Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[Abraham]

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.

The imputation system does not take money from the public purse.

Not sure if you need a working example, but the end result is the correct tax paid by the ultimate beneficiary. So there is no rorting of the system and whatever other claims that were made. This should put that matter to bed.

And still not sure what being a Christian has to do with being eager to pay more taxes?

 

[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.

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…..

If you can't show me any evidence of your claims, there is no point continuing to discuss this with you.

Repeating leftist talking points isn't evidence.

 

[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…..

If you can't show me any evidence of your claims, there is no point continuing to discuss this with you.

Repeating leftist talking points isn't evidence.

Page 258 of the thread. A quick Google search will also provide you with the seven year tax changes recently passed by parliament. It's all there in black and white.

I still would love to know more about these 50% tax rates that you've mentioned.

 

[Abraham]

Page 258 of the thread. A quick Google search will also provide you with the seven year tax changes recently passed by parliament. It's all there in black and white.

I still would love to know more about these 50% tax rates that you've mentioned.

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

Page 258 shows tax proposed cuts. Nothing about effective tax reductions through tax structuring.

And not sure why you're harping on about my claim of half a person's income being paid in taxes … the top marginal rate was 49% until the current year. I know you know that. We both know i meant it colloquially, so put it to bed.

 

[TCL]

it always makes me chuckle when people complain that higher income earners get more tax cuts than those on a lower income. Those higher earners, as has been mentioned previous pay a higher tax in $ than than the majority of Australians do.

I think a fair system would be to charge everyone a standard tax rate or everyone just pays a set amount. that would work wouldn't it?

Or how about we get rewarded in like for the amount of tax we pay, i pay higher rate of tax so i get a bigger bed in hospital or i don't have to pay tolls on the motorway. that would work wouldn't it?

If i have studied harder, worked harder, made wiser investments, didn't spend friovously and at times got lucky (i would argue i made my own luck) why should i pay more in tax. why should i pay more as a % than those that didn't and won't?

I never understood the argument from those that complain. i have paid more tax over the years than many have earned in the same period. My efforts ensured 100's of people had a job as well.

there is never balance cause some want money for nothing and others don't want to give up what they have worked hard for.

 

[Silentio]

Page 258 of the thread. A quick Google search will also provide you with the seven year tax changes recently passed by parliament. It's all there in black and white.

I still would love to know more about these 50% tax rates that you've mentioned.

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

Page 258 shows tax proposed cuts. Nothing about effective tax reductions through tax structuring.

And not sure why you're harping on about my claim of half a person's income being paid in taxes … the top marginal rate was 49% until the current year. I know you know that. We both know i meant it colloquially, so put it to bed.

Fine, so you knew that your statement was completely false.

Move along.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/how-almost-300000-smsfs-avoid-paying-income-tax-20140826-108dpu.html

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

it always makes me chuckle when people complain that higher income earners get more tax cuts than those on a lower income. Those higher earners, as has been mentioned previous pay a higher tax in $ than than the majority of Australians do.

I think a fair system would be to charge everyone a standard tax rate or everyone just pays a set amount. that would work wouldn't it?

Or how about we get rewarded in like for the amount of tax we pay, i pay higher rate of tax so i get a bigger bed in hospital or i don't have to pay tolls on the motorway. that would work wouldn't it?

If i have studied harder, worked harder, made wiser investments, didn't spend friovously and at times got lucky (i would argue i made my own luck) why should i pay more in tax. why should i pay more as a % than those that didn't and won't?

I never understood the argument from those that complain. i have paid more tax over the years than many have earned in the same period. My efforts ensured 100's of people had a job as well.

there is never balance cause some want money for nothing and others don't want to give up what they have worked hard for.

I can see where you are coming from but that does not tell the whole story. One glaring exemption is the history of Aborigines how they suffer historical injustice that still affects them to this day. They were not even allowed to buy land (strictly speaking their own land) for generations, they were only paid about 50 pence a day when I worked with them 55 years ago, etc. etc. So they could not purchase house to live in or to let go up with inflation. They were barred from schools if anyone objected. So how could they compete in any sense of the word. When they were beginning to survive western diseases about 90 years ago the children were deliberately taken from the families so they would not grow up Aboriginal. This destroyed them mentally of course. ain't a level playing field mate - like if Manly always ran downhill with a strong breeze behind them and the refs on side.

