spilota_variegata
Very Well-Known Member
Do you think low, average or high income earners should get tax cuts? Is our current taxation system fair for all or only a small cross section of us? I'm interested in your thoughts.
Who should get tax cuts?
- Thread starter spilota_variegata
- Start date
Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:
- Status
M
MrBredli
Guest
I don't think there should be any tax cuts, not whilst our hospitals, schools and transport networks are so f'd up. The money could be much better spent elsewhere.
Riley
Very Well-Known Member
yeah im with mr bredli, but if 1 group of those was to get a tax cut, my choice would definatley be low income earners.
spilota_variegata
Very Well-Known Member
A colleague of mine who is into tax minimisation told me that an average income earner with 2 children does not pay one cent in tax after government handouts and benefits. I have no reason to doubt him as I do nothing to minimise the tax I pay and no nothing about such matters.
i agree Bredli, i think we should probably raise taxes for those earning the big bucks especially those on 500 thousand +. Theres no real reason to give anyone tax cuts. Its not like the government has nothing good to spend the money on.
falconboy
Very Well-Known Member
I don't believe high income workers should pay a higher percentage in tax. Higher paid workers 'generally' work for their higher income - whether it be dirtier, more stressful, dangerous, more hours etc - why should they pay a higher percentage in tax???
Fester
Very Well-Known Member
I know this is a long read ... but interesting
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten people go out for dinner. 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 (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
They ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a problem. "Since you are
all such good customers," the owner said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of
your daily meal by $20."
So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay
their bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four were unaffected,
they would still eat for free.
What about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the
$20 windfall so that everyone would get their 'fair share'?
The six paying customers realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33. If they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth and the sixth would
each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each
person's bill by roughly the same amount, and proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay.
And so -
The fifth, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. The first four continued to eat
for free. Once outside the restaurant, they began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth, pointing to the
tenth diner "but they got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's
unfair that they got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh. "Why should they get $10 back when I
got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four in unison. "We didn't get anything at
all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine surrounded and beat up the tenth diner.
The next night the tenth diner didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat
down and ate without number ten. 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!
That, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax
system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from
a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they
just may not show up at the table any more.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten people go out for dinner. 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 (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
They ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a problem. "Since you are
all such good customers," the owner said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of
your daily meal by $20."
So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay
their bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four were unaffected,
they would still eat for free.
What about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the
$20 windfall so that everyone would get their 'fair share'?
The six paying customers realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33. If they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth and the sixth would
each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each
person's bill by roughly the same amount, and proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay.
And so -
The fifth, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. The first four continued to eat
for free. Once outside the restaurant, they began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth, pointing to the
tenth diner "but they got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's
unfair that they got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh. "Why should they get $10 back when I
got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four in unison. "We didn't get anything at
all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine surrounded and beat up the tenth diner.
The next night the tenth diner didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat
down and ate without number ten. 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!
That, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax
system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from
a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they
just may not show up at the table any more.
I don't want to sound like a scrooge, but if the government spent its money on Australians in need, rather than sending it all overseas, taxes wouldn't be so high anyway. I know that there are many people in need in other countries, but there are just as many causes in Australia. Also, if the govt took a serious look at the wastage by politicians and the like, some serious money would be saved, which could go on something more useful than 'fact finding missions'
spilota_variegata
Very Well-Known Member
How true Fester 
moosenoose
Legendary
I agree also with MrBredli. It's a necessary evil and there are plenty of places that could benefit hugely if it's directed into the right areas.
Now traffic fines on the other hand...well, maybe that should be determined on your income! I know a $200 fine would kill me much more than the bloke overtaking me in the $500k Ferrari :lol:
Now traffic fines on the other hand...well, maybe that should be determined on your income! I know a $200 fine would kill me much more than the bloke overtaking me in the $500k Ferrari :lol:
Forensick
Very Well-Known Member
where is the option to RAISE taxes?
now... to point out when my obvious bias lies, i am the near non existant left faction labor.
now... john howard, despite ALL his tax "cuts" (disagree agree complan about who got them whatever) was the highest taxing gov't of all time for australia (however not in his last term, and had beazley won his election he would have taken that crown).
but dispite recently being at our highest EVER levels of taxation within the last 10 years, we are one of the LOWEST taxed countries in the western world.
now.... forget where the tax comes from if increased, (and yes the rich get taxed more, and gain less out of it.... but either way, they gerneally work no harder, and generally not even as hard, as the middle cluss, upper-lower clase and live much more comfortably, so i have little pity), for less "total" cost than we have now, everyone can have complete TOTAL FREE health care, in better equiped hospitals... with the only complete loses being insurance companies whose need to exist vanishes.
i would go into more of a social point of view, but that will come down to an idelogical thing.
anyway, RAISE TAXES!
except for the top 5% we'll all gain SO much more!
[SIZE=-1]Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains!
