Unpopular Opinion High Income Earners Pay too Much Tax

Trying2SaveABuck on 11/08/2022 - 12:48
Last edited 11/08/2022 - 13:17 by 1 other user

"3.6 per cent of Aussies account for more than 31 per cent of tax revenue.

The majority of tax revenue comes from those earning $90,001-$180,000 - which makes up 36.8 per cent of tax paid."

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/ato-reveals-how-much-tax-t…

According to the above source 2/3 of all tax collected come from 20% of the 'working' population. - that is an excessive amount of lifting from the top categorises and imho it is unfair but the media wont ever report it.

We need to change the system to tax 'wealth' and not 'earnings' no one should be paying more then 20-25 cents to a dollar of tax on money they earn to the ATO.

my unpopular opinion is higher income earners pay too much tax - change my mind?

Poll Options

617
High income earners pay too much tax (I agree)
654
I disagree with your opinion

Financial

Comments

- - - - Intoxicoligist on 12/08/2022 - 15:02
        
        +2
        
        @jv: Yes you did.
        
        You've gone from:
        
        "I just said taxation should treat people equally…"
        to
        "it's about pay tax without discriminating between people."
        
        Well, which is it?
        
        Intoxicoligist on 12/08/2022 - 15:04
        
        +3
        
        @jv: Maybe a picture would help… https://interactioninstitute.org/illustrating-equality-vs-eq…
        
        jv on 12/08/2022 - 15:09
        
        @Intoxicoligist:
        
        Maybe a picture would help…
        
        That's not what our Tax system is about…
        
        That is for our welfare system.
        
        CaptainSharpe on 12/08/2022 - 15:55
        
        +2
        
        @jv: It's all part of the same broader system.
        
        It's also very much what the tax system is 'about'. Otherwise there wouldn't be a tax free threshold, which you've already acknowledged should be a thing.
        
        Intoxicoligist on 12/08/2022 - 18:05
        
        +1
        
        @jv: Actually its a picture showing the difference between equality and equity.
        
        Back to the question -
        
        "I just said taxation should treat people equally…"
        to
        "it's about pay tax without discriminating between people."
        
        Well, which is it?
        
        Miss B on 13/08/2022 - 09:08
        
        +1
        
        @jv: They are treated equally. The tax free threshold isn't just for low income earners, it's for everyone. Everyone does have the same tax rates. If someone earns $30k they pay the same tax on that $30k as someone who earns $1b pays on their first $30k (if the billionaire has any "taxable income").
        
        You're arguing that you want to pay more tax by the sounds of it and you want to pay tax on the first $18k and on your income up to at least $180k. More of the tax burden is going to fall on everyone who's not making millions, because those who are will have a comparatively far greater tax cut in $.
        
        For example, someone on $180k currently pays around 28.7% tax, but income tax as a flat rate would be > 30%.
        
        You might be forgetting that taxing those on low incomes more doesn't get you much money, and as previously mentioned, you just have to give it back to them, so the tax rate might have to be even even higher and more of a burden to those who are starting to earn a higher income.
        
        CaptainSharpe on 12/08/2022 - 12:38
        
        +3
        
        @SBOB: jv has never heard or at least never understood equity and why 'everything should be completely equal no matter what' shouldn't be what our systems are based on.
        
        SBOB on 12/08/2022 - 12:48
        
        +9
        
        @CaptainSharpe: JV just cliche trolling as usual.
        
        A-mak on 12/08/2022 - 23:38
        
        -1
        
        @jv: Treating people equally through taxation should mean that the end result (take home pay) for each individual full-time worker would be the same.
        
        For example: everyone gets 50k take home pay and if you 'earn' above that, it should all be taxed without claimables so you are at the 50k; you'll get a piece of paper congratulating you on how you've helped lower our national debt or prop up the incomes of those earning under 50k (full time) to said amount. This way is giving everyone the 'fair go' at life.
        
        Anything else is not equal, but keep on trying to justify it as such.
    - Miss B on 13/08/2022 - 00:27
      
      +1
      
      We can have a flat tax, but it's all going to go back to the same people in welfare. Easier to just not take it in the first place and have less people on welfare.
      - jv on 13/08/2022 - 00:33
        
        @Miss B:
        
        it's all going to go back to the same people in welfare.
        