 

[Abraham]

Page 258 of the thread. A quick Google search will also provide you with the seven year tax changes recently passed by parliament. It's all there in black and white.

I still would love to know more about these 50% tax rates that you've mentioned.

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

Page 258 shows tax proposed cuts. Nothing about effective tax reductions through tax structuring.

And not sure why you're harping on about my claim of half a person's income being paid in taxes … the top marginal rate was 49% until the current year. I know you know that. We both know i meant it colloquially, so put it to bed.

Fine, so you knew that your statement was completely false.

Move along.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/how-almost-300000-smsfs-avoid-paying-income-tax-20140826-108dpu.html

If that's your sledghammer statement to try and win this argument, may i suggest you go back to the drawing board and stop being childish.

Now as to the article, it provides absolutely no justification for your claim. Literally Zero.

As i mentioned previously, SMSFs receiving Franking Credits is simply a correction so that the correct tax is paid. The same treatment also applies to Trusts, Companies, and Individuals. The article headline suggesting that receiving franking credits means no income tax being paid is also patently false, as the franking credit refund is only a refund of the excess tax once the SMSF pays its correct income tax. But its the smh … so nobody expects them to give a factually correct showing to self-funded retirees.

So i'll ask you for evidence once again. And probably for the last time, before i stop wasting my time with you.

 

[TCL]

it always makes me chuckle when people complain that higher income earners get more tax cuts than those on a lower income. Those higher earners, as has been mentioned previous pay a higher tax in $ than than the majority of Australians do.

I think a fair system would be to charge everyone a standard tax rate or everyone just pays a set amount. that would work wouldn't it?

Or how about we get rewarded in like for the amount of tax we pay, i pay higher rate of tax so i get a bigger bed in hospital or i don't have to pay tolls on the motorway. that would work wouldn't it?

If i have studied harder, worked harder, made wiser investments, didn't spend friovously and at times got lucky (i would argue i made my own luck) why should i pay more in tax. why should i pay more as a % than those that didn't and won't?

I never understood the argument from those that complain. i have paid more tax over the years than many have earned in the same period. My efforts ensured 100's of people had a job as well.

there is never balance cause some want money for nothing and others don't want to give up what they have worked hard for.

I can see where you are coming from but that does not tell the whole story. One glaring exemption is the history of Aborigines how they suffer historical injustice that still affects them to this day. They were not even allowed to buy land (strictly speaking their own land) for generations, they were only paid about 50 pence a day when I worked with them 55 years ago, etc. etc. So they could not purchase house to live in or to let go up with inflation. They were barred from schools if anyone objected. So how could they compete in any sense of the word. When they were beginning to survive western diseases about 90 years ago the children were deliberately taken from the families so they would not grow up Aboriginal. This destroyed them mentally of course. ain't a level playing field mate - like if Manly always ran downhill with a strong breeze behind them and the refs on side.

life is not a level playing field, never was never will be. I do feel for the Aborigines and am saddened by the treatment they have received, but many nationalities/peoples around the world have suffered at the hands of conquerors. many of the conquered from other groups have risen and made something of them selves as have many Aboriginals.

There are no such laws today and that is what matters. we cant be expected to right every wrong that previous generations have committed and it doesn't achieve anything to keep bringing up the pasts unless you are using it to educate people. Not sure how that relates to the tax's but anyway.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

it always makes me chuckle when people complain that higher income earners get more tax cuts than those on a lower income. Those higher earners, as has been mentioned previous pay a higher tax in $ than than the majority of Australians do.

I think a fair system would be to charge everyone a standard tax rate or everyone just pays a set amount. that would work wouldn't it?

Or how about we get rewarded in like for the amount of tax we pay, i pay higher rate of tax so i get a bigger bed in hospital or i don't have to pay tolls on the motorway. that would work wouldn't it?

If i have studied harder, worked harder, made wiser investments, didn't spend friovously and at times got lucky (i would argue i made my own luck) why should i pay more in tax. why should i pay more as a % than those that didn't and won't?

I never understood the argument from those that complain. i have paid more tax over the years than many have earned in the same period. My efforts ensured 100's of people had a job as well.

there is never balance cause some want money for nothing and others don't want to give up what they have worked hard for.

