50% Inheritance Tax on Billionaires (Should we have one?)

Recently I heard on the news that Samsung heirs are paying a massive amount(11 Billion USD) in inheritance tax. Do we have one? Is it implemented properly? If we have one, will it be a part of reducing income inequalities in capitalist countries? Did Gina Rinehart and James Packer pay any inheritance tax? Please vote yes if you want an inherent tax on Billionaires in Australia

Poll Options

  • 310
    Yes
  • 372
    No

Comments

      • -1

        I'm not questioning spend on those essentials. Welfare for the right recipients is also essential in my mind.
        Taxing the shit out of the cream of the society and driving them away is not the solution I agree with though.

        • +3

          I'm of the opinion that the super rich are not bound by borders.

          If you have any talent and have the money, you can maintain precenses in Aust and outside…. hell I know high net worth people in the $25-$50mil range who have residences in the UK, Asia and Australia.

          You think Gina Reinhart, Andrew Forrest, the Packers are leaving any time soon if taxes goes up?

          And if they do, is it such a big loss?

    • +3

      Tax is already way too high in this country.

      This is absolutely a myth.

      If you were to make USD$100,000 for the following countries, here are the effective tax that you pay.

      Country Local Currency Effective Tax Rate
      Singapore 135,000 SGD 7.5%
      Australia 137,000 AUD 28%
      USA 100,000 USD 28% *
      Japan 11,000,000 Yen 29%
      UK 73,000 pounds 30%
      Canda 128,000 CAD 33% *
      France 85,000 Euro 38%
      Sweden 868,000 Krona 41%

      *Depends which city you live in

      Even at our very top tax bracket, if you factor in payroll tax, Employee's contributions tax, GST, etc - we are below average compare to the rest of the world. Source

      Seriously, some people are not happy until the tax rate is effectively 0%. Then maybe you would realised that roads, schools, medical care, national parks, peace & order, border security isn't free anymore.

      • So, because we're not the most taxed country in the world, we should pay more? I don't get that logic.

        Our governments raise enough taxes right now to provide us with a nice society and environment to live in - there's no need to increase them.

        • +2

          So, because we're not the most taxed country in the world, we should pay more? I don't get that logic.

          My post above was not about increasing taxes. My post is to dismiss the notion that our tax is "way to high in this country".

  • Do you want another tax? No.

  • +4

    Australian government be like - Why have inheritance tax on billionaires when you can instead screw the smaller guys around.

  • +4

    I voted yes.

    I think that redistributing dead billionaires money back to consolidated revenue makes sense..

    What often is forgotten is that stable government, laws, law and order, military spending, hospitals system, infrastructure such as roads and communication networks, poles and wires, water pipes etc…..

    ….have all contributed to billionaires having so much money.

    • Exactly, people don't seem to realise that the big reason we have the 'Australian Dream' of owning a house is because schemes to encourage it after WWII were seen as a good way to prevent the country turning communist. People who have nothing don't exactly benefit from the existing system respecting property rights. Thus the more people that are 'in the game' the less chance those at the top have of losing everything.

      An employee might drive on a road to get to work, but a business owner can attract employees from a wider radius with better transport networks and a mine owner can prevent their mine being seized by a foreign government via defence spending.

  • No.

    There is too much taxation already.

    The government needs to cut spending and waste before increasing taxes. They employ far too many people. There is too much middle-class welfare. They spend so much money on the wrong things. Plenty of savings to be made.

    • +1

      Middle class people have at least $10 million in assets? How much do the middle class currently have on average ir median in assets?

  • +6

    Why are people voting no? 99.99999% of you beggers, so basically all of you, will never be a billionaire or even worth more than $5 million, so tax the inheritance of those fat cats at the top. Who gives a shit? They'll survive.

    The same people that vote no are the same people that vote for negative gearing which is the scraps the political class and donors who control the right-wing governments give to the middle class to stop them from complaining.

    • +2

      I think it similar to the delusion that many of the poor in the USA are under regarding their poverty and their way out.

      Many (in the USA) think they could get lucky, or get a break, or some even think they can work harder and become super wealthy too. (Because they remember that it is the greatest country in the world). And if that did happen then they wouldn't want to be taxed heaps.

    • -1

      20% of people can't make financial plans beyond what they'll have for dinner.

      The median value of houses in Australia in 30Y will be $5m. (5.4% 1Y growth or >$8m @ 7.0% 1Y).

