Why is Tax So High in Australia?

[Deactivated] on 01/02/2022 - 09:58
Last edited 01/02/2022 - 09:59

If we earn over $180 thousand a year we have to pay 45% in income tax, Medicare Levy and mandatory Superannuation contributions. Plus the 10% GST on most items we purchase. This is not including other tax luke stamp duty and etc.

We have one of the highest Tax rates in the world yet we don't have free education, Our roads and public transport are in terrible shape and our Hospitals are way understaffed with very long wait times.

I really do wonder why our tax rate is so high and where the money is really going? Because it certainly isn't for education,roads and healthcare.

Financial

Comments

  • ozyhsk on 01/02/2022 - 10:00
    +28

    politicians pay has to come from somewhere?
    also all those on Centrelink, in public housing and in jails someone has to pay for them right?

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 01/02/2022 - 12:44
      +248

      If we earn over $180 thousand a year we have to pay 45% in income tax

      If you make $180,000 a year living in Australia, you will be taxed $55,267. That means that your net pay will be $124,733 per year, or $10,394 per month. Your average tax rate is 30.7% and your marginal tax rate is 47.0%. This marginal tax rate means that your immediate additional income will be taxed at this rate.

    • Nereosis on 01/02/2022 - 13:15
      +44

      Kind of like the purpose of having a government hey? Paying for things individuals and corporations won't pay for? Interesting.

        • Nereosis on 01/02/2022 - 21:21
          +48

          Oh yeah, private health is just great.

          Apologies for being condescending to someone who wants to dismantle some of the stuff that makes a government actually worth having.

            • Nereosis on 02/02/2022 - 09:56
              +6

              @bman20: Free? Have you read the title of this post? It's called tax mate.

          • dickiee on 04/02/2022 - 07:35

            @Nereosis: Private health saved me after my very close friend decided it was his time to go. I was distraught and it was suggested to me I spend some time in a mental institution. They were amazing and every night when I woke up with that memory of finding my friend gone…. they helped. It was nothing like a hospital. Health insurance covered my 3 week stay. Which was nearly 30k. So top cover to me is so worth it

        • mooney on 01/02/2022 - 22:48
          +45

          Hey bman20 the reason private sector wants to get its hands on things isn’t to make them better it’s because they can strip profit from them.

          If you still believe in privatisation and trickle down economics then I think you’re beyond help.

        • bman20 on 03/02/2022 - 15:27
          -5

          I mean you can neg all you want, it doesnt really change the salient facts of what a government does by definition.

          For whatever reason this is an emotional subject.

          Spend 2 seconds googling 'what the purpose of government is' and you will see that nowhere mentions the purpose of government is to pay for things. The purpose of government it to govern, to take the wishes of the people and develop policy to help them get there. If that takes the form of welfare payments then that is simply a policy the government has adopted as opposed to anything enshrined in what the purpose of government is.

          • Naiht on 03/02/2022 - 16:04
            +1

            @bman20: I googled your exact quote and the first highlighted search says "to provide essential services" in bold. I know it's not a proper source but I thought that was pretty funny.

          • Gojkins on 03/02/2022 - 16:56
            +2

            @bman20: a GoVeRnMeNtS dUtY iS tO gOvErN

      • Jolakot on 01/02/2022 - 16:15
        +133

        You're objectively wrong for several reasons

        Australia spent 10.18% of GDP on Welfare, far below the OECD median of 12.98%, in 2019 (latest data I could find). Same ballpark as other strong welfare countries like Canada at 9.97%, New Zealand at 10.42%, and the UK at 11.31%. But far below Germany at 15.95%, Spain at 16.84%, Sweden at 17.96%, Italy at 20.67% and Finland at 22.26%. Hell, even the US spends 9.66%, seems like they get nothing for it

        But that's still a lot of money, $195.7 billion from 2019–20, about $10000 for every adult Australian. How much of that could we trim if we cracked down on dodgy Jobseekers?