I can see where you are coming from but that does not tell the whole story. One glaring exemption is the history of Aborigines how they suffer historical injustice that still affects them to this day. They were not even allowed to buy land (strictly speaking their own land) for generations, they were only paid about 50 pence a day when I worked with them 55 years ago, etc. etc. So they could not purchase house to live in or to let go up with inflation. They were barred from schools if anyone objected. So how could they compete in any sense of the word. When they were beginning to survive western diseases about 90 years ago the children were deliberately taken from the families so they would not grow up Aboriginal. This destroyed them mentally of course. ain't a level playing field mate - like if Manly always ran downhill with a strong breeze behind them and the refs on side.

life is not a level playing field, never was never will be. I do feel for the Aborigines and am saddened by the treatment they have received, but many nationalities/peoples around the world have suffered at the hands of conquerors. many of the conquered from other groups have risen and made something of them selves as have many Aboriginals.

There are no such laws today and that is what matters. we cant be expected to right every wrong that previous generations have committed and it doesn't achieve anything to keep bringing up the pasts unless you are using it to educate people. Not sure how that relates to the tax's but anyway.

What I am saying is that whilst many people like the old rich were accruing their fortunes off Aboriginal land the Aborigines did not have any chance to equal them. So there are families with fortunes that puts them completely above ever being able to be equalled by Aborigines. So why can't be so heavily taxed so that over a period of about 50 years they end up with only a few houses. They got land for free, little tax and extremely cheap labour from white Aussies or slave labour from Kanaks and Aborigines. Come the revolution…

 

[Tim Sheens]

it always makes me chuckle when people complain that higher income earners get more tax cuts than those on a lower income. Those higher earners, as has been mentioned previous pay a higher tax in $ than than the majority of Australians do.

I think a fair system would be to charge everyone a standard tax rate or everyone just pays a set amount. that would work wouldn't it?

Or how about we get rewarded in like for the amount of tax we pay, i pay higher rate of tax so i get a bigger bed in hospital or i don't have to pay tolls on the motorway. that would work wouldn't it?

If i have studied harder, worked harder, made wiser investments, didn't spend friovously and at times got lucky (i would argue i made my own luck) why should i pay more in tax. why should i pay more as a % than those that didn't and won't?

I never understood the argument from those that complain. i have paid more tax over the years than many have earned in the same period. My efforts ensured 100's of people had a job as well.

there is never balance cause some want money for nothing and others don't want to give up what they have worked hard for.

I would say that it was fairly well balanced around fifteen years ago and has tipped in one direction since then. As stated previously, I have no problem with a reasonable reward, but the latter changes of the latest income tax legislation that supposedly would not be split, are simply too far. Sure, whilst bracket creep needs to be addressed on a consistent basis, the five fold bracket jump is ridiculous.

Whilst I utilise the services of those with a greater understanding of the system to manage my affairs to reduce my obligations by taking advantage of the system, I am always happy to pay the end amount as the more it is, the more I have prospered.

 

[magpiecol]

it always makes me chuckle when people complain that higher income earners get more tax cuts than those on a lower income. Those higher earners, as has been mentioned previous pay a higher tax in $ than than the majority of Australians do.

I think a fair system would be to charge everyone a standard tax rate or everyone just pays a set amount. that would work wouldn't it?

Or how about we get rewarded in like for the amount of tax we pay, i pay higher rate of tax so i get a bigger bed in hospital or i don't have to pay tolls on the motorway. that would work wouldn't it?

If i have studied harder, worked harder, made wiser investments, didn't spend friovously and at times got lucky (i would argue i made my own luck) why should i pay more in tax. why should i pay more as a % than those that didn't and won't?

I never understood the argument from those that complain. i have paid more tax over the years than many have earned in the same period. My efforts ensured 100's of people had a job as well.

there is never balance cause some want money for nothing and others don't want to give up what they have worked hard for.

I can see where you are coming from but that does not tell the whole story. One glaring exemption is the history of Aborigines how they suffer historical injustice that still affects them to this day. They were not even allowed to buy land (strictly speaking their own land) for generations, they were only paid about 50 pence a day when I worked with them 55 years ago, etc. etc. So they could not purchase house to live in or to let go up with inflation. They were barred from schools if anyone objected. So how could they compete in any sense of the word. When they were beginning to survive western diseases about 90 years ago the children were deliberately taken from the families so they would not grow up Aboriginal. This destroyed them mentally of course. ain't a level playing field mate - like if Manly always ran downhill with a strong breeze behind them and the refs on side.

life is not a level playing field, never was never will be. I do feel for the Aborigines and am saddened by the treatment they have received, but many nationalities/peoples around the world have suffered at the hands of conquerors. many of the conquered from other groups have risen and made something of them selves as have many Aboriginals.