      Anyone that can buy a house today will be set in retirement by that time. Their children should be allowed to enjoy their inheritance without the fear of a massive tax bill.

      • +2

        The median value of houses in Australia in 30Y will be $5m.

        Keep dreaming.

        Anyone that can buy a house today will be set in retirement by that time. Their children should be allowed to enjoy their inheritance without the fear of a massive tax bill.

        Dodging tax by investing in property. Yeah, no thanks. Try again, skipper.

        • +2

          People that think that this is a dream are too emotional when investing.

          The moderate estimate follows the trend and the trend will enter a hockey stick in our lifetime.

          Twenty five years ago, the median house value across Australia was just $111,524 and units showed a slightly higher median value, at $123,840. Since 1993, median house and unit values have increased by 412% and 316% respectively, providing homeowners with a significant wealth boost. The capital gain over the past 25 years equates to an annual growth rate of 6.8% for houses and 5.9% for units, in dollar value terms, the median value of the typical Australian house has risen by $459,900 since 1993 and unit values are $392,000 higher.
          https://www.aussie.com.au/plan-compare/property-reports/25-y...

          .

          Australian property prices 2020
          An in-depth analysis of Australian property prices as at February 2020.
          Quick Stats
          The median national property price is $549,918.
          Between February 2019 to February 2020, the house price index in Australia rose by 6.1%, with a monthly rise of 1.1%.
          Through analysis of Australia’s eight major capital cities, Sydney, NSW has the highest median property price at $872,934 while Darwin has the lowest median property price at $386,345.
          https://www.budgetdirect.com.au/home-contents-insurance/rese...

          .

          Australian property prices are $103,400 higher than last year, CoreLogic says
          By business reporter David Chau
          Posted Wed 1 Sep 2021 at 9:58amWednesday 1 Sep 2021 at 9:58am, updated Wed 1 Sep 2021 at 2:29pm
          "The annual growth rate at the moment is trending higher — in fact, it is 3.6 times higher than the 30-year average rate of annual growth."
          https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-01/property-housing-core...

          .

          Australia’s house prices are disconnected from reality – and the RBA wants you to know it isn’t to blame
          Greg Jericho
          Wed 15 Sep 2021 18.30 BST
          Residential property prices in the June quarter across Australia rose by nearly 7% – smashing the previous record set in 2009
          https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2021/sep/16...

          .

          Australian housing boom continues to lose steam as national home values rise another 1.5% in August
          The August update takes Australian housing values 15.8% higher over the first eight months of the year and 18.4% above levels a year ago. In dollar terms, the annual increase in national dwelling values equates to approximately $103,400, or $1,990 per week. In comparison, Australian wages are rising at the average annual rate of 1.7%.
          https://www.corelogic.com.au/news/august-2021-home-value-ind...

          “If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail!” B.F

        • +2

          Nope. That's tax avoidance - which is perfectly legal, sensible, and IMO, necessary. Tax evasion is illegal - which legally investing in property is not.

  • +3

    Most people still cannot fathom how much a Billion is.

    If you were given to spend $1,000 per day:

    To spend a million dollars, it will take you 2 years, 8 months 27, days.

    To spend a Billion dollars, it will take you 2739 years and 8 months.

    It will take Jeff Bezos 553,000 years to spend all his money. Human civilisations only started about 100,000 years ago.

    The world does not need more billionaires. We should lift up our lower class and build out our middle class.

    • -2

      Depends on how you spend the money. You need billions to fund projects related to space exploration, nuclear fission, or any other high risk unprofitable endeavours.

      • +5

        you mean what nasa and the us national laboratories have done since 1945?

      • +1

        Depends on how you spend the money. You need billions to fund projects related to space exploration, nuclear fission, or any other high risk unprofitable endeavours.

        Most roads are highly unprofitable endeavours. But we need them to transport goods.

        Most schools are highly unprofitable endeavours. But we need them to train an educated working class.

        Most medical care are highly unprofitable endeavours. But we need them to nurse our society.

        Most law enforcements are high unprofitable endeavours. But we need them to keep peace and order.

        Outside of monarchies and developing countries, most democratic countries did not need billionaires to fund them.

        We vote for very smart people into government to make decisions that benefits us for the long term that we cannot see the benefits in the short term.

        Billionaires do not need a $50 million tax break so they can afford their 2nd yacht, but we could use that money to build another hospital in regional areas that would save countless lives for many years to come.

        • +3

          "We vote for very smart people into government to make decisions that benefits us for the long term that we cannot see the benefits in the short term"

          we vote very effective PR spin doctors and fear mongers to make decisions that benefits the rich and corporate Australia

        • What are you talking about? I was just saying that the motivation for some people to amass billions of wealth could be to fund their unusual hobby or to realise their dream and vision.
          Yes obviously the government can and must do some of those unprofitable endeavours, but definitely not all.
          And the billionaires can run their pet projects as they like as a monach, unlike how the government projects are run.

          We vote for very smart people into government to make decisions that benefits us for the long term that we cannot see the benefits in the short term.

          And for all this time, who do you think benefit most from the decisions of those very smart people we vote for? Yes, those billionaires..

        • We vote for very smart people into government to make decisions that benefits us for the long term that we cannot see the benefits in the short term.

          Hahah surely this is a joke? They make decisions that benefit themselves and their mates, and nothing longer term than the next election cycle is planned, and then, only in marginal seats.

    • -2

      If the lower and middle class wants to earn more.. then just.. work harder. People like Bezos didn't become a billionaire overnight. He was part of the lower class that crawled his way onto the top.

      It is not on the riches to uplift people that have less than them.

      • +1

        If the lower and middle class wants to earn more.. then just.. work harder.

        Again, that is grossly simplified.

        Yes the lower and middle class need to help themselves, but it doesn't mean that the rich works 1000x times harder - it means they got luckier more often.

        It is mostly luck.

        Jeff Bezos ($200bn) : I succeeded because I ‘won a lot of lotteries’
        Source

        Buffett ($100bn) and Munger ($2.2bn) got to where they are today in part thanks to hard work and dedication to their craft. But Buffett also acknowledges that they also got a major head start because they, as he puts it, won the “ovarian lottery.”
        Source

        Founder of Canva - Melanie Perkins ($54bn): "..where you were born, who your parents are, what was the education that you got, having good health, there were so many layers of luck, if you look at those things, we could not be any luckier"
        Source

        How can a single mother who is struggling to feed her baby, be expected to start a software company? *1

        How can a recently unemployed electrician be expected to create his own business when his mortgage is underwater? *2

        Hints to questions:
        *1 - Family Benefits, Parenting Payments, Maternity Leave
        *2 - Unemployment benefits, small business concessions

        • -1

          Yeah and you want to tax the rich to sponsor those? That's fair how?

          Also.. so what if its luck? Are the people who lucked out suppose to subsidised those who aren't as lucky?

          • +2

            @buckethat:

            Are the people who lucked out suppose to subsidised those who aren't as lucky?

            The answer is yes. I'd rather live in a society where the well off and fortunate subsidise the poor than some insane ancap future where the rich live in walled off cities while the proles are living in squalor.

          • +2

            @buckethat: Well that’s a remarkable lack of self awareness in those two paragraphs.

            The answer to the first one about fairness is that it’s just luck. And the answer to the second is yes, that would be fair. (Also that’s how insurance works too).

            Of course people overlook the benefits to the wealthy in having a more equal society. I’ve been to very unequal countries, and they are not pleasant/safe places, not to mention it’s much harder to get a good medical system, reliable utilities, build a business etc without a large, educated and secure middle class.

        • -3

          Luck is a convenient excuse used by lazy people to justify their lack of motivation to do better with the cards that they've been dealt.

          • @rektrading: Seriously? There is this theory that I have heard before.. The rich become richer in this life or the next ones because they donate more and help a lot of other. The poor never get any richer if they are being stingy to others, and if they always receive from other and never give back..

          • +1

            @rektrading: so a poor guy in a third world country just needs to work hard and he will become rich?

            • @Griffindinho: Underprivileged people that are lazy no matter where they're born will always be poorer than their peers that are motivated to work hard and smart.

              People have to stop thinking that someone will come around one day, knock on the door and give them what they want. It's not going to happen. If they want something then they've to be willing to do whatever it takes to get it.

              There are no shortcuts to financial freedom.

              • +1

                @rektrading:

                There are no shortcuts to financial freedom

                Agreed and there shouldn't be, hence the inheritance tax

              • +1

                @rektrading: Yes there is for a select few.

                You can’t become a billionaire without getting favourable returns. Heck even being a multi-millionaire.