        Out of that $10000, $3900 went right to age pensions, the single biggest drain on Welfare funds. Then $2600 went to people with disabilities, largely NDIS. Another $2000 for families and children. Another $950 for the unemployed. And finally another $630 for 'misc' welfare like homeless services and disaster funds

        But that $950 for the unemployed also includes covid relief for people stood down or forced to isolate, which was about ~40% of the category depending on how you measure it, so $380 of that went to covid relief and $570 actually went to the unemployed

        In other words, you could cut 15% off of Age Pensions and save more than you would by cutting 100% of Jobseeker. Or you could cut 50% off of Age Pensions and double the total amount we spend on Education

        The government paying old people to sit around and enjoy a basic life forever is where most of our money is going, so why do you think it's jobseekers?

        • Quantumcat on 01/02/2022 - 21:11
          +42

          Excellent response, those complaining about the unemployed don't understand the figures involved.

          Also, they aren't getting paid to sit around and enjoy life - you are forced to go to "training" constantly which is completely unsuitable, meetings with people who have no intention of helping you, just ticking the box to get their own money out of you, and God forbid you have a job interview and can't make one of their pointless meetings, you can't cancel, they cancel your payments and then you have to sit on hold on the phones for hours, multiple times, to explain you couldn't go because you had a job interview, you would have cancelled their pointless meeting if they had let you, and do they really think you should have cancelled the job interview to go to the pointless meeting! The amount you get is not enough to live on either, so there is a constant high level of stress you are living under. Certainly not enjoying life.

          • Lastchancetosee on 02/02/2022 - 08:08
            +21

            @Quantumcat: @quantumcat
            This 100 times. With structural unemployment at 4.5% there will always be people who can't work but who would like to work. Yes, there might be a few malingerers, but they are not the majority.

            During the pandemic, the government finally recognised that people require a decent amount of money to live on, and the 'dole' for those people was almost double the current Newstart level.

            Time we stopped punishing people and gave them some dignity, so let's increase the dole to a decent level, get rid of the stupid mutual obligation which would eliminate those rapacious 'job support' companies, and put people back in Centrelink with proper accountability to manage the unemployed.

            I imagine there is an opportunity there to employ older people as case managers who are still skilled and want to work but have been made redundant, and a number of small service roles for the less skilled. At normal public service rates for full time or part time work.

            • Quantumcat on 02/02/2022 - 08:35
              +24

              @Lastchancetosee:

              get rid of the stupid mutual obligation which would eliminate those rapacious 'job support' companies

              Or at least bring back the government job service (CES) that actually tried to help people and wasn't just in it to milk cash out of the "clients" without doing anything to help them. I felt really mad when I found out that once I found a job (totally on my own they were no help at all) the stupid company got money! They did nothing to help me and in fact hindered my efforts. GRRRR.

              • Lastchancetosee on 04/02/2022 - 09:08
                +5

                @Quantumcat: @quantumcat I feel your pain.

                The CES was great. You had a regular case manager who helped with CVs, etc . and the jobs were real. My BIL was one and he really enjoyed it.

                As a typical late career academic I had been on a myriad of short-term casual contracts over the years. I'd built up some consulting work, but one year there was nothing in either. Found myself with three children and no income for six months.

                The initial guy I saw from the 'job agency' said I was classified A as I was experienced and highly qualified so I would be likely to get a job by myself, so no allocated assistance. Then I was sent to a little pr@ck who read me the riot act about coming to appointments and their training and threatened me with cutting off the dole. It was the most humiliating experience I'd ever had.

                At my second visit to the initial guy, he had been made redundant and asked me where I thought he could get work! Talk about dysfunctional.

                I'm frugal, but it was almost impossible to live on the dole without some minimal back up.

                Underemployment and/or insecure work is almost as much of a curse as unemployment, but it is unrecognised as such.