        That will be the next thing to change.
    - dotJaz on 13/08/2022 - 03:29
      
      +1
      
      And what's stopping filthy rich people to lower their workers pay then? Their earnings on the dollar increase, so why pay fair wages when you can pocket it?
      
      Your notion of flat tax gets you more income because of higher productivity is flat out wrong. It actually encourages high income business owners executives to take advantage of employees.
      
      If you earn 200k+ per year you are not gonna contribute to the society much for getting 300k compared to a 60k to 100k jump.
      
      I'd rather a society that encourages people to lift themselves up by creating opportunities for average people than helping the rich getting richer.
      
      Seriously, what extra contributions do you expect high income earners to give back for an extra 100k a year?
- ColtNoir on 12/08/2022 - 11:30
  
  +6
  
  Could not agree more.
  I earn well, but the more I’m earning I’m considering whether I even bother for the $5k pay rise vs the extra stress.
  
  At some point the only way to save on tax is to start a business with a good tax accountant. Maybe that’s their goal.
  - Intoxicoligist on 12/08/2022 - 14:50
    
    +4
    
    If they want you to take on more stress for 5k why the hell would you bother? Thats a cost of living rise not a promotion rise!
  - PiratePete1911 on 13/08/2022 - 00:04
    
    +1
    
    What kind of role do you have where they offer you 5k for increased duties?
    - ColtNoir on 13/08/2022 - 13:53
      
      +1
      
      I’m a senior decision designer. It falls under the umbrella of analytics/technology.
      
      The $5k is a jump to lead/senior manager.
- CaptainSharpe on 12/08/2022 - 11:48
  
  +3
  
  Few issues:
  - You're assuming people who aren't earning a lot aren't working hard - or at least, tax brackets somehow penalise those climbing to the top
  - Couldn't the solution just as easily be, lower the tax for those earning up to 180/200k or thereabouts, THEN increase the tax more dramatically? Or at least very dramatically tax the super rich and not provide all those loop holes and ways for them to not pay their 'fair share' of tax?
  
  Lowering the tax a bit for middle income earners seems reasonable, but by how much do we lower it?
  
  Would enough tax money then come from the super rich? What's the math? Would it be enough to cover everything that the Government uses the money for now?
  
  Also, then, would not taxing as much, and everyone getting more money the more they earn, then lead to greater inflation? Presumably, people having more disposable income because they dont pay that tax anymore would mean more money to splash around to buy shit, which means things can start costing more? OR would employers then just use it as a reason to pay people less (and therefore you get the same amount of money you would without the tax - particularly if employers now have to pay more of their money to tax, so less money to pay staff to cover their taxes)
  - jv on 12/08/2022 - 11:49
    
    -2
    
    You're assuming people who aren't earning a lot aren't working hard
    
    I meant working hard as working 'more' than you currently are, not the amount of effort.
    - CaptainSharpe on 12/08/2022 - 12:14
      
      +1
      
      Ok not the amount of effort, so simply working for a greater proportion of your time?
      
      So you dont wanta people penalised for working longer hours, is that it?
      
      In which case, can just base tax on how much you earn on an hourly basis, so if you keep working more hours you don't get taxed more, whereas if you got a higher paying job and work the same hours then you'll be taxed more (but you have the option to then work more hours to earn more)
      - jv on 12/08/2022 - 12:16
        
        +1
        
        @CaptainSharpe:
        
        Ok not the amount of effort, so simply working for a greater proportion of your time?
        
        Doing work, beyond what you are doing now.
        
        The system penalises you disproportionally for doing so. Even for low income earners.
        
        CaptainSharpe on 12/08/2022 - 12:19
        
        +3
        
        @jv: I'd argue that the system isn't penalising you at all. The system is helping those who suffer from inequality so that they're treated more equitably and don't fall behind too far.
        
        jv on 12/08/2022 - 12:21
        
        @CaptainSharpe:
        
        I'd argue that the system isn't penalising you at all.
        
        It is when they are taking proportionally more of your money, the harder you work.
        
        That's why people end up moving overseas rather than staying and getting taxed in Australia.
        
