....How many politicians have a family trust?

Wally B, FT are not the tax havens they once were, brought about mainly frommthe change in PAYG whereby one can earn up to $104,000 before paying top rate.

Also, to receive BEFORE TAX BENEFITS from a trust, one now has to prove they earned that money. Payslips group certs etc. It's no longer the tax dodge it was.

Belly, which ever way you look at it, JH changed his mind and took his tax to the voters, they accepted it, whereas JG said there would be no carbon tax under the gov I lead, then, in that very same term, introduced one without seeking the approval of the voters. It was a lie.

Now if you can't see the difference then you are beyond explanation.

NathanJ, my son suffered a similar accident late last year, he had the surgery (no thanks to our private health rip off) and has been off work since late October, and will be off until at least late April.

Luckily he was wise enough to have income protection, so 1. He doesn't not burden the tax payer, and 2. He had to go without a few things to afford the policy, which he took out on our advice.

Life is all about choices.

You know, I was wondering why we haven't heard from Poirot for some time. I thought maybe he'd been over to Syria with Steelie. Then up pops YEBIGA. Did a little digging & guess what? ;-) Same M.O.

As for the GST, maybe a good idea would be to remove some of the special concessions that some big Business & Mining have negotiated for themselves.

Jayb, those concessions were not negotiated by business, they have always been a part of business.

Now being in business myself, I get my GST back, but I have always maintained that this is wrong, however, if we don't, then the costs will get even higher than they are today.

Given that the tax changes hands so often, yet is only ever paid by the end consumer, makes this a very inefficient tax.

A flat tax on money, not people is a far better option because one, it is very low giving the average Joe lots more to spend, and two, nobody can escape it unless they deal in cash and, given the tax would be only $2 in every $100, there's little incentive for people to want to trade in the risky black market.

Besides, eventually that cash gets spent, the money banked (bank deposit EFTPOS etc) and the tax is collected.

Last week I paid $543 in income tax, so, if a TT tax was in, I would have paid JUST FORTY DOLLARS and spent the additional $503.

interesting point clubman..*except*..YOU WOULD HAVE RECEIVED
$543....
PLUS THE BOSS/PAYER..WOULD HAVE paid..the $40..[out of their account.]

just the tax you paid...is a good take home wage
for many..but your spot on re transaction tax..tax it where its spent

banks can collect it/bank it instantly..no errors
you pay simply 2 percent..when money goes...TOO EASY*

IM GLAD WE FOUND AGREEMENT.

i would tax non living entities/trusts and money coming from tax havens etc..double..[ie 4 percent]..but thats all we need.

No OUG, the $40 tax would have been taken out as a transaction would have been made to my account. This is because the entire amount was transacted in one transaction.

So I would have received $1960 from my $2000, but paid full tax of 2%.

My remaining $1960 would also attract 2% of each dollar I send.

There is no escaping a TT as you get taxed the 2% on your earnings as it gets deposited into your account.

Although this is double dipping, it only happens once, when you get paid.

Then, as you spend your money you get taxed 2% on each and every transaction you make BUT, if in my case I have $2000 to spend, and, assuming I spend it all in a week, then the max I would pay is $79.20. That's if I send every cent I get paid.

Now, the trick is that I get taxed $2 if I spend $100, but my $100 gets taxed every time it moves from one account to another, which often happens thousands of times a day.

Governments just need the balls to act and put big business in their place. Perhaps Abbott is the one to do it given his hard stance on big business thus far.

Of cause having no money makes life hard for him as well. But that's another story.

WE STILL agree..[in principle..in cause and affect]
the movement needs to be taxed...NOT THE VALUE ADDING.