            • iminabrons on 02/02/2022 - 15:33
              +1

              @Lastchancetosee: On top of what you have already mentioned, there are those whose IQs are below 80-85. These people for the most part cost more to manage or oversee than what they would produce in the way of profits to any company that would hire them.
              At a guess, around 5% of people in the 18-65 age bracket are unemployable because of this factor.

              • smashman42 on 02/02/2022 - 16:20
                +9

                @iminabrons: And DSP has been tightened so far over the years that most people the average person thinks should be on DSP end up on Jobseeker now

                Hell, people die of cancer on Jobseeker waiting for DSP appeals - the pendulum has swung way too far in the way of the US of everyone for themselves.

                We already had some of the most targeted, read efficient, welfare in the world - with all the means testing and stuff that other nations don't have and give it to people that don't need it - but nope all that's not good enough "kick all the bludgers off the dole omgwtfbbq" then next minute "why is the crime rate so high now?!"

                If people can't even have enough empathy to give a shit about our tax dollars keeping those less fortunate than themselves fed/with a roof over their heads - then think of your tax dollars instead going to prevent your house being broken into or you being rolled in the street.

                It is way, way cheaper to give poor people free money to sort themselves out than to pay for the police and prisons to catch and house them, and has been pointed out by the others above, the vast majority on welfare are those most people would view as "deserving", the actual "bludgers" are a tiny proportion. Hell even though most of us "know a bludger", often they actually have health probs they don't want to disclose because of the stigma around welfare.

          • sarahlump on 04/02/2022 - 15:12
            +2

            @Quantumcat: Also those companies running this system are ineffective and very expensive.

        • terrys on 02/02/2022 - 09:33
          +14

          "The government paying old people"

          Some would suggest that after 50 years of building the infrastructure and society that supports you, people might consider they are entitled to a rest.

        • 2esc on 02/02/2022 - 11:01
          +13

          The vast majority of the elderly have worked hard their whole lives and paid their taxes they are not living high on the hog there is no fat to trim. That is why they have been pushing higher super contributions to reduce that burden to the tax payer down the track.

          • Jolakot on 02/02/2022 - 12:52
            +3

            @2esc: That's exactly the problem, as a young worker I'm forced to pay for retirement twice, through Age Pension taxes that I'll never see and through Super, when current retirees only had to pay once. How is that fair?

            • terrys on 02/02/2022 - 13:41
              -4

              @Jolakot: "current retirees only had to pay once"

              Really? I've been in three schemes, the last one being a compromise when a cost of living adjustment pay rise nationally agreed to was delivered as a payment of that portion of my wages into "a" superannuation scheme. It was about four or five years later that legislation was finally introduced mandating that it should be paid - to howls from the small business community about the imposition on "their bottom line."

              The prospective employee who proudly told me how " they also pay some money into a super account" during a job application was politely but quickly reminded that he didn't, I did as it was a normal part of my wages [ and yes, I got the job.]

              Ask me if the companies that hadn't been paying their workers' entitlements had to back-date it.

              You can also check whether there is any comeback on any of your employers folding their company after not paying you your entitlements. You may not like the answer.

              One super fund was given back and the scheme wound up in a slimy stunt where NZ voters were bribed with their own money during an election by someone who makes the current Australian shower look ethical. The second, as has been common, folded - like the U.K. national one from the 1950's that was placed in hiatus, then folded a decade later with no pay-out to anyone.

              I paid my taxes. Part of such payment was stated as being for the pension. I'll take what I paid for thanks.

