be for all taxpayers to shoulder a fair and equitable burden.

Obviously a poor man can't pay large amounts of tax from a small income base. But its also a fair point that the current system acts as a disincentive for people to work harder, take risks, and achieve higher rates of income, when half ends up going back into the hands of wasteful governments.

Siphoning income through trusts, SMSFs and company structures is pretty common place for big earners.

Saying half ends up as tax is beyond laughable.

As for "wasteful Governments" that's just a subjective call.

What's laughable is your lack of Financial awareness.

There are already laws in place, and they just got a whole lot stricter, preventing people from illegitimately 'siphoning' personal income to lower earning individuals. The government is playing hard ball, and the opportunities for tax minimization through business and super structures is getting small and smaller every year.

And while I don't have any urge to give you a detailed rundown of our income tax legislation, there is one rock solid fact i can pass on : **nobody will ever be given a job by a poor man.**

So stop complaining about those already doing the heavy lifting in the tax system, and be grateful we have a system where people can actually get ahead through hard work, innovation, and risk taking. And if we throw them a bone and tell them they don't have to lose half their income just for being successful, then good for them.

You've never been an apprentice for a backyard tradesman have you Russ?

 

[Silentio]

For people complaining about so called tax cuts for the rich, the statistics show that for at least the last decade, the top 10% of Income earners pay 45% of total income taxes in this country.

That means the remaining 90% of the population only pays 55% of total income taxes.

The aim of any tax system should be for all taxpayers to shoulder a fair and equitable burden.

Obviously a poor man can't pay large amounts of tax from a small income base. But its also a fair point that the current system acts as a disincentive for people to work harder, take risks, and achieve higher rates of income, when half ends up going back into the hands of wasteful governments.

Siphoning income through trusts, SMSFs and company structures is pretty common place for big earners.

Saying half ends up as tax is beyond laughable.

As for "wasteful Governments" that's just a subjective call.

What's laughable is your lack of Financial awareness.

There are already laws in place, and they just got a whole lot stricter, preventing people from illegitimately 'siphoning' personal income to lower earning individuals. The government is playing hard ball, and the opportunities for tax minimization through business and super structures is getting small and smaller every year.

And while I don't have any urge to give you a detailed rundown of our income tax legislation, there is one rock solid fact i can pass on : nobody will ever be given a job by a poor man.

So stop complaining about those already doing the heavy lifting in the tax system, and be grateful we have a system where people can actually get ahead through hard work, innovation, and risk taking. And if we throw them a bone and tell them they don't have to lose half their income just for being successful, then good for them.

I can appreciate that some people with high incomes feel as though they're paying more than their fair share of tax. It's human nature. Much like people on lower incomes point the finger of blame at other marginalised groups for getting preferential treatment.

But let's not pretend that most high income earners aren't significantly minimizing tax through trusts, bucket companies and SMSFs.

Or that many of the so called "heavy lifters" are employing people out of any kind of moral obligation or altruism: https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2015/7-eleven-revealed/

EDIT - I'm also still curious about the claim that some tax payers are paying "half" of their income as tax….

 

[Tim Sheens]

There are also laws in place that give some very well off people that pay no tax at all, money out of the public purse in the form of a 'refund'. It is also is plainly wrong that the tax concessions on superannuation for a group of those without any need, well outstrips the total expenditure for all age pensions.

If the much better off in the community gained their advantage of each other, then fine, but that is not the case. In the end, they make it on the backs of the poor that spend all that they have and for whom their 'ladder of opportunity' has been having the lower rungs removed.

I am in a position where I have been able to take a couple of years off work and was brought up with religion, living a life basically in line with the Ten Commandments, but where has the 'fellow man' part of some supposed Christians gone? I now have little or no time for religion (even with my wife's beliefs), but have great empathy for those that are less well off and find it very hard to understand how those that say they believe in such teachings, then don't practice that which they preach.

 

[Abraham]

I can appreciate that some people with high incomes feel as though they're paying more than their fair share of tax. It's human nature. Much like people on lower incomes point the finger of blame at other marginalised groups for getting preferential treatment.

