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

      • Awoke on 12/08/2022 - 21:26
        +1

        If the assets are creating income, the income is taxed. There’s also capital gains taxes on asset appreciation.

        What do you mean that no tax is paid on assets

    • netjock on 11/08/2022 - 13:54

      To reward those who live pay check to pay check.

      • jv on 11/08/2022 - 13:54
        +2

        tax is there to pay for services you use, it's not a 'reward'

        A reward is to work harder to earn more for your effort…

        • netjock on 11/08/2022 - 13:58
          +1

          You are talking about a different topic.

          If you low taxes on income and tax it on wealth then you are changing the tax system. It is a reward for those who spend it all and not accumulate wealth. You might as well start taxing people 15% of the balance of their super rather than taxing super contributions and income. You do the math.

          A reward is to work harder to earn more for your effort…

          To do what? Accumulate wealth and have it taxed? Or just so you can work hard and spend it on stuff you don't need or getting fat. Why work at all?

        • CaptainSharpe on 12/08/2022 - 11:56

          TIL hard work = higher pay

  • Gervais fanboy on 11/08/2022 - 12:58
    +2

    I’d love to know what the Socialists (which there are many on this site) think about this post…

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 11/08/2022 - 12:59
      +9

      That is why i posted it Ozbargain is full of left wingers always makes for interest debate

        • SBOB on 11/08/2022 - 20:54
          +19

          Pretty hard to debate with people who don't understand economics.

          The marketing major whose claims others (aka "lefties") don't understand economics while simultaneously not knowing the difference between socialism and democratic socialism.

          • SlavOz on 12/08/2022 - 14:36

            @SBOB: Most socialist regimes are democratic already. The majority of people in USSR or Venezuela were on board with the communist policies, and there's always a government at the top skimming the money and beating people who don't tithe their income.

            How is your idea any different? All I hear is "this time will be better, I promise!".

            • Awoke on 12/08/2022 - 16:08
              -2

              @SlavOz: 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.

              • TEER3X on 12/08/2022 - 17:08
                +7

                @Awoke: Utilities should've stayed government owned.

                • SlavOz on 12/08/2022 - 17:36
                  +1

                  @TEER3X: Think about the hassle and pain of renewing your license or being stranded by a shitty public transport system.

                  Now imagine going thru that whenever you want to turn on your lights or take a warm shower.

                  The government isn't capable of running a massive system to accommodate every single household. If they were, private companies would be hiring the government to help them. But it's the other way around.

                  Electricity should be bipartisan - ie everyone should have equal and fair access regardless of who you are or even what you think. Neo-nazis have the right to heat up their home just as much as anyone else, tough shit if you don't like it, this is a free society. But with the government controlling our very livelihoods, they'll turn these systems into partisan circuses that threaten to shut off power for anyone who doesn't get vaccinated or pay their taxes. And that's bullshit.

                  • SBOB on 12/08/2022 - 18:03
                    +3

                    @SlavOz:

                    And that's bullshit.

                    I'm glad you now provide summaries of your post content at the conclusion of your posts.
                    Much more efficient

                    • [Deactivated] on 12/08/2022 - 18:18
                      +2

                      @SBOB: Ooooooohhhhhhh …… no guess required as to who is angry at the recent swastika ban

                      NON-SlavOz showing his true colours and basic communication skills.

                  • Awoke on 12/08/2022 - 21:30

                    @SlavOz:

                    Think about the hassle and pain of renewing your license

                    Not sure what you mean. Piece of cake in nsw. But I digress, literally agree with everything you said about the equality bit.

                • Awoke on 12/08/2022 - 21:28

                  @TEER3X: Why

        • CaptainSharpe on 12/08/2022 - 11:56

          You missed a few….

        • Chandler on 12/08/2022 - 12:09

          where Socialism has worked

          Really depends on how you define "worked". I could also leave this here:

          List of countries where Capitalism has worked (in alphabetical order, updated 12/08/22):

          .

          • TEER3X on 12/08/2022 - 17:06

            @Chandler: In which of those countries can a person earning the median income afford to buy a house (priced at the median) in a capital city?

        • Nereosis on 12/08/2022 - 12:28

          I bet you have no idea what Socialism even is.