              • Jolakot on 02/02/2022 - 14:37
                +12

                @terrys: You're ignoring a crucial aspect; your generation supported 8.24% of the population (1970), but now you expect us to support 16.81% of the population (2022)

                In other words, you paid taxes for 1/8 of a pension (8 working age people per elderly person), while we each have to pay taxes for 1/4 of a pension (4 working age people per elderly person)

                The taxes you paid back then simply weren't enough, and it took you guys forever to realize that a population 'boom' also means a population bust

                • terrys on 06/02/2022 - 11:03
                  -1

                  @Jolakot: "your generation supported 8.24% of the population ("

                  No, my generation were supported by the infrastructure and society created by parents who had survived four years of bad weather [ steel, high impact explosives and thermite incendiary devices ] that fortunately, due to being on the periphery of the action, only demolished 33% of the housing, and were lucky enough to have more of their fathers, uncles and brothers return than had had twenty years earlier, when my paternal grandmother had had to leave school at 15 and marry as she was responsible for her
                  14 year old younger sister, after her father, two bothers and seven uncles were part of the Manchester regiment became one with Belgian farmland in one battle in 1915. A letter from His Majesty and nothing else didn't pay much rent or buy much food.

                  We appreciated and built on that - however once things were returning to normal it was noticed by some that numbers representing the exchange of value could be made to look larger by allowing those with the ability to stake a claim to the infrastructure that we built and begin renting it back to us.

                  "and it took you guys forever to realize that a population 'boom'"

                  Till about 1963 for me mate, as I saw the lights extending into the patches where I used to see stars.

        • zorodluffy on 03/02/2022 - 08:41
          +1

          @supersabroso

          Please respond to this, what is your rebuttal?

        • kabammi on 05/02/2022 - 10:50
          +3

          We also spend a much lower than OECD average on medical and non medical research. It's pitiful.

      • jaylen94 on 01/02/2022 - 19:56
        +8

        I beg to differ.
        You can still be corrupt even if you have a high pay.
        It's the power and control that you have that corrupts you

      • iseeyou1312 on 02/02/2022 - 11:38
        +15

        Pretty much everything you've typed is factually incorrect. Someone has clearly had their brain fried by watching too much A Current Affair.
        Payments to the unemployed, underemployed and sick are around 2.1% of the Federal budget. The US has a lot of welfare for the working poor so I would be surprised if they spent less.
        The main reasons for high personal income taxes in Australia are:
        * High is spending on pensions, particularly the age pension
        * Healthcare
        * Low taxes on the rich (CGT means the wealthy effectively pay 50% less tax than workers) and retired workers
        * Lots of tax loopholes
        * Not taxing foreign multinationals - especially mining companies

      • registradus on 02/02/2022 - 19:23
        +4

        have you ever been on Centrelink? It doesn't even cover rent in most places.

    • FracturedArse on 01/02/2022 - 14:44
      +55

      How did you forget about the biggest money sink when it comes to welfare? old people. Old people are the single largest drain on us all. Imagine how much our tax would reduce by if we simply turned them into a nutritious canned soup for pets at age 65.

      • striker5950 on 01/02/2022 - 15:35
        +9

        would you be open to singing a warrant once you turn 65 we can turn you to canned cat food?

        • Jolakot on 01/02/2022 - 16:16
          +37

          65? You're dreaming, Gen Z won't get the option to become cat-food until 75 at least

        • FracturedArse on 01/02/2022 - 18:02

          I would sing with wild joy and gay abandon. I would sing as they put my head in the guillotine and be happy that I wasn't going to be a drain on society.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 01/02/2022 - 18:08
          +2

          once you turn 65 we can turn you to canned cat food?

          You are what you eat.

        • anawth on 01/02/2022 - 23:16

          Like "Cherry Pie"?

      • zathras on 01/02/2022 - 18:00
        +11

        Mmmmm… Soylent Green……

        • FracturedArse on 01/02/2022 - 18:03
          +1

          There are no downsides :)

      • R4 on 01/02/2022 - 18:55
        +5

        Soylent Green is people!

      • Intoxicoligist on 03/02/2022 - 14:35
        +1

        Dont worry, the government's handling of COVID points to them knowing this is the problem, and they are acting to solve it.

    • skidexa on 01/02/2022 - 17:19
      +4

      Also roads,public transport and infrastructure, Medicare, health, education etc….