      • +3

        People like Bezos didn't become a billionaire overnight. He was part of the lower class that crawled his way onto the top.

        false.

        his parents were well off and gave him a large sum for a loan to start his business.

        • He.. still did not become a billioniare overnight.

  • +3

    Why hate on successful people?

    • +3

      cause they exploit people

  • -1

    I feel it is justified, someone has to pay for those pensions and bucketloads of debt so why not put it onto those that can afford it the most.

    Now i'm not a billionaire basher and yes they've worked hard and deserve every dollar they have
    Its when they have such a big piece of the pie that they can manipulate markets. Eg if Gina and Twiggy decided to buy up affluent suburbs and bowl over every last house for a sprawling mansion they could, ensuring housing supply stays at zero and what houses remain are ridiculously expensive.

    I personally have a friend who's dad is sitting on half a billion and the power these guys have is astounding. He could buy his whole block in a very affluent area if he chose to.

    • Twiggy has done a lot of good with his billions.

      • +1

        Like buy us millions of test kits through his foundation with a shelf life of 6 months that ended up getting chucked out that we the taxpayer ended up reimbursing him for?

        Meanwhile he gets to claim a healthy tax deduction with no out of pocket expense.

        The best tax dodge is to set up a charity and that's what they've done.

        But i agree he does do good with his scholarships and indigenous learning programs.

        • he bought back RM Williams from an overseas company and promised to keep its manufacturing in australia

          https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-27/andrew-and-nicola-for...

          keeps a timeless australian brand in australia and keeps its jobs also in australia.

          he had a fail with the testing kits, cant blame him for trying. the government could have / should have engaged more maybe with people like forrest who were happy to help

          • @MrThing: Yes that's the sugar coated story that they sell the media
            Still its a company buying another company
            It's an investment

  • Lol.. People sure love the idea of increasing tax (or introducing new ones) for the groups that they're not a part of.

    • +2

      welcome to democracy, maybe you're new to it

  • I saw an article about the canva founders saying they are going to donate most of their fortune (they are only mid 30's). was refreshing to see that they could see that their huge wealth can be put to good use, not just buying Ferraris, bags of coke, private jets and diamond studden gold grills for their teeth.

    I hope we see more of these financially generous rich millennials / gen Z / etc

    maybe all hope is lost on their parents the baby boomers who have fuked the world like it is now. guns, bombs, death, climate change, for profit healthcare, etc

    • +2

      All these pledges of donations are PR stunts. They don’t give a single buck. See what happened to Mark Zuckerberg pledge. Even people like Bill gates will do these so called philanthropy to divert money from company to another. If anyone really gives money they don’t advertise it

  • +1

    With the way taxation law is currently (and usually) implemented, no. The only ones who actually have an upper hand from more tax laws and more complexity are the ultra-rich, and their lawyers and accountants.
    We all have seen the symptoms: when someone asks tax related questions in an internet forum, most answers are "asks your lawyers or accountants". Poor people don't have their own lawyers and accountants. The rich don't ask advice from strangers in internet forums.
    Complex laws are masquerading as beneficial for the majority while having loopholes exploitable only by the 0.01%. It is very logical and understandable as the people who design and write the laws are those ultra-rich themselves or their minions or those who are well connected to them.
    Less laws and simpler rules, less loopholes.

  • https://www.forbes.com/australia-billionaires/list/#tab:over...

    Tax billionaires on death?
    Effects maybe 3 people a year?
    Sure, why not.

    • do you not read you own link

      there's 38 there

      50 over $750 mil

      this also does not capture the harm that multinationals have caused

      bhp billiton, rio tinto have stolen the wealth, some say the 'common wealth' of the australian people for decades

      • 38 in total in Australia.
        This is a death tax.
        It only applies if they die.
        Do you not use your own brain?

        • -1

          Maybe I'm hoping they all die at once. Like Llamas.

  • +3

    No. Why should it be? It’s someone’s money they had already been taxed. The receiver must only pay cgt afterwards like any other assets gain.

  • I don't think that people get it. This should be a negative sum situation!
    IE. An Inheritance tax should equate to less alternative tax takes.

    • You are assuming there is currently adequate tax paid and adequate compliance.

  • -2

    No the tax should be applied to millionaires as well, a 75% inheritance tax would benefit all rather than just the rich heirs.

    You take from society so you need to give back to society.

    Selfishness is not a virtue and is un-Australian to say the least.