        CaptainSharpe on 12/08/2022 - 12:21
        
        +7
        
        @jv: I'd argue that the system isn't penalising you at all. The system is helping those who suffer from inequality so that they're treated more equitably and don't fall behind too far.
        
        You're thinking of the amounts that poorer people are taxed as 'the right tax amount' and the higher taxes richer people pay as 'unfair tax'.
        
        But it's more like the other way around. Richer people are taxed 'the right amount' in our systems and society. The poor people are taxed less because they can't afford it. The richer people, who have benefitted from our systems, make the world more equitable for those who are doing it tough for a myriad of reasons. They're taking proportionally LESS money from the poor people, rather than proportionally more from the richer people.
- Awoke on 12/08/2022 - 16:05
  
  -8
  
  I think you’re onto something. What absolutely appalled me today was when I heard the nsw government attack the free market and turn to bloody socialism. Attacking the gas producers for getting the best price for their product and forcing them to sell for lower prices.
  
  What the hell is happening to this world when the libs are becoming socialist. It’s like I’m in the twilight zone.
  
  This is just one step away from nationalising the assets. How the heck does that promote innovation and investment. You can’t just change the rules on companies that have made long term investment decisions.
  - jv on 12/08/2022 - 16:09
    
    +1
    
    How the heck does that promote innovation and investment.
    
    It doesn't. It just sends us backwards.
    - Awoke on 12/08/2022 - 16:11
      
      Sack the lot of them. Nsw libs are sellouts to the values of having a go and getting a go. Now its, have a go, and we’ll take a bit and you can have some. Idiots
- GrueHunter on 12/08/2022 - 17:37
  
  +6
  
  It's not like hordes of qualified people from both sides of the political fence have thought long and hard about a flat tax system over the past century and flatly rejected it
  
  Like so much on OzBargain, all of those experts are just wrong and the armchair nobodies here must have solved yet another complex socioeconomic issue with their folksy flavour of common sense
  - jv on 12/08/2022 - 17:37
    
    -1
    
    and flatly rejected it
    
    for political reasons…
    - Quantumcat on 12/08/2022 - 19:50
      
      +2
      
      There have been thousands of politicians and dozens of different parties since this system was dreamt up so long ago in a country far away. It doesn't have anything to do with politics.
      
      If it had anything to do with politics then the rich would not be taxed at all, the people with more money have more say in politics. It's a miracle progressive taxes have lasted as long as they have with pressures against them.
    - GrueHunter on 12/08/2022 - 21:17
      
      +1
      
      Political reasons aren't really political if experts of all political persuasions agree about them, are they?
      
      Next up from jv: gravity is political
- PirateKingJack on 13/08/2022 - 01:59
  
  +3
  
  Countries with flat tax systems have historically poorer social infrastructure and system. In providing a tax-free threshold and tax brackets it reduces wealth disparity.
  
  The other logic is that the wealthier people can afford to pay it. In Australia the wealthiest 1% own more than the bottom 60%. That doesn't seem fair, does it?
  - jv on 13/08/2022 - 02:07
    
    In Australia the wealthiest 1% own more than the bottom 60%. That doesn't seem fair, does it?
    
    It is fair if it is theirs.
    
    Do you usually like to take things that don't belong to you?
    - PirateKingJack on 13/08/2022 - 02:15
      
      +2
      
      Do you usually like to take things that don't belong to you?
      
      That's a rather far-fetched argument don't you think?
      
      You're literally claiming I am a thief because there's clear wealth disparity in the country. Must be past your bedtime, I have to remember not to feed trolls past midnight.
      - jv on 13/08/2022 - 02:18
        
        @PirateKingJack:
        
        That's a rather far-fetched argument don't you think?
        
        No, that is the topic of the thread.
        