      • barghunt1 on 04/02/2022 - 18:59
        +4

        Don’t forget

        *20 billion plus given to companies with rising revenue in jobkeeper that didn’t need it with no clawback
        *sports rorts,
        *money paid to Murdoch for womens sports,
        *car park rorts,
        *money they have promised bushfire victims not received,
        *30 million for land worth 3,
        *money for cancelled submarine contract,
        *money for submarines not coming for years,
        *half a billion given to the private Centrelink job agencies in 2020,
        *fossil fuel subsidies given to coal industry to help save around 40000 jobs whilst the university sector lost around 40000 jobs by not receiving jobkeeper conveniently forgetting that one of our biggest exports after iron ore is education.
        *16 billion in the budget for decisions made but not yet allocated
        *the pm’s taxpayer funded flight from Canberra to Sydney for Father’s Day when nsw and vic were in lockdown.

        I’m sure there’s others that I’ve not included feel free to add.

    • Beerforkids on 01/02/2022 - 17:59
      +4

      Welfare isn't actually that big a dent in the Budget if you actually look.
      And the prison system in a lot of places is privately run and is used as cheap labour to produce things.
      The budget almost doesn't even have a percentage for jails.

      • Jolakot on 01/02/2022 - 21:33
        +12

        You're objectively wrong, the Age Pension alone sucked up $76.4 billion in taxes last year, more than Military and Education combined

        • 2esc on 02/02/2022 - 11:06

          So what's your solution once they reach retirement just put them down. The majority are living week to week now and being pushed out of their homes.

          • Jolakot on 02/02/2022 - 13:51
            +16

            @2esc: Why do people immediately jump to killing the elderly or throwing them onto the street when the Age Pension is criticized?

            There are plenty of fair middle-ground options, it just comes down to asking pensioners with assets to fairly contribute to their own living costs, and with spare room in the budget the government can also raise payments

            Simple stuff like automatically enrolling a pensioner with 600k in PPoR equity into the Home Equity Access Scheme to pay for their pension, they're free to live in their home until they pass and the final balance will be repaid from the liquidated estate. At 25k a year, the government wouldn't be out of pocket for 24 years, with no negative impacts on their quality of life

            And if a pensioner is receiving rent assistance to rent a multi-bedroom unit/house by themselves, then it's also fair to ask them to split bills and living expenses with a friend if able, as we expect everyone else on welfare payments to do

            It'd also be fair for pensioners who are struggling to manage their money to be automatically enrolled for Centrepay, to ensure they aren't wasting too much money on gambling, alcohol or cigarettes

            Welfare should be enough so that everyone can have a roof over their head, food in the fridge, access to transport, access to social events and enough to buy the occasional luxury. I don't think it's meeting that for Jobseekers or Pensioners, but hard to fix when it's already the largest item in the budget

            • spal on 05/02/2022 - 08:58

              @Jolakot: I actually like your idea. To make it fairer for all, maybe have the government run a fund. This fund would fund regular pension payment in return for a home equity mortgage at a low rate of interest. After few years, the fund will start to reduce dependency on tax payers funds to fund pension. In few decades another generation of home owner pensioners will be close to self funded. Being a government scheme, social protections can be built into the scheme. Point to remember here is that pensioners were previously taxpayers, and one day most of us will be in pensioners shoes. So, we should device a scheme which treats them with respect and dignity.

        • sixthirty on 04/02/2022 - 09:20
          +3

          Yep. Because of the fact the 'family home' isnt counted for welfare eligibility purposes either. You have pensioners taking welfare from the middle class taxes paid and then their upper class children inheriting a property worth millions when they die, while their lifestyle was paid for by taxpayers during their older years.

          The gap grows. They should cap the value of the family home for eligibility.

          • rektrading on 04/02/2022 - 09:27

            @sixthirty: Pensioners can't draw equity from their assets without a loan and lenders normally won't lend pensioners.

