Rich people pay more tax than poor people, even after LEGALLY minimising their contributions. We need more rich people.

This one is a; well yes and no!

Well, here is an example I’m acquainted with: A specialist doctor with a private medical practice in NSW, which he recently sold.

His major complaint was what he considered an excessive tax burden on the bottom line.
That tax burden on top of increasing overheads of staff, buildings and high Government compliance costs, and insurance costs for such a business, made his business unviable.
His alternative now is to offer services through NGO’s as a FIFO worker.
The tax burden remains but the overheads have been eliminated.

The question is from this example, should his tax burden been reduced to encourage his services to the public as a private practitioner or not?

Dan

What we don't need at this time is tax cuts for folk who demonstrably don't need them. Who in all likelihood will hoard it or turn into vastly overvalued bricks/mortar/price gouged rents.

Our current highly complex tax system ought to be completely jettisoned along with then 1953 double tax act. That has been used, one could argue, to simply avoid paying us our fair share of the tax dollar.

Tax law needs to be reformed as an unavoidable flat tax of 15% above a generous tax-free threshold. Supported by the GST, fuel levy/a two-tiered Medicare with a natural disaster component/levy.

This result as law would allow current tax compliance costs to be returned to the bottom line as 7% averaged/make the adjusted tax liability cost to business just 8% in real terms.

An unavoidable 15% flat tax would make those 40% of firms that pay no company tax whatsoever start to pay 15% from the billions they extract from this nation. Ditto those who pay as little as 4%. The rest who after all the deductibles, don't pay more than 13% as company tax!

Even the latter would pay 2% more as transferred via the banking system. The others 36-40% respectively. Make no mistake that's billions more than the annual take now, but not less than an annual 64 billion more

This nation is entitled to a fair share of profits or income earned exclusively here! Tinkering at the edges/leaving more holes than Swiss cheese isn't going to change very much, nor will tin-eared, timidity personified, change resisting, Polly waffling Pollies.

Do the number crunching, if only to understand that current reconciled revenue will be quite massively improved along with the decibels of those screaming blue murder over the fact that all the old tax avoidance mechanisms/annual reconciliation adjustments are gone to never ever return along with their parasitic, nonproductive, "clever" tax practice returns!

As things stand the tax paying cohort is a shrinking one shouldering more and more of our combined responsibility or if you will, privilege!
Alan B.

Flat Tax for Business & Flat Tax for Wage & Salary earners !
Freeze Public Service salaries for ten years ! Leave Wages were they are, they'll become competitive instantly ! Limit speculation land purchase.

Alan Jones once said on air, and I paraphrase, he like all of his better off cohort could so arrange their affairs so as not to pay more than 15% personal tax!

And while that may be more in actual dollars than most battlers it is lower in the percentage they cop as tax. Those that pay more in dollars need to understand it is their privilege for their right to earn/extract superior incomes most of which is earned for them by the bent backs of others of more agile minds that they exploit. And without question is levied from the pay packets of those who do all the work and make all we make.

Price gouging landlords come to mind along with the ruins with roofs they rent to the least well off.

Show me one single rich man who has made all his money through his own exclusive efforts. And I show you a thief and a liar. The most astute criminals keep good books and pay the correct tax. Al Capone couldn't be convicted but was finally jailed for tax evasion

Some self-made men were born in the cabin hewn from the wilderness with their own bare hands.
Alan B.

There must come legislation that stipulates that rent can be no more than a third of income. Same should be the case for traffic fines etc. We can not condemn low paid people for becoming a welfare burden if they're denied the opportunity to save. Rental properties for low wage earners should be made available by Govt until people can buy their own not private landlords ! The exploitation of rental housing is presently criminal !
Public Service salaries are too high & are responsible for much of the economic inequality in our society. Corporate profit too needs to have a ceiling imposed. Govt charges are generally too high for minimum wage earners & should be bracketed like Tax is bracketed.
If a Govt were to be really serious about creating a better society they would do it by making themselves & the people responsible & reward them accordingly.
Unions have done a lot of good & even more bad, particularly the Public Service Unions, it's time they become responsible again !

Indyvidual

You caught me by surprise.

At what point does the current unequal system fall over totally by idiotic rule from self appointed self interested top down undemocratic rulers; a manufactured class of their own?

In answer to my own question, traditionally at a point of revolution, preceded by civil disobedience.

Flooding the country with open border policies such as underway in the US, and less obviously in Au under an outrageously loose immigration regime, is hastening the demise of Democratic rule by watering down necessary welfare programmes, forcing the poor to compete with increasing demands from foreigners free flowing into our communities.

The largest fissure to our social system is, as you rightly point out, the abysmal dogs breakfast of domestic housing.

The ruling classes who effectively appoint themselves through quasi-Democracy elections is increasingly a total failure which continues to produce an increasing losing class.

Dan

Dear Everald Compton,

You claim that higher taxes stimulate the economy.

If I am to believe you, then since I find that there is too much economy already, that economy is given an inflated importance and is already artificially overheated, and most importantly, that economy does not happiness bring, then by your logic I ought to support tax cuts.

«I have voted for the best leader or candidate, but never the ‘best’ Party.»

And this you openly boast?
While you play the game of "leaders", your random vote actually determines the laws by which you and the rest of us are forced to live, in real life, serious stuff... whoever surmised that reaching the age of 18 automatically makes one mature enough to vote...

You claim that higher taxes stimulate the economy.
Yuyutsu,
Higher taxes do not stimulate the economy ! Spending stimulates economy. Locally first & then nationally.
Unequal or revenue-less income drains the economy & results in burdening taxpayers, the lower paid in particular.
Where is the economic sense when middlemen/women make more from a product than the producer or the final seller. Where is the economic sense in paying non-revenue creators more than the revenue makers ?
As we approach the pivoting point where the takers outnumber the makers, only a more fair distribution of income can prevent society from collapsing !

Dear Indyvidual,

Economy is not my specialty, so I am in no position to tell whether or not taxes stimulate the economy.

My point was, that as I consider stimulating the economy to be a bad thing, IF the author is correct then I ought to support the lowering of taxes.

Again, when you speak of "economic sense", you should first state your economic goals, you cannot just assume that everyone's goals are identical.

Similarly, you then say that only a more fair distribution of income can prevent society from collapsing: it possibly would (I am not an economist to judge), but what is wrong with society collapsing? unless you can predict what is to replace it, I cannot tell you whether that is good or bad.

As takers outnumber makers, I suggest the takers should learn to be content with less by finding emotional, mental, intellectual and spiritual alternatives to materialism.

Everald didn't claim that higher taxes stimulate the economy. He claimed that government spending stimulates the economy, and that lower taxes were ineffective at stimulating the economy.

I think his point is valid, though slightly overstated. Lower taxes do stimulate the economy, but they tend to be a very inefficient way of doing so.

But what's conspicuously absent from this article is the context of current economic circumstances. When inflation is a problem, stimulating the economy tends not to be such a good idea - currently they're trying to slow the economy by raising interest rates. And if it's a choice between higher taxes with lower interest rates or lower taxes with higher interest rates, I'd go for the latter. Ultimately I think it's better to have abundant opportunity and limited incentive than to have abundant incentive but limited opportunity. Also I think enabling businesses to make more long term investments is good for the economy.

______________________________________________________________

Alan B.,
However "unavoidable" a tax is, people will always find ways to avoid it.

______________________________________________________________

Yuyutsu,
If society collapses, it will destroy a lot of innocent people and wreck the lives of many more. Replacement doesn't require revolution - it can and should be a continuous process.

Classifying people as makers and takers is a false dichotomy, as most people are both at different stages of their lives.

Dear Aidan,

You are right, but I was using Indyvidual's terminology in my response to him/her.

I am also glad that you agree with me (even if it is for different reasons) that stimulating the economy is not a good idea.

I wish there would be more consideration for what is good for people rather than what is "good for the economy".

I wish there would be more consideration for what is good for people rather than what is "good for the economy".
Yuyutsu,
Totally agree ! However, this is only possible if local economy is prioritised !

Classifying people as makers and takers is a false dichotomy, as most people are both at different stages of their lives.
Aidan,
I can't argue with that analogy however, I always have generality in mind when talking about society.
Most people try to plan for the day when they may be forced to become takers but many callously exploit the benefits designed for the needy.
My thinking is that, loopholes should be closed asap so the temptation to exploit them is not there in the first place. Centrelink has let genuine Australian needy down badly by its inflexibility & literally rewarded the exploiters.
The whole of society is too greedy ! Presently, it's landlords & Local, State & Fed Govts heading the list. Legislations, permits, registrations etc costs are getting more people into trouble than personal misfortune.
We need more people in Bureaucracy from working backgrounds than from just being there & climbing the ranks ! People should not be allowed to become Public service bureaucrats unless they can prove several years of hands-on experience in business or trade etc.
Nations would fare better then !

I stopped reading at "and never will join a political party." That marks the writer as a fundamentalist - and I don't care for people who are so closed minded.

To stop the inequality we need to have a Flat Tax for Wage & Salary earners & a Flat Tax for business. No more writing off lunches & luxury commodities etc. Family trusts need to made accountable for losses to employees.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander !

This is the difference between the left and right. The left considers it's a privilege to allow entrepreneurs or specialists to hold onto any of their money and to become wealthy is criminal.

The conservatives consider that the money people make is primarily theirs of which they will take as little as possible.