        PirateKingJack on 13/08/2022 - 02:25
        
        +1
        
        @jv: You do realise I directly quoted the second part of your part right? Or does JV only know how to read things in bold
        
        Do you usually like to take things that don't belong to you
        
        Cause I'm pretty sure calling me a thief which, if I recall correctly, is the definition of someone who takes things that don't belong to them is was not part of the topic
    - Jaspa7 on 13/08/2022 - 10:46
      
      +3
      
      Most informed people are aware of the Gini index, pareto principle, Zipf's law etc. and gives an expected level of wealth distribution that is counter-intuitive and at first-approximation, does not seem very 'fair' to most people..
      (top 20% holding 80% of the wealth)
      IMO, Australia's is slightly high at 34.4 Gini meaning that
      The income of the richest 20% is 6.3x that of the poorest 20%
      The income of the richest 10% is 12.5x that of the poorest 10%
      
      Compare that to the countries with the highest Quality of Life Indexes (Scandinavians):
      Sweden: GI of 28.8
      Switzerland: GI of 32.7
      Finland: GI of 27.4
      
      ..and the country with the highest QoL..
      Denmark: GI of 28.7
      where the richest 20% earn 4.1x more than the poorest 20%
      and the richest 10% earn 8.0x more than the poorest 10%
      
      Like anything, it's a balance - the cons of high inequality are obvious, but there are cons to having it "too equal" as well - our most capable workers are not incentivised to work at their peak potential (i.e. why should I work that extra 2hrs per day when I will be taxed at 50% for it).
      
      Tax is one lever that can help bring us down a little into the sweet spot, but does incentivise the most productive people to look elsewhere
    - zephyrfox on 13/08/2022 - 11:03
      
      +1
      
      Don't know why you were neg'd for this. Why is there a view that the 1% somehow owning more than the bottom 60% is because they have taken from these people? Realistically it's because these people have created companies and jobs that have benefited everyone, but since it is "their Company" it has benefited them the most. Which is perfectly fair.
      
      Or do we think that because people are employed they somehow own part of the company, eh comrade?
    - cille745 on 13/08/2022 - 15:22
      
      +1
      
      Ironic considering the one percent make their earnings by taking credit for the labour or people under them
      - zephyrfox on 14/08/2022 - 10:17
        
        +1
        
        @cille745: If it was so easy why doesn't everyone do it…
        
        cille745 on 14/08/2022 - 11:03
        
        +1
        
        @zephyrfox: Because a lot of it is based on factors like connections, timing, upbringing and luck which most people don’t have any control over.
- dotJaz on 13/08/2022 - 03:23
  
  +1
  
  What's ridiculous is that you think working "harder" will get you more income. As if everyone would become CEO and raking in millions once they work "harder".
- GandalfTheCheap on 13/08/2022 - 08:39
  
  +2
  
  The hardest workers in society are mostly people on low incomes stuck in rubbish customer service jobs, factory jobs, other grinding physical labour, and very small businesses reliant on long hours or physical work.
  
  There are a sprinkling of doctors, business owners and CEOs who also work very long hours. But that's a very different life: they do it by choice because it is (or shortly will) make them millions.
  
  90% of very hard workers have little/no hope of that.
  
  Those of us in the 90-180k bracket OP mentions tend to have much more relaxed working conditions in nice office jobs.
  
  A factory worker generally isn't able to make it into our tax bracket by "working harder".
  
  As most people voting on both sides of this poll know, arguments pitting the poor against the almost-poor are a distraction designed to keep the 99% from focussing on the fact that the real wealth is being stolen by complicated corporate structures, corruption, and tax evasion of the 1%.
- murdercluck on 13/08/2022 - 16:19
  
  +2
  
  In Australia those with lower incomes work more hours and harder than those with higher incomes, and that pattern continues in most of the world:
  
  https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/wio55b/oc_…
  
  The poorest 10% worked 4.8 hours per week than the richest 10%
  
  So basically lowering taxes isn't going to do anything to encourage more hours. Maybe we should have a tax system based on hours worked or pay per hour worked to be fairer then?
  
  Or more realistically if we had some more progressive taxes like an inheritance tax of 50% over the first $4 million, or higher land taxes, then we could reduce income taxes by a lot, and maybe look at a universal income to help the poor.
  - leiiv on 13/08/2022 - 21:29
    
    I couldn't agree more.
    Yes, taxing income based on pay per hour is much fairer. But it comes with one big problem: how do you enforce the spirit of the rule? If you own a company, it is easy to put on paper a lot of work hours with a lower rate per hour while the reality is different.
    Best solution is to reduce income tax to 0, and tax something else, just like before WW1.
- NatoTomato on 15/08/2022 - 08:45
  
  +1
  
  I make 6 figures and I don't work hard… definitely not harder than back when I was at KFC
- Juice-Wa on 15/08/2022 - 14:51
  
  +1
  
  This would encourage people to work harder to earn more money (and pay more tax) without penalise hard workers…
  
  What kind of utopian world do you live in?
  