            • Quantumcat on 04/02/2022 - 15:40
              +1

              @rektrading: Reverse mortgage

              • rektrading on 04/02/2022 - 15:48

                @Quantumcat: Can people do that without having a job?

                • Quantumcat on 04/02/2022 - 15:49

                  @rektrading: Yeah, it is designed for old people who have an high value house and no or little source of income, to use the equity in their house

                  • rektrading on 04/02/2022 - 15:58

                    @Quantumcat: Ok. Thanks.

                    The feds aren't going force pensioners and retirees to take out a debt position on their PPOR no matter how much the value is.

            • Jolakot on 04/02/2022 - 20:04
              +1

              @rektrading: You're completely misguided, the federal government already gives pensioners a reverse mortgage with generous terms in exchange for a higher pension: https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/home-equity-access-sche…

              I don't see why this couldn't be made mandatory for all pensioners with PPoR equity, hell even start off with super generous 0% interest rates

              If a pensioner has 600k in home equity, and we pay them a pension of 30k a year (20% increase over current), then the government wouldn't be out of pocket for 20 years even if prices stagnated, and the pensioner would still get to live in their home until death

              • rektrading on 04/02/2022 - 20:07
                +1

                @Jolakot: One voice, one vote.

                Pensioners will vote against mandates.

                • Jolakot on 04/02/2022 - 21:18

                  @rektrading: Exactly, but the voices speaking are about to shift, because we're on the verge of a generational hand-over

                  The millennial echo-boom from the mid 80s (people who are now 38-42) are now beginning to enter the top-levels of politics and management, and partially because of the Gen X population trough from 1974-1979, they're rocketing upwards to fill in that population gap

                  In 2025, Millennials and Gen Z will make up 64% of the working population, and will have a higher combined population than Boomers and Gen X combined

                  The hand-over in politics, combined with the majority of tax-payers being Millennials and Gen-Z, will force established parties to shift or die. Very real conversations about the coalition splitting up before the end of the decade over internal conflicts spilling over, solid chance that Scott Morrison will be the last of his kind

                  What do you think will happen when the millenial-genZ bloc takes over?

              • spal on 05/02/2022 - 09:07

                @Jolakot: Thank you for sharing. I didn't know something like this existed.

                I am starting to think in terms of retirement. It is still probably a decade or more away. But, even with our level of earnings and assets I always thought that we wouldn't be able to afford to retire in Australia. We probably wouldn't qualify for pension, and I wouldn't want to run out of money to just get pension. But a scheme like this might make a difference.

                My biggest fear is to run out of money which I no longer have any capacity to earn any.

          • spal on 05/02/2022 - 09:02

            @sixthirty: You are partly correct. Merely having a family home changes eligibility for pension. Home owners are allowed to have lower value of assets before their pension is reduced/cut off. Issue is having a $2 million house and $200K house, both are treated the same. So, there is no incentive to down size and self fund your retirement. In fact, if a $2 m house is sold to buy$1 m house. The pensioner will likely loose all pension entitlements. So, it can actually stop pensioners from downsizing.

      • Baysew on 04/02/2022 - 21:36

        The states are responsible for the prison system.

    • darxtorm on 02/02/2022 - 08:12
      +23

      this is 3AW-flavoured nonsense.

      the majority of your welfare tax goes to aged pensioners, and the majority of your non welfare tax goes to healthcare, defence, and education, in that order.

      unemployment benefits and housing taxes are waaaaaay down the list

      • Intoxicoligist on 03/02/2022 - 14:38
        +5

        Why is it that people in these arguments never say we should reduce defence spending? We're objectively out in the middle of nowhere and yet we're spending billions on conflict on the other side of the planet.

        Or …. maybe we have a sovereign wealth fund for natural resources? Too far out? Or maybe just too far out for Gina.