But let's not pretend that most high income earners aren't significantly minimizing tax through trusts, bucket companies and SMSFs.

Or that many of the so called "heavy lifters" are employing people out of any kind of moral obligation or altruism: https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2015/7-eleven-revealed/

EDIT - I'm also still curious about the claim that some tax payers are paying "half" of their income as tax….

Show me the statistics that show that most high income earners are receiving preferential tax treatment, and then we can have a discussion.

Because without those stats, i think you are just repeating baseless propaganda.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

For people complaining about so called tax cuts for the rich, the statistics show that for at least the last decade, the top 10% of Income earners pay 45% of total income taxes in this country.

That means the remaining 90% of the population only pays 55% of total income taxes.

The aim of any tax system should be for all taxpayers to shoulder a fair and equitable burden.

Obviously a poor man can't pay large amounts of tax from a small income base. But its also a fair point that the current system acts as a disincentive for people to work harder, take risks, and achieve higher rates of income, when half ends up going back into the hands of wasteful governments.

That disincentive for rich people to earn more could be a plus. It could result in them being less money-oriented and having a more balanced life. As well as giving less fortunate people a chance to earn more income and to get ahead. After a certain amount of income happiness does not increase in proportion as well as distorting decisions being based on financial considerations rather than more human reasons.

I can understand for example health professionals completing full hours as is necessary for many reasons but their income would probably be below $750K pa and could be ;justified substantially for the responsibility and everything else involved. But for someone like Zuckerberg being worth hundreds of millions etc. is just absurd.

Yes, because a strong economy is built on the most successful participants all deciding to lay on the beach and stop being productive.

Out of curiosity, are you stoned at the moment ??

What benefit is there for the community for Carl Zuckerberg making any more money? I can't think of any great benefit. The profits are probably sent to a tax haven. Bill Gates proved that there is a limit to how much satisfaction (that it is limited) to having vasts amounts of money. He is now doing positive projects for humanity. Jamie Packer proved the opposite, having $6B wasn't enough and tried to multiply it - came unstuck financially and mentally and personally. Excessive money distorts decision making if one is not careful. So much wealth being allocated to so few people who don't need it I don't see as beneficial to a society. Russ Crow could have become more rich but spread his money around to Souths and bet he has got massive amounts of satisfaction out of it. We can't take it with us and there is no higher place in Heaven for us re-engage again with natural life.

I don't have any kidney stones that I am aware of but my neighbour who I had the fight with he did - his missus still runs in the opposite direction whenever she sees me. She don't like someone fighting back - taking her weapon off her and ramming her with it. I am bursting for round 2 - be there, as exciting as SOO.

 

[Abraham]

For people complaining about so called tax cuts for the rich, the statistics show that for at least the last decade, the top 10% of Income earners pay 45% of total income taxes in this country.

That means the remaining 90% of the population only pays 55% of total income taxes.

The aim of any tax system should be for all taxpayers to shoulder a fair and equitable burden.

Obviously a poor man can't pay large amounts of tax from a small income base. But its also a fair point that the current system acts as a disincentive for people to work harder, take risks, and achieve higher rates of income, when half ends up going back into the hands of wasteful governments.

That disincentive for rich people to earn more could be a plus. It could result in them being less money-oriented and having a more balanced life. As well as giving less fortunate people a chance to earn more income and to get ahead. After a certain amount of income happiness does not increase in proportion as well as distorting decisions being based on financial considerations rather than more human reasons.

I can understand for example health professionals completing full hours as is necessary for many reasons but their income would probably be below $750K pa and could be ;justified substantially for the responsibility and everything else involved. But for someone like Zuckerberg being worth hundreds of millions etc. is just absurd.

Yes, because a strong economy is built on the most successful participants all deciding to lay on the beach and stop being productive.

Out of curiosity, are you stoned at the moment ??