  Cause I know if you were fully aware of the world we currently live in working hard doesn't equate to higher earnings. Shouldn't even need to explain why…
  
  Time to come back to earth.
  - jv on 15/08/2022 - 15:03
    
    What kind of utopian world do you live in?
    
    Victoria
ForkSnorter on 11/08/2022 - 12:53

-2

I disagree. I think small-medium sized businesses pay too much tax. It’s often hard for them to survive and thrive under current conditions, especially competing with larger corporations. But most individuals in those income brackets you mention don’t really need to pay less tax to live a happy, healthy, wealthy life.
- Trying2SaveABuck on 11/08/2022 - 12:54
  
  -3
  
  But most individuals in those income brackets you mention don’t really need to pay less tax to live a happy, healthy life.
  
  we dont live in a communist country bloke we all dont earn the same money the system should be encouraging hard work not punishing it
  - Krankite on 11/08/2022 - 13:00
    
    +3
    
    I'm in that block and I don't feel punished.
    - Trying2SaveABuck on 11/08/2022 - 13:01
      
      I'm in that block and I don't feel punished.
      
      you are welcome to pay more tax then? if you feel like you arent paying enough.
      - lgacb08 on 11/08/2022 - 13:35
        
        +2
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck: Mate, I tell you something: you'll be surprised to learn that people in communist hardly pay any tax at all. Tax is a by product of capitalism, those coming from former communist pays the most taxes to catch up with the old boys.
  - ForkSnorter on 11/08/2022 - 13:01
    
    +3
    
    No, but like most democratic countries, we live in an economy that is a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Progressive taxation is most often the norm in such societies. This enables the nation to invest in its future, in the health and welfare and education of its citizens, The system does encourage hard work, because a bit of hard work can lead to a 6 figure salary, and you can still keep most of that. We have tax breaks for investors, which enables them to pay much less tax than they otherwise would,
jv on 11/08/2022 - 12:55

+8

We need to change the system to tax 'wealth' and not 'earnings'

Why ?
- Trying2SaveABuck on 11/08/2022 - 12:57
  
  -6
  
  You can earn 100k a year have 10m in assets and pay the same tax as someone with no assets - the system isnt fair
  - TheMills on 11/08/2022 - 13:01
    
    +10
    
    Well the assets are also taxed i their own ways like rates, sewage maintenance, park management and council fees, etc, etc. theirs no free lunch in this world..
    - CaptainSharpe on 12/08/2022 - 11:49
      
      +4
      
      The tax has also already been paid for those 10m in assets. And if you argue 'but whattabout inherited wealth?' - presumably that tax was already paid then, too, when that money was originally earnt (not withstanding tax loopholes for the rich - but that's another thing entirely isnt it. So you'd be back to taxing earnings rather than wealth)
      
      And if those assets are being used to get more wealth from people (e.g., rent), that money is also taxed as earnings (again, I understand not always - with weird tax things that mean it doesnt work out that way…. and again, that's more about taxing earnigs that needs to be fixed rather than taxing wealth)
  - Muzeeb on 11/08/2022 - 13:03
    
    +23
    
    If you're making 100k per year I'm guessing you inherited the 10m in assets.
  - pharkurnell on 11/08/2022 - 13:18
    
    Life isnt fair… get used to it.
  - jv on 11/08/2022 - 13:56
    
    +2
    
    You can earn 100k a year have 10m in assets and pay the same tax as someone with no assets - the system isnt fair
    
    It's only fair if it treats people equally, regardless of who they are and what they have worked to achieve.
    - Trying2SaveABuck on 11/08/2022 - 13:59
      
      That is a fair point - still think the current system is not fair
      - jv on 11/08/2022 - 14:01
        
        +8
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck: Maybe not, but you can't unfairly tax people because they decided to buy an extra property instead of blowing it all on a holidays, at the casinos or on cigarettes…
        
        Trying2SaveABuck on 11/08/2022 - 14:02
        
        -2
        
        @jv:
        
        unfairly tax people because they decided to buy an extra property instead of blowing it all on a holidays, at the casinos or on cigarettes…
        
        it is the opposite at the moment though you buy an investment property stock crypto etc you pay 50% less then you would if you earned that money at point of sale due to CGT discounts
        
        if we had a flatter say 20 % tax structure it would be fairer imo
        
        otherwise we could get rid of income tax altogether and have a very high service or point of sales tax it 100% GST
        
        jv on 11/08/2022 - 14:03
        
        +3
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck:
        
        you pay 50% less
        
        not on the income, only on the capital gains.
        
