As you know I am opposed to simply increasing wages because times are tough.

Many businesses today are struggling, many are failing, many have sustained huge losses, yet, unions still push for pay rises simply because the cost of living is getting out of hand.

Now there those who always say, what about the CEO,s.

Well, what about the likes of Hugh Jackman, Andrew Bogus, or Harry Kewl.

Nobody makes mention of these people, yet, they are surrounded by support staff being paid pittance,but that's ok because they are stars, not CEO,s.

In fact, these people make an average CEO,s pay look like peanuts.

So that example there shows there is bias from the tall poppy thinking of many here.

Now back to wages.

As I have always maintained, I have no problem with people wanting more to tackle th cost of living, but, it is not the responsibility of business to pay this, it should be governments who carry the burden in tough times. After all, I is the taxes of those doing it tough that the government relies on on a daily basis.

Now, had w not wasted so much money, and nobody can now deny this fact, we would at worst have no debt problem and at best have money in the bank.

Instead, it's all gone and is continuing to go at at rate of $100 M a day,they say.

Something must be done and fast, otherwise ther will be much fewer jobs, as businesses have literally had a gut full.

Don't believe me, just keep pushing and we will see who is right.

rehctub,
I still believe a flat tax would sort out many of those problems. How can we expect equal playing fields when we don't have equal tax ? By all means call me simple but if you do provide an explanation please why a flat tax wouldn't be better.

Something must be done and fast,
rehctub,
I'm afraid there's no quick remedy to make half the population two ounces smarter before the next federal election.

I do not wish to be rude.
I do not dislike you.
Still have that beer if ever.
You mate just do not understand.
Minimum wage rises ARE THE ONLY RISE GIVEN.
That could remotely fill your complaint.
Other rises, come at the end of an EBA or start of a Greenfield's one, brand new.
While you convince your self the sky is falling.
And Labor made it happen.
No crisis in this country is taking place, not even a start.
Yes understand you do not wish to know.
But unemployment fell, Australia is seeing consumers, who over spent, who got into debt.
Frightened by the idias currency on your side of the fence, not spending.
I will not return,threads like this do not want to hear the other sides views.

Belly, always happy to hear your views.

Do you honestly think pay rises should be granted when a company is going backwards?N

Flat Tax
Sorry, but it won't work an this is why.

Someone on $1500 per week, paying say $400 in tax, nets $1100.

Meanwhile, someone on $600 a week, takes home say $520.

Two points.
Firstly, the person on $600 requires every cent of their income Just To Survive.

Meanwhile, the one on $1500 has spare money, or at least should.

So, say we make it a 20% flat tax, that means the one on $600 takes home just $480, $40less, while the on on $1500 takes home $1200, $100 more.

What I think should happen is one shoukd pay tax on their base salary, then their overtime/Bonusses should be tax free.

This would remove penalty rates which hurt business and convert much of the additional income to tax for the government.

This would increase take home pays,which will be spent in most cases an, it will take preasure off struggling businesses.

A financial transaction tax should be the tax on the table.

I say again belly, governments should be supporting people, not businesses that themselves are doing it tough.

You may not believe me, but I can assure you that small business, those who employ staff at least are heading south and fast.

In fCt,my bet is in ten year or so they will be all but a distant memory.

The trouble is rehctub while middle and higher wages grow disproportionately to the lowest wages, the cost of living for that group becomes unwieldy. It is not good enough in a First World country to insist those people get 2nd jobs to be able to keep up with costs of living. What a dangerous precedent that sets for families and for the future.

Perhaps one solution is that which is currently being proposed by the Government in raising the tax-free threshold (somewhere between $16-$21K) to offset these rising living costs. That would certainly not burden business and is a win-win.

Sometimes though wages do have to go up to keep pace with living costs and you rarely hear calls to reduce wages across the board, only when it comes to the lowest paid. This is a bit dodgy if you ask me to ask the poorest people to pay 'more'.

People do talk about celebrities and CEOs alike, basically anybody who is earning a disproportionate salary compared to 'contribution'. There is no doubt that a growing gap between the highest and lowest paid is more damaging to small business than small rises in minimum income, barely more than 20 per week.

The other factor to remember is we are a First World Country trying to compete with Third World conditions.

Lots more factors to discuss even before considering the impact of minimum wage increases.

Firstly, the person on $600 requires every cent of their income Just To Survive.

Meanwhile, the one on $1500 has spare money, or at least should.

So, say we make it a 20% flat tax, that means the one on $600 takes home just $480, $40less, while the on on $1500 takes home $1200, $100 more.
rehctub,
the first two sentences reflect the present situation so, nothing new there.
The third one is a premature assessment because a flat tax would very quickly result in a more fixed wage & price system. You can't compare the present wage/price differential with a flat tax system. A flat tax system would most certainly bring about a greater stability on all fronts. And, stability is what we're all looking for. The dilemma would be to establish who gets paid how much. Public servants should not receive more than a qualified Tradesperson.

It's all planed, rehctub. They don't want your type around, you're a pain in the neck for them. Ever since government became corporate and self interested, small business has been under attack. If your ever ran a huge distribution company, you'd understand why they don't want small customers and actively discriminate against them! It's all business buddy and you're not welcome.

well, here I go again for-lets see- 20 no 25 years?. I wrote a paper back when I was a strapping lad; about tax. The actual paper is unimportant since it was mysteriously buried by the Hawke Government and never saw the light of day. I worked for the fedral Gov in Canberra for 10 years. Basically [ since I've long forgotten the complete context - I gave up in disgust and lost all the papers ]It said 'don't tax people on how much they make but HOW FAST THEY MAKE IT!'
Now before I get jumped on by the intelligencia here, I countered every arguement against it in the book and then some. In the end, no-one could put up an arguement which couldn't be accounted for, gotten around or otherwise modified to suit. I won't attempt to go into details but I invite everyone to have a long hard think about how you think it would work and do the 4 and agin's yourself.

pepper I had given this thread a miss.
but your post interests me.
Flat tax will not work.
What is the guts of your idea
And would increase the GST and removing so many small ones work.
Any one want to comment on American Republicans not wanting the super rich to pay more.
Why do we not see more thoughts on tax here?