What benefit is there for the community for Carl Zuckerberg making any more money? I can't think of any great benefit. The profits are probably sent to a tax haven. Bill Gates proved that there is a limit to how much satisfaction (that it is limited) to having vasts amounts of money. He is now doing positive projects for humanity. Jamie Packer proved the opposite, having $6B wasn't enough and tried to multiply it - came unstuck financially and mentally and personally. Excessive money distorts decision making if one is not careful. So much wealth being allocated to so few people who don't need it I don't see as beneficial to a society. Russ Crow could have become more rich but spread his money around to Souths and bet he has got massive amounts of satisfaction out of it. We can't take it with us and there is no higher place in Heaven for us re-engage again with natural life.

I don't have any kidney stones that I am aware of but my neighbour who I had the fight with he did - his missus still runs in the opposite direction whenever she sees me. She don't like someone fighting back - taking her weapon off her and ramming her with it. I am bursting for round 2 - be there, as exciting as SOO.

Is Carl Zuckerberg related to Mark by any chance?

Your need to single out the wealthiest individuals on the planet when trying to prove a point about Australia's Tax System, and the ordinary workers that are affected here, kinda shows that your argument is a steaming pile of poo.

And yep, you're definitely stoned.

 

[Abraham]

There are also laws in place that give some very well off people that pay no tax at all, money out of the public purse in the form of a 'refund'. It is also is plainly wrong that the tax concessions on superannuation for a group of those without any need, well outstrips the total expenditure for all age pensions.

My initial suspicion is that you probably don't understand the tax system if you think that well off people don't pay tax, and at the same time receive money from the public purse via Tax Refunds (are you referring to the franking system)?

But i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to elaborate on what you're claim is.
\

I am in a position where I have been able to take a couple of years off work and was brought up with religion, living a life basically in line with the Ten Commandments, but where has the 'fellow man' part of some supposed Christians gone? I now have little or no time for religion (even with my wife's beliefs), but have great empathy for those that are less well off and find it very hard to understand how those that say they believe in such teachings, then don't practice that which they preach.

I missed the part in the Bible where Jesus says the path to heaven is achieved by paying exorbitant taxes to wasteful governments.

People who practice their Christian faith will donate significant sums of money and time to worthwhile charities. And they will do it voluntarily, and without fanfare if they truly practice what they preach.

The difference between Charity and Taxes is that most good willed people will willingly give to Charity to help their fellow citizens. But most people are not nearly as enthusiastic when forced to hand over their assets to a government who will likely squander the proceeds, and spend it on causes and projects that do little to help those who most need help.

Religion has no correlation to the Income Tax System,, so I am curious as to what connection you see?

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

[quote=Abraham post_id
….......

Show me the statistics that show that most high income earners are receiving preferential tax treatment, and then we can have a discussion.

Because without those stats, i think you are just repeating baseless propaganda.

I don't chase stats but we do know when Honest John let the rich (because only they can afford) pile small fortunes into super funds to be taxed at only 15% the well went off and borrowed billions of dollars to take advantage of this concession. Whereas less fortune could have been paying approx 30-40% after the first $18K. The rich property owners when have a capital gain event are able to escape half of the tax whereas ordinary taxpayers do not have such an advantage. This just allows the rich to own more properties inflating house prices for the less well off. This has nothing to do with making a better society but just make the rich more greedy or rich.

 

[Tim Sheens]

There are also laws in place that give some very well off people that pay no tax at all, money out of the public purse in the form of a 'refund'. It is also is plainly wrong that the tax concessions on superannuation for a group of those without any need, well outstrips the total expenditure for all age pensions.

My initial suspicion is that you probably don't understand the tax system if you think that well off people don't pay tax, and at the same time receive money from the public purse via Tax Refunds (are you referring to the franking system)?

But i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to elaborate on what you're claim is.
\

I am in a position where I have been able to take a couple of years off work and was brought up with religion, living a life basically in line with the Ten Commandments, but where has the 'fellow man' part of some supposed Christians gone? I now have little or no time for religion (even with my wife's beliefs), but have great empathy for those that are less well off and find it very hard to understand how those that say they believe in such teachings, then don't practice that which they preach.

I missed the part in the Bible where Jesus says the path to heaven is achieved by paying exorbitant taxes to wasteful governments.