        RMBC on 12/08/2022 - 09:05
        
        @jv: And you need to have held the asset for more than 12 months to get the discount to pay tax on 50% of it
        
        Trying2SaveABuck on 12/08/2022 - 21:54
        
        @jv:
        
        Maybe not, but you can't unfairly tax people because they decided to buy an extra property instead of blowing it all on a holidays, at the casinos or on cigarettes…
        
        fair point i can live with everyone just paying the same tax rate - and we remove welfare for anyone who has been on it for longer then 6mo
    - CaptainSharpe on 12/08/2022 - 11:50
      
      +1
      
      I'd argue that fairness is equity, rather than equality.
      - jv on 12/08/2022 - 11:51
        
        +3
        
        @CaptainSharpe: Fairness is treating people equally, without discrimination…
        
        CaptainSharpe on 12/08/2022 - 11:52
        
        @jv: What do you mean by that, though?
        
        Do you think it's 'unfair' that some people get centrelink payments - if it isnt everyone getting those payments, and only those vulnerable and unfortunate to have to rely on them, then it isn't fair, right?
        
        jv on 12/08/2022 - 11:53
        
        @CaptainSharpe:
        
        What do you mean by that, though?
        
        I mean treat all people the same.
        
        CaptainSharpe on 12/08/2022 - 11:54
        
        +1
        
        @jv: So do you agree with the statement that "centrelink payments aren't fair because not everyone gets them"?
        
        And if so, you're also ignoring all the systemic issues and biases that predict how much people earn….
        
        jv on 12/08/2022 - 11:57
        
        @CaptainSharpe: This is about tax, not welfare.
        
        CaptainSharpe on 12/08/2022 - 12:01
        
        +1
        
        @jv: So it's not about what's fair and what isnt fair. So why did you make it about fairness and treating people equally?
        
        It's all the same system, so let's try this one:
        
        That tax is used to pay for the welfare system. If someone earning 180k a year is taxed at the same rate as someone who is paid 50k a year, then either:
        - we have a lot less resources to use for things like welfare, healthcare, etc
        or
        - we have the same resources - but that means the people much less well-off who need the money much more (because they have much fewer disposable resources in which to 'spend' on tax) will have to pay more tax
        
        Or are you suggesting we tax people who have, lets say, up to 200k at the same rate (aside from a tax-free threshold thing - but where is that line then?), would we then start taxing people above 200k heaps more than we already do, to make up for that massive shortfall of funds this would create?
        
        CaptainSharpe on 12/08/2022 - 12:04
        
        +2
        
        @CaptainSharpe: And I'm sure you understood my point with the centrelink example; that fairness isn't about treating people the same or equally. It's about considering the context and circumstances. And with the tax system, it's about acknowledging those that earn below a certain amount would struggle too much if they had to pay more tax; that people above that amount can pay more tax and still have disposable income, and that people in each subsequent bracket can much more easily afford the taxes.
        
        And if we made it all equal, it means those who would otherwise be ok to pay that tax then be struggling much more than would be reasonable, for the benefit of those that are lucky enough to have the higher paying jobs. This would furhter increase the economic divides or at least quicken their pace.
        
        jv on 12/08/2022 - 12:05
        
        -2
        
        @CaptainSharpe:
        
        So it's not about what's fair and what isnt fair.
        
        Fair, is treating people as equals and not discriminating.
        
        CaptainSharpe on 12/08/2022 - 12:10
        
        +2
        
        @jv: Yes, you keep repeating your stance, but you aren't bothering to actually defend that stance.
        
        Why is 'fair' treating people as equals?
        
        I can easily make a statement too:
        
        Fair, is treating people equitably, considering their circumstances and systemic influences on their success.
        