  • -1

    More communism / socialists anti-democratic ideologies by the dole bludgers.

  • +1

    Inheritance tax on everyone, not just billionaires.

  • +4

    I've read a common theme here, why should that money be taxed twice, why is it fair that we get money taken away from them. Did these people question JobSeeker/JobKeeper? Are you against bankruptcy and government bailouts? Do these align with your morals of fair? If people didn't work, why should they get money? Why should businesses have been given grants at all? Are they against a progressive tax system? Ultimately, the system in place have benefited billionaires and millionaires for decades while milking off the middle class. These measures aren't about fair and just, it's about keeping society stable and functioning and rising inequality is definitely not good for society. Again, the amount of people defending billionaires when they're probably paying a larger percentage of their pay to tax than they are is absolutely absurd. The same people then turn around and attribute it to their smarts and hard work. Here's a newsflash guys, there's no such thing as meritocracy and if you think these people worked 1000x times harder than you, then you must be lazy as (profanity). I guess how could they lose when they've got the government and most of ozbargain on their side.

    • +5

      yep. I'm rich. I'm effectively retired. I work basically to fill in time. Like some of you, I stand to inherit 10s of millions. Not that much in the scheme of things but really, this sets me up and my kids up for life.

      Even so how can you not see the inequality in Australia and perpetrateed by successive governents.

      Why are people ok with stuff like robodebt and the avg joe being prosccuted for jobkeeper/jobseeker but are ok with multinationals not having to pay anything back.

      Morrison's own pentecostal church took jobseeker and had something like 3,000 percent profit growth.

      People here defend billionaires like as if they are family members, as if they are Bezos and Musks own kids.

      I have worked in schools, tafes and universities and you can see the inequality from day one in kids from disadvantaged households.

      All of us here are closer to the poor bastards who commited suicide due to robodebt than the any bilionaire…. hell Malcolm Turnbull is closer to a 'dole bludger' than a billionaire.

      I dont have any hope for this country. Its done. The successive damage done since the Howard government has condemned post boomer generations.

      Unless you are born to wealth you're nothing. Of course there will always be exceptional individuals. Google "Tim Gurner". I dont like this guy but he's an exceptional individual and he worked himself out of relative hardship but that is survivor bias.

      • -1

        There are obviously corrupt politicians in LNP and Morrison is one of them, but surprisingly the state-controlled mass media like ABC news are quiet on these explosive matters.

        • yeah but i have an understanding about the ABC… if your funding is at the pleasure of the LNP then what can you actually do.

          one of the board members nay chairs is Ita Buttrose who comes from conventional media

          Murdoch and other media like Stokes is the LNP publicity wing.

          it gets harder from now on kids and I dont think Labor will address anything anytime soon IF they can get in

      • +3

        Couldn't have put it better myself and something I've tried to argue many times on this forum when a topic like this appears. There's a mentality here that everyone who got rich worked their asses for it while everyone who's poor are bludgers but fail to see that while they're sending their kids to private schools with all the newest tech and best teachers, some students don't even have lunch and have teachers who aren't even math qualified. Despite what people say, how you grow up and develop matters. You can't expect a 10 year old who's hungry to focus on school. Like you said, people don't realise the inequality in schools which is passed on from generation to generation except it seems people are more hell bent on protecting billionaires money that isn't even theirs. As I said, I'm not for punishing the rich, but to say it's punishment when it literally would not affect their lives is absurd. I don't think whether Packer being worth 20 billion or 5 billion really makes a difference to how he lives.

  • No if you are a millionaire in the tens of millions, but yes if you are a billionaire because that's a ridiculous amount of money and only breeds entitlement (similar to those hooked on centrelink money).

  • +1

    there are plenty of ways that we can and should be taxing very wealthy people. but personally i would just be happy if they were taxed the same as everyone else but weren't able to dodge anything like we keep hearing about. I personally think affirmative action is unethical, and inheritence taxes kind of sounds like an affirmative action type deal to me. affirmative action makes me want to just leave the country and I've got a feeling inheritence tax will make billionaires feel the same way. except if i take a job in another country nobody will care, but when billionaries move all their money out of australia im pretty sure that will make us all poorer. maybe somebody with any sort of education in economics could give their opinion on how that might or might not work?