EDIT: and taxation shouldnt become about "i dont want my money spent there" no one wants "their" money spent half the ways tax gets used, but most of the time it is NEEDED.... and if anyone complains about dole bludgers... well if it upsets you so much, just pretend that 1c of your income for the year that went to him was actually spent on some part of taxation you like....
if you are a christian zealot, pretend it was spent on an iraq war
a conservative greenie, pretend it was spent on renewable energy
your individual contribution to any particular taxed item is minimal, so you have no right to complain when in other areas you get WAY more than your "share".
afterall, i spent 23 years not using roads, yet a large amount of my tax was used on them.... do i have any less right to demand my money back than people complaining about "dole bludgers"
[/SIZE]
now... to point out when my obvious bias lies, i am the near non existant left faction labor.
now... john howard, despite ALL his tax "cuts" (disagree agree complan about who got them whatever) was the highest taxing gov't of all time for australia (however not in his last term, and had beazley won his election he would have taken that crown).
but dispite recently being at our highest EVER levels of taxation within the last 10 years, we are one of the LOWEST taxed countries in the western world.
now.... forget where the tax comes from if increased, (and yes the rich get taxed more, and gain less out of it.... but either way, they gerneally work no harder, and generally not even as hard, as the middle cluss, upper-lower clase and live much more comfortably, so i have little pity), for less "total" cost than we have now, everyone can have complete TOTAL FREE health care, in better equiped hospitals... with the only complete loses being insurance companies whose need to exist vanishes.
i would go into more of a social point of view, but that will come down to an idelogical thing.
anyway, RAISE TAXES!
except for the top 5% we'll all gain SO much more!
[SIZE=-1]Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains!
EDIT: and taxation shouldnt become about "i dont want my money spent there" no one wants "their" money spent half the ways tax gets used, but most of the time it is NEEDED.... and if anyone complains about dole bludgers... well if it upsets you so much, just pretend that 1c of your income for the year that went to him was actually spent on some part of taxation you like....
if you are a christian zealot, pretend it was spent on an iraq war
a conservative greenie, pretend it was spent on renewable energy
your individual contribution to any particular taxed item is minimal, so you have no right to complain when in other areas you get WAY more than your "share".
afterall, i spent 23 years not using roads, yet a large amount of my tax was used on them.... do i have any less right to demand my money back than people complaining about "dole bludgers"
[/SIZE]
firedragon
Well-Known Member
To be honest i understand absolutely nothing when it comes to this stuff, some of it has been explained but i cant get my head around it, I just know the rich get richer while the poor or middle income earners get poorer... And I'd like to see a politician survive on what I do for a year then say the system is still good... I also know my boss will expect us to work our butts off for as little money as possable I'm getting less hours now, so he can have a junior do it, just so he pays out less in wages, He'll cut courners where ever he can.. Now time to start looking for a new job
Forensick
Very Well-Known Member
actually politicans get paid very little....
john howard got $320k a year... alot for most of us granted.... but for most politicians (liberal party especially seeing as they are 80% lawyers and merchant bankers) its a bt of a pay cut.
when costello retires into the private sector like he wants to his salary will triple EASILY
john howard got $320k a year... alot for most of us granted.... but for most politicians (liberal party especially seeing as they are 80% lawyers and merchant bankers) its a bt of a pay cut.
when costello retires into the private sector like he wants to his salary will triple EASILY
firedragon
Well-Known Member
I'd be happy with half that a year..
Radar
Very Well-Known Member
Do the words 'TAX SURPLUS' ring a bell? Paying taxes so the government can save them up, brag about how economically proficient they are, then spend them on advertising campaigns come election time?
Yes, taxes need to be paid to keep the system running, but whats the publics recourse when the money IS NOT spend on schools and hospitals, but just swept aside and used as government 'bail money'?
Yes, taxes need to be paid to keep the system running, but whats the publics recourse when the money IS NOT spend on schools and hospitals, but just swept aside and used as government 'bail money'?
spilota_variegata
Very Well-Known Member
It's not what he made whilst in politics, its' what he'll make for the rest of his life. He'll get a pension equivalent to his salary until he dies, free travel - first class airfare - anywhere in Australia, a government car, driver..... the list goes on. Sure there are a lot of people that make more than politicians, but few if any, get the perks they will for the little time spent in their chosen profession.
The 23 years you didn't use road; were you in prison?
LJ77
Active Member
I vote for no tax cuts !!!
Forensick
Very Well-Known Member
It's not what he made whilst in politics, its' what he'll make for the rest of his life. He'll get a pension equivalent to his salary until he dies, free travel - first class airfare - anywhere in Australia, a government car, driver..... the list goes on. Sure there are a lot of people that make more than politicians, but few if any, get the perks they will for the little time spent in their chosen profession.
The 23 years you didn't use road; were you in prison?
the premis behind that is that most ex-politicians cannot work after leaving parliment.
in the case of john howard its age, and a LIFE of service.
costello it would be more a case of "shouldn't" for vest intrest
and the ousted stuart mc carther spent 30 years doing nothing (at all ever, countries most useless backbencher) COULDN'T get a job.
granted given the way times have changed, ex politician is no longer a given vested intrest, but thats the original reasoning behind it.
and while the perks are good....
howard would have been making at a MINIMUM 500k a year... enough to have not NEEDED his post work perks, and still lived better than he will.
-and for that 23 years i didnt drive, family didnt drive, and friends/housemates didnt drive.
my point was that just coz you dont use/approve of something doesnt give you the right to demand your taxes dont get used properly.
and rednut... i agree.... but i am trying to stay non-partisan
- Status
Similar threads