        Tell me why your statement is more valid than mine?
        
        jv on 12/08/2022 - 12:14
        
        -2
        
        @CaptainSharpe:
        
        but you aren't bothering to actually defend that stance.
        
        It's not necessary to defend the obvious.
        
        CaptainSharpe on 12/08/2022 - 12:16
        
        @jv: My statement is obvious.
        
        What makes your statement 'more obvious' than mine.
        
        If you can't actually explain why your statement is somehow more valid than my own, then your stances and arguments aren't worth anyone's time.
        
        jv on 12/08/2022 - 12:16
        
        @CaptainSharpe:
        
        My statement is obvious.
        
        No it's not. It does not make any sense.
        
        CaptainSharpe on 12/08/2022 - 12:17
        
        @jv: Tell me what part of it doesn't make sense to you, and i'll then explain to you why it makes sense. Hopefully in a way you are able to engage with.
        
        jv on 12/08/2022 - 12:19
        
        @CaptainSharpe:
        
        Tell me what part of it doesn't make sense to you
        
        All of it
        
        CaptainSharpe on 12/08/2022 - 12:22
        
        @jv: Ok so.
        
        What doesn't make sense about 'equity'? We can go through it word by word.
        
        jv on 12/08/2022 - 12:24
        
        +1
        
        @CaptainSharpe: in the case of taxation, it is discriminatory.
        
        that is why we have welfare.
        
        CaptainSharpe on 12/08/2022 - 12:27
        
        @jv: It's part of the same system.
        
        Where does welfare come from?
        
        You can't look at tax in isolation from all the other government + tax systems we have.
        
        How would taxing everyone equally work in practice?
        
        Where would the welfare money come from?
        
        How much would everyone need to be taxed?
        
        Would you tax someone earning 30k a year and barely able to make ends meet at the rate same as someone who is earing 200k? If so, this would be likely too little tax to pay for welfare and all the other things those poor people completely rely on to live and have quality of life.
        
        So where does that extra money come from if not the middle class?
        
        Do you mean the upper class needs to be taxed more than they are now?
        
        And as I've already argued, the tax isnt negatively discriminating against people with more money. It's helping out those that don't have much (a form of 'positive discrimination' if you will - discrimination isn't always bad… it merely means that some people are treated differently than others. And to be equitable, this is literally what must happen. You seem to be ok with discrimination when it comes to centrelink payments, so you're not against the idea of discrimination/equity in general!). It's either that, or those people pay more, and the middle class STILL have to pay the same or almost the same as we're paying now,.
        
        us3rnam3tak3n on 12/08/2022 - 20:07
        
        @jv: This actually sounds like an argument for universal basic income. Flat tax rate and sufficient welfare that everyone is able to afford housing, food, utilities and medical requirements.
        
        Most people would likely pay more tax under such a system though, and there's the obvious likelihood that for some it would create a disincentive to work at all. Inflation would also see an unpredictable rise.
        
        Jaspa7 on 13/08/2022 - 10:57
        
        @jv: bs.. in the real world, you need to discriminate:
        would you expect someone bound to a wheelchair to produce the same output as a plumber/sparkie working 70hrs per week?
        
        randomvis on 12/08/2022 - 18:12
        
        +2
        
        @CaptainSharpe: Taxing excessively disincentives work.
        
        I could pick up another consulting job in addition to my day job to bring in extra money. But then my tax rate jumps from 37% to 45% for that additional income.
        
        Why should I bother giving up my weekends if I only get to keep $0.55 out of every dollar I make for that job?
        
        So I don't. It's just not worth it. if they kept it at 37% for the upper level, it would be a lot more enticing to work harder and contribute more.
        
        SBOB on 12/08/2022 - 18:15
        
        +2
        
        @randomvis:
        
        Taxing excessively disincentives work.
        I could pick up another consulting job in addition to my day job to bring in extra money. But then my tax rate jumps from 37% to 45% for that additional income.
        
        Perhaps it therefore provides an incentive for a broader number of people to earn higher incomes, as those already 'at the top' don't want those other high paying gigs. Someone has to do the consulting job and if someone doesn't want to do it at a the top tax bracket the person the rung below will and therefore more people move higher up the econmic ladder.
        
        Seems like a benefit for all of society if that was the case.
        
        randomvis on 12/08/2022 - 18:23
        
        +2
        
        @SBOB: This is only applicable for limited industries without skill or licensing.
        
        Consider the medical industry:
        My wife's a medical practitioner and she doesn't bother doing extra hours as well because of taxation— Might as well spend it with the family. It's not as if they can get someone on a lower tax level to take up the role.
        
        I know a few doctors in the same boat, why bother working extra hours if they don't have to. It's not financially worth it.
        
        SBOB on 12/08/2022 - 18:35
        
        @randomvis: Great. Should help upskill and up experience those lower level or less highly paid doctors, as they'll be required to fill this gap those high level doctors don't feel worthy of their time.
        Sounds like a win win for society again.
        
        randomvis on 12/08/2022 - 19:09
        
        +2
        
        @SBOB: You are living in a la la land. You can't just magically upskill these non-existent people.
        
        You are kidding yourself when you think a person will go through 10+ years of training so they can do those extra 10 hours a week. These people do not exist.
        
        For myself— go ahead, skill yourself niche area that may not exist in 15 years for those extra $5k side hustles— in all instances where I rejected work, they outsourced overseas, so no magical person exist in this instance.
        
        It's not the case for all industries, but in areas where there are skill shortages, it's folly to think that people will just train for years just to plug that tax threshold.
        
        zephyrfox on 14/08/2022 - 10:42
        
        +1
        
        @SBOB: This is on the basis that everyone can do every job given the opportunity and education. Fact is people aren't created equal. Some jobs require more intelligence, some require a stronger work ethic or the willingness to do unpleasant work (like roofing in summer). There is a significant portion of the population that just wont ever earn 6 figures because they don't possess the above traits.
        
        Education and opportunity are very available in Australia. There are significant skill shortages in areas that require limited education and there are systems to support you while you do that education.
        
        Teacher, police, tram driver, traffic controller, brick layer, council worker, garbage truck driver, any profession in a remote mining town (cleaner, cook, labourer, admin assistant etc). Aus needs all those jobs, none of them require you to be doctor smart, all of them require hard work and all of them have a set path to 6 figure salaries with nothing but time in the job.
        
        It's crazy that a country that has skill shortages in these key areas disincentives the people in those areas from doing more work. The win win for society would be to support the above people doing more, rather then penalising them.
        
        Quantumcat on 12/08/2022 - 19:52
        
        @randomvis: It is much better for the patients that doctors get adequate rest. So the system is working great. It is much better that a whole new doctor is trained and does 40 hours a week than an existing, exhausted doctor do 80 hours a week and make mistakes.
        
        CaptainSharpe on 12/08/2022 - 20:18
        
        -1
        
        @randomvis: If they worked extra hours they'd burn out quicker anyway.
        
        CaptainSharpe on 12/08/2022 - 20:17
        
        -2
        
        @randomvis: Why bother? Because you'd get 55 cents out of every dollar you make from that job.
        
        You'd prob burn yourself out if you worked that much more anyway.
        
        And taxing excessively would disincentive work. But I'm not convinced the tax is 'excessive' for those earning above a certain amount!
        
        Trying2SaveABuck on 12/08/2022 - 21:45
        
        +1
        
        @jv:
        
        Fairness is treating people equally, without discrimination…
        
        i agree with that - unfortunately the socialist dont understand treating everyone equally
    - Intoxicoligist on 12/08/2022 - 14:55
      
      +1
      
      We're all treated equally under the law. It's not a nobles and peasants system any more.
      - jv on 12/08/2022 - 14:56
        
        +1
        
        @Intoxicoligist:
        
        We're all treated equally under the law.
        
        Not in tax laws.
        
        Intoxicoligist on 12/08/2022 - 15:00
        
        +1
        
        @jv: Ummm yes you do. There's not a different set of tax laws for nobles and peasants (or should I say CEO's and Essential Workers).
        
        jv on 12/08/2022 - 15:00
        
        +1
        
        @Intoxicoligist:
        
        There's not a different set of tax laws f
        
        It's different depending on how much you earn.

Unpopular Opinion High Income Earners Pay too Much Tax

Poll Options

Comments

New Forum Topics