    • ozbjunkie on 02/02/2022 - 08:16
      +4

      doesn't the ATO give a breakdown of costs and it's mostly hospital, some Centrelink and defense and public servant pay trailing in distant 2nd 3rd and 4th?

      • Ultimate Gattai on 02/02/2022 - 11:55
        +2

        I know you get a letter at the end of financial year after you pay your taxes showing where the money went.

    • sir-screwball on 02/02/2022 - 09:34
      +10

      Classic LNP strategy there, it's absolutely the welfare losers and criminals responsible for the high tax rate huh

    • SupeNintendoChalmers on 02/02/2022 - 13:49
      +3

      also all those on Centrelink, in public housing and in jails someone has to pay for them right

      I think you mean pensioners?

      https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart…

    • raven492 on 02/02/2022 - 13:49
      +13

      politicians pay has to come from somewhere?

      To be fair, the Prime minister's salary is about 550k, and a normal federal MP is on 210ish - very good money. But compared to examples from the private sector, the CEO of Australia post is on 1.5m + up to another 1.5m of incentives. The CEO of Macquarie Bank is on about 15m. So the head of Aus Post earns at least triple the PM's salary, up to 6x with bonuses and the head of a large bank is getting paid the same as about 70 federal MPs.

      MPs are well paid, but realistically it doesn't pay enough to get the best people interested. You're going to make more money with a reasonably successful small-medium business than running the country.

      I'm not saying that's easy to do, but there's a lot more business owners on 500k than there are prime ministers, and they'd spend a lot less time getting called (profanity)….

      • leiiv on 03/02/2022 - 11:22
        -1

        Most of the MPs become what they are now because they have already had other significant income streams. Their salary is just an icing on top of the cake. The real money comes indirectly from the policy and laws they make..

        • GG57 on 03/02/2022 - 11:25
          +2

          Maybe not so much 'indirectly'. There are plenty of rumours of certain politicians making personal investment decisions just before key government tenders are awarded, or decisions made.

    • HeWhoKnows on 03/02/2022 - 08:01
      -2

      All all those billions wasted on COVID-19 (non-means tested) support payments, millions of unecessary COVID tests, obsolete vaccines and boosters etc
      But if you go back in history, Australians were paying as much as 60c in the dollar

    • cnrmlj on 03/02/2022 - 11:57
      +2

      LOL. The total amount politicians get paid is a drop in the ocean compared to all the other expenses that the taxpayer has.

    • dickiee on 04/02/2022 - 02:31
      +2

      I'm just replying to this comment to show it near the top. If you are earning 180k per year. Congratulations. I haven't bothered scrolling through the comments so I don't know what your occupation or age
      However. Regardless of those factors there are so many was to reduce your taxable income. This is a stupid post.
      Get a good accountant.
      You can afford it.
      Move on.

    • barghunt1 on 04/02/2022 - 18:34

      Next you’ll be complaining about the ndis.

    • ATTS on 05/02/2022 - 20:28

      Is public housing free?

    • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2022 - 23:02

      Aren't we paying $70B for nuc subs and and $3.5B for tanks but in the mean time, no money for RAT kits?

  • Muzeeb on 01/02/2022 - 10:02
    +103

    I hear Dubai has zero tax and plenty of hot wife material.

    Have fun over there. See ya.

    • life is suffering on 01/02/2022 - 10:02
      +3

      Lmao.

    • Hybroid on 01/02/2022 - 10:03
      +16

      Corporate taxes were just announced today in Dubai as well as raising fuel and other prices. Income taxes are around the corner.

      Australia still has lower taxation than the UK yet has higher salaries in general. Win-win.

        • Hybroid on 01/02/2022 - 10:15
          +20

          Not really. Fluctuates around 1.8-1.9 and has been for years. I transfer funds frequently.

          • djkelly69 on 01/02/2022 - 10:17
            +59

            @Hybroid: OP likes to make broad statements that support his argument without backing them up in any way. Please don't bring your actual evidence in here.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join