Belly, the proposal to lift the threshold for lower income earners has some merit as it at least places more in their pay packets and, it takes burden away from many struggling businesses, it's a win, win.

Of cause, the flip side is, at a time when we need to increase tax revenue, this appears to be an odd tactic in that sense.

What is your view of a finacial transaction tax, and, if you think it won't work, why?

rehctub,
what does a transaction tax do that a GST doesn't ? Flat income tax & fixed for 10 years GST & we'd see a much improved economy benefitting all not just the hangers-on.

Indi, it has been suggested a TT of just 2% would eliminate every other form of tax we have ,including both,income tax and the GST.

While I am not an economist, the thought of any individual paying only 2% tax on thier income must be beneficial to thier financial well being.

My understanding is that it is a tax that is added to every single financial transaction made, collected by the financial institutions and passed on to the government.

Now just think of any $100 transaction.

The initial dollars are spent, and taxed.

A finacial transaction is when money goes from one institution to another. Bank withdrawals, automatic payments, EFTPOS, are all FT.o

How many times do you think that $100 is placed into an account, then drawn out again in any single day.

Now considering we have something like a three trillion dollar economy, with all that money circulating, time and time again, day after day, week after week, month after month and, collecting 2% each time.

The numbers are staggering and, no matter what happens, we, the individuals can only ever pay 2% of our personal income in tax as we can only spend money once.

It's what happens to our money that makes the difference.

The money is being taxed, not the wage earner.

Of cause big business and the banks hate the idear.

Now that's my take on it, but perhaps an economist can shed more light on the subject.

Wayne Swan touched on it at the forum, however he suggested it would have to be a global tax, which, by the way plays into the hands of those who have the one world government theory.

ps. You can be taxed twice, but only if you take your money from one bank and place it in to another.

Indi, for the record I am of the opinion we should introduce a 0.2% TT just so we can monitor it and test the water.

0.2% won't hurt really, but it could be a worthwhile model.

I suggested this as an alternative to the flood levey in QLD, but no reply.

Sorry to keep butting in Indi, but my whole concern is this.

We have a situation whereby many small to medium businesses, and some large, are struggling.

We also have a situation whereby wages are becoming a deterrent for employers,yet, they are also becoming to low to live on.

Add to this the deminishing tax that is being collected and, the increasing hand outs that are continuing to head north and there can only be one end.

So, unless the cost of living burden is removed from business and either placed on governments, or, better still, a more effective tax collection system is found, we are quit simply doomed, it's just a matter of, When, not If.

Despite the repeated slack I cop from the unionists and labor die hards, I think I am in a strong position to comment as rather than being I'll Informed, as I have been accused, I have actually been in the business of providing jobs for 20+ years an I can tell you, the rewards for small business are gone.

Every time we have a cost increase, that adds to the risk of us loosing our house as we have had to put that on the line in most cases.

rehctub,
I'm no economist either & agree with your points. The burden on the cost of living is imposed by the very people who should be working on removing the burden & that's our public service. I'm not proposing to do away with it because we couldn't afford not to employ the unemployable but what we can do is to reduce the benefits they help themselves to. Where I live we have bureaucrats who literally work to ruin us & get paid more in allowances alone than the rest of us gets in wages. I wouldn't object to those pays if they worked for us but they actually focus on working against us.

Yes indi, but if we halves there wages accoss the board it wouldn't fix the problem.

I am convinced that a better tax system is the answer.

Everyone wants to tax the miners, but not the banks.

The miners take huge risks, the banks take next to none, unless of cause they decide to invest OUR MONEY in some unsecured OS fund that we, the owners of that money have no say in.

Besides, the miners are being taxed per the amount of minerals they extrCt, it's called royalties.
now if these are to low, then increase tem.

So belly, are you avoiding this thread, or just the question?

Or, perhaps both.

I will ask again.

Do you honestly think pay rises are warranted if a company is doing it tough?

Of so, what is yourmreasoning behind this approach?

Would love to hear your response here belly, especially being a union official and all.

Someone tell belly that if it wasn't for the filthy rich there, there would be far fewer jobs and far less tax revenue.

He doesn't like talking to me.

If we had to pay a hundred Dollars a week less tax many of us could afford to spend more thus provide more jobs. It's the insane Tax system which stops this Nation in her tracks again & again. We simply have to pay too much. Pay for too many permits & licenses. For what I ask ? Not so much to make the rich richer but to keep the many useless bureaucrats from becoming useful.

If it wasn't for the workers there would be no filthy rich.

It is about a fair wages and distribution rehctub and ensuring that labour is valued as much as other types of property.

One thing is for certain you will continue to ignore the fact that the greater the gap between the rich and poor the less democracy you get for your buck.

Pelican, I don't ignore that at all, in fact, I am fully aware that the gap is increasing, but, also the work ethics are changing.

Those who either have low skills, or, choose to work in low skilled areas, think that they should be able to work as few hours as possible, yet, still have all the goodies that those working 60 to 80 hours a week have. Won't happen, can't happen and that's all ther is to it.

And just remember, we are all presented with an equal opportunity to fail, it's just that some of us choose not to be one of the don't haves, mainly due to lots of blood sweat, tears and risk. Ther is nothing stopping anyone, apart from themselves.

Boy, watch th tall poppies come back at that one!