    • people say that all the time…"(profanity) america or australia, i'm leaving"

      but really, its generally not a thing here

      how many australians do you hear about permanently moving to… thailand, the phillipines, or even NZ or wherever

      the conditions here had not got bad enough that people leave

      put it like this, the Packers have huge interests overseas (used to be macau) but where is their home residence?

      if you have a skill that is better served overseas then yes, some skilled professionals move to silicon valley etc

      further, saying billionaires moving out will 'hurt us all'… I dont beleive that, if thats true why are we trying to tax them more?

      • you're right a lot of people say (profanity) this im moving but don't. but i was trying to make the point that is the attitude this policy would give. and unlike me billionaires have no trouble moving country. also if you are about to lose a large percentage of your money and that's tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, probably they really will taking the time to move their money, I'm sure they are used to doing this anyway.

        I don't understand your argument for saying billionaries moving their money out of australia wouldn't be bad. can you elaborate?

        I'll give some reason why I think it would be bad (keeping in mind i have not studied economics, or even done accounting in high school. or even had an economic victory in a civilization game.)

        1. less money in australian banks makes them less stable.
        2. rich people massively use and often massively overpay for all sorts of extra services.
        3. they would be doing their best to dodge that tax so probably would dodge normal taxes too on their way out and they apparently seem to be good at doing this.
        4. this point less logic more just an observation, fairly well off wealthy places often have lots of wealthy people in them…I guess china would be an exception to this point though.
        • you have the belief that billionaires have a lot of money sitting static or even in long term investments in banks

          I have the belief that they dont

          if you're that wealthy i think you're smart enough to have investment vehicles that do not include low interest standard accounts that most of us use

          "flight of capital" is the term but I dont think its an issue here also given that aust. banks are probably more stable than anyone else

  • I feel as though most people who choose 'Yes', are people who are easily jealous of what others have worked hard to achieve their entire life.

    While my parents have done well for themselves, paying taxes and receiving minimal incentives from the government, I don't think the government deserve more of their hard earned cash… I have set myself up in life to not have to worry about inheritance. Nor should anyone else for that matter. I've come across people who feel they are entitled to their parents money and count the days till they are entitled to it, which is just wrong.

    While I believe in helping other Australians (or just people in general), and am happy to pay my share of taxes to better Australia, I don't believe the government has a right to double dip into money they have already taxed just because it is changing hands.

  • Billionairs will avoid it with trusts anyway.
    Trusts don't die … beneficiaries just get added.

  • +4

    One thing people should know by now, is there are numerous ways of hiding your wealth.

    Tax income? Truly rich people have none. They borrow against their assets and count the interest as an expense.

    Tax real estate? Anathema to Australians, with so many little landlords around.

    Tax business? Just watch the 'they're killing business/taking jobs!' campaigns roll out and the party in power booted from office.

    Tax the inheritance? Place the business in a trust. Move the trust to the Netherlands. Break up the inheritance into smaller chunks so it comes under thresholds of taxation. On and on it goes.

    • Btw Australia has many landlords

    • Tax the source?
      We need a system that prevents excessive wealth to be accumulated in the first place.
      But it requires drastic changes in both economic and political systems.
      Tax any properties that need government protection and regulation with progressive rate depending on the scale. This includes non-tangible properties such as intellectual properties.
      Tax particular use of national resources (eg: ores, minerals, oil, water, radio frequencies, etc) based on used quantity over time, not just one off fees.
      Tax excessive and specific use of government services and infrastructures.
      Remove any other taxes.
      You need something to create anything. If someone can create something from nothing, maybe they deserve to pay no tax at all.
      After all no one gets rich from tutoring and moping floor.

  • I love that we are on Ozbargain. OzBARGAIN. Talking about Billionaires. And taxing them. Don't worry about taxing the transfer of money and assets through generations. Tax the wealth throughout its time of growth. Taxing the cashing in of assets & and income works for those whom are not rich. Those who are rich the main gains are in their wealth, increase of the assets over time. That is what to tax.

    If everyone put as much effort in lobbying for a Billionaire tax as we spent lobbying for better deals on OzBARGAIN, myself included, we could possibly make a stir. Would def be a great News Mast Head line - "OzBargainers - Tax the rich, best bargain we have ever seen."

    • Tax billionaire kid inheritances but don't you dare take away my fake emails used to claim the same discount code multiple times to rip the system and shop owners!

  • -1

    The biggest joke here is people who voted yes thinking that if any tax collected would see benefit to them given the inefficiencies of the government. Just naive.

Login or Join to leave a comment