People who practice their Christian faith will donate significant sums of money and time to worthwhile charities. And they will do it voluntarily, and without fanfare if they truly practice what they preach.

The difference between Charity and Taxes is that most good willed people will willingly give to Charity to help their fellow citizens. But most people are not nearly as enthusiastic when forced to hand over their assets to a government who will likely squander the proceeds, and spend it on causes and projects that do little to help those who most need help.

Religion has no correlation to the Income Tax System,, so I am curious as to what connection you see?

To your first statements and question, well, there is only one answer, so it should be obvious for anyone that believes they have a better knowledge, so no need to elaborate.

The connection is that is how I was brought up as a christian, though I cannot recall any assets being taken, only a portion of the proceeds realised from them. We are all part of the same system and a positive correlation allows the state to make things more equitable for those less well off with a taxation system restoring some of the imbalance. Then there is the negative route of greed and letting them get to the point of requiring charity.

 

[magpiecol]

He's stoned alright.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Any thoughts you want to add Col, or are you going to just resort to ad homs from the peanut gallery again?

 

[Silentio]

I can appreciate that some people with high incomes feel as though they're paying more than their fair share of tax. It's human nature. Much like people on lower incomes point the finger of blame at other marginalised groups for getting preferential treatment.

But let's not pretend that most high income earners aren't significantly minimizing tax through trusts, bucket companies and SMSFs.

Or that many of the so called "heavy lifters" are employing people out of any kind of moral obligation or altruism: https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2015/7-eleven-revealed/

EDIT - I'm also still curious about the claim that some tax payers are paying "half" of their income as tax….

Show me the statistics that show that most high income earners are receiving preferential tax treatment, and then we can have a discussion.

Because without those stats, i think you are just repeating baseless propaganda.

The disproportionate tax cuts for high income earners which was passed by parliament and cited earlier in the thread is, as you put it, "preferential treatment".

This isn't propaganda.

I'm still curious who are these hardworking taxpayers or courageous captains of industry that are contributing "half" their incomes to "wasteful government". A few of us would like to know so we can give them a hearty pat on the back for their stellar contribution to our proud nation's prosperity…..

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

Byron Bay fan:
What benefit is there for the community for Carl Zuckerberg making any more money? I can't think of any great benefit. The profits are probably sent to a tax haven. Bill Gates proved that there is a limit to how much satisfaction (that it is limited) to having vasts amounts of money. He is now doing positive projects for humanity. Jamie Packer proved the opposite, having $6B wasn't enough and tried to multiply it - came unstuck financially and mentally and personally. Excessive money distorts decision making if one is not careful. So much wealth being allocated to so few people who don't need it I don't see as beneficial to a society. Russ Crow could have become more rich but spread his money around to Souths and bet he has got massive amounts of satisfaction out of it. We can't take it with us and there is no higher place in Heaven for us re-engage again with natural life.

I don't have any kidney stones that I am aware of but my neighbour who I had the fight with he did - his missus still runs in the opposite direction whenever she sees me. She don't like someone fighting back - taking her weapon off her and ramming her with it. I am bursting for round 2 - be there, as exciting as SOO.

Abraham
Is Carl Zuckerberg related to Mark by any chance?

Your need to single out the wealthiest individuals on the planet when trying to prove a point about Australia's Tax System, and the ordinary workers that are affected here, kinda shows that your argument is a steaming pile of poo.

And yep, you're definitely stoned.

You start off with Labor Party Stooges - Balmain I believe is where the ALP was first formed, so has a long proud history of being Labor Party. With that lingo you should be supporting Manly (though also has working class areas) or Rugby Union.

what is wrong with pointing out the richest individuals on the planet or in Australia as I did with Packer? I know many bods who "earn" a few million a year just in real estate investments, so much money they told me that they cannot spend. So they keep up buying up more and more real estate and forcing prices up. I can't see how that helps anybody and I don't see anything wrong if their investments were capped to give others a chance to obtain shelter at an affordable price.

Look at the money Lang Hancock got together, did it do him any good? He was still an bigoted, uneducated, greedy and dangerous moron. Whitlam tried to uplift the nation - that is the difference.