There are no such laws today and that is what matters. we cant be expected to right every wrong that previous generations have committed and it doesn't achieve anything to keep bringing up the pasts unless you are using it to educate people. Not sure how that relates to the tax's but anyway.

What I am saying is that whilst many people like the old rich were accruing their fortunes off Aboriginal land the Aborigines did not have any chance to equal them. So there are families with fortunes that puts them completely above ever being able to be equalled by Aborigines. So why can't be so heavily taxed so that over a period of about 50 years they end up with only a few houses. They got land for free, little tax and extremely cheap labour from white Aussies or slave labour from Kanaks and Aborigines. Come the revolution…

:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1qTwMX1EFY

Well keep it going how it is and we will end up like USA where the 3 wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom 50% - that is not the Australia that I was taught at school where we had maybe the widest/most equal distribution of wealth on the planet.

 

[Russell]

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?

What are you talking about???? or is this snide remark for Russell Packer?

 

[Tim Sheens]

Yes BBF, it is obscene and the gap has increased whilst the minimum wage over there has only risen by half that which it should have to keep up with inflation. Wealth for all is a fallacy, as it always comes at the expense of those that can least afford it.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

Abraham states that no one will ever be given a job buy a poor man not directly but indirectly as they also need goods and services.

But the big difference is that the poor person is a lot more generous in giving to charities that the rich people are, that is they are more humane and generous for those less fortunate. It is not only in Australia true but also in poverty stricken Philippines where I was recently.

A poor women suffered a miscarriage over there and if she could not go to hospital than she would have probably got blood poisoning and died. Well they did a donation campaign for her, she is surrounded by all her relos some of whom are business people. Well the rich, that own businesses and vehicles worth hundreds of thousands of Australian dollars, gave the same amount as the poor who own nothing except a dollar for their next meal. They only raised about 1/3 of the necessary amount of a total of approx. $A125\. So the rich were prepared to let the woman die, there are approx 12 rich families there so would have cost about another $7A each instead of the $A2.50 they gave. And where did the rich get their wealth from - all their surrounding relos who support their businesses but to whom they only pay about $4A a day to in labour when employing them.

And what do the rich relos do - fight amongst themselves over business matters - just like they do in Byron Bay.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Oh crap sorry mate Russ. Not sure why I said you, meant Abe haha.

 

[Chris]

What's everyone's thoughts on Turnball's NEG system? I personally think that he's handing the the Prime Ministership to Shorten with this policy. The NEG might lower the cost of power a little but not enough for Aussies to feel some relief in their pocket for it to be a success.

Im all about Coal Fired Power stations. Yeah it might not help the environment but when you get more in your pocket, I think most wont worry about the environment. This is a no brainer to me.

 

[Tim Sheens]

What's everyone's thoughts on Turnball's NEG system? I personally think that he's handing the the Prime Ministership to Shorten with this policy. The NEG might lower the cost of power a little but not enough for Aussies to feel some relief in their pocket for it to be a success.

Im all about Coal Fired Power stations. Yeah it might not help the environment but when you get more in your pocket, I think most wont worry about the environment. This is a no brainer to me.

There has to be a balance with availability/generating capability of power to inject into the system to meet demand spikes or cover for plant failure. The facts are that new solar and wind projects are already beating coal generation that already has it's plant in place on price and the gap is growing by the day. Businesses are increasingly planning and constructing their own renewable generation systems without any subsidies as the economics dictate that is the best decision.

Tony Abbott and a few cronies dismantled a reasonable policy that was in place and functioning, for a fleeting initial overnight small benefit to people's pockets. Many in the business community and the generators themselves were critical of the changes at the time and nearly all since have blamed that change and the uncertainty it created for the subsequent ridiculous increases in retail prices.

The same few conservatives have still been poisoning potential policy and disrupting progress this past week.

 

[hammertime]

I'm living in Hong Kong at the moment and you can visibly see what pollution does to an environment and people's health, let alone global warming. It's something we have to stop, but one that should be done incrementally.

Restructuring assets and retraining people doesn't happen overnight. You can't have all our coal miners and power workers move to work with renewables at the drop of a hat. Can take a generation.

One thing is clear. I don't want to leave a messed up environment to future generations. It's greedy and selfish. The more government policies put in place to drive to a sustainable outcome, the better.