        • realaaa on 12/08/2022 - 12:37

          yeah sorta, but define Socialism, and define - worked?

      • Awoke on 12/08/2022 - 21:27

        Seriously, reading your post and incomprehensible positions on the matter, i actually thought you were one of them!

    • leiiv on 11/08/2022 - 22:31
      +4

      I consider my self as a socialist, but I support a flat 0% personal income tax for everyone and I don't support wealth tax. Taxing wealth is too hard and will make the law too complicated and create another loopholes.
      There is already a hidden tax anyway in form of inflation caused by printing money.
      What must be taxed progressively at a significantly higher rate is the "sources" that enable means of productions or businesses to operate (essentially, the means that make existing wealth producing obscenely more wealth).
      Those are mostly finite natural or non-natural resources (such as land, gas and minerals, etc) or artificially finite resources (such as intellectual properties, money) protected by the government.

      • Trying2SaveABuck on 12/08/2022 - 21:31
        +1

        I consider my self as a socialist, but I support a flat 0% personal income tax for everyone and I don't support wealth tax. Taxing wealth is too hard and will make the law too complicated and create another loopholes.

        despite you being a communist i agree with your point

  • burningrage on 11/08/2022 - 12:59
    +8

    Agree to OP. I don't agree with wealth tax because that is effectively a form of Dante Law where you should not save and spend as you earn and keep yourself mediocre or poor (eg: Saving for rainy days = excessive wealth = ostensibly rich = tax)

    Welcome to progressive taxation system where the productive and saving ones subsidize less productive or spending-to-no savings ones.

    It's already becoming like that and quite frankly, being poor (or pretending to be one) nowadays is cool.

    • afoveht on 11/08/2022 - 13:21
      +5

      A wealth tax encourages people to spend instead of hoard value. Use it or lose it. That should promote activity and be a net benefit to the economy and society. Of course there should be room for some savings - what that limit is is something for discussion - but allowing people to hoard more than they could spend in 100 lifetimes is ridiculous.

      • jv on 11/08/2022 - 13:59
        +11

        Use it or lose it.

        Why should you lose it if it belongs to you? It doesn't belong to the government, and it doesn't belong to those on welfare…

        • Quantumcat on 11/08/2022 - 14:12
          +4

          In the vast majority of cases it isn't yours, it was your parents' or grandparents'.

          • jv on 11/08/2022 - 14:13
            +5

            @Quantumcat: If something is given to you, it is yours.

            • Quantumcat on 11/08/2022 - 14:19
              +14

              @jv: So you think that those who are lucky enough to get their life started with an inheritance need even more of a leg up by reducing their taxes?

              The ones that are working the hardest are more likely to have middle and low incomes (GPs, teachers, child care workers etc), most of the ones earning a lot started off with an inheritance and turn money into more money (excluding people like lawyers or CEOs earning high incomes from working rather than just turning money into more money).

              Progressive taxation makes sense, then employees of organisations and businesses that can't afford to pay their staff super well are closer to the middle, and those on obscene wages, many times more than they need to run a family can be brought back a tiny bit closer to the middle as well. Everyone is a bit closer together instead of the dirt poor and the obscenely wealthy. It is part of what makes this country pleasant to live in.

              You might say for the lower paid professions, they shouldn't get any leg up to be closer to the middle and market forces will make less people want to work there and that will make the wages rise, but some industries just can't do that and having them shut up shop will make society worse. For example childcare. There is only so much that a parent can pay to have their children looked after so they can work. There is a definite ceiling to the wages of a childcare worker. If the costs are too high then families with children will have to get by on one income while one stays home until they can all go to school, and the whole economy will slow down as that person is not paying taxes and they are not pumping in any productivity to the system by not working for many years. Not to mention the early education loss for the children, all children would be entering the schooling system with no preparation at all that would lead to lower productivity when they enter the workforce too. There are lots of other similar industries where the users of it can only pay so much so the staff can only be paid so much but it is a really important industry to society. And progressive taxation means that those staff can still have a decent quality of life even if they are earning a tenth of what a CEO might make.

          • burningrage on 11/08/2022 - 15:21
            +2

            @Quantumcat: "In the vast majority of cases it isn't yours, it was your parents' or grandparents'."

            Statistics to back this?

            And even if it was your parents/grandparents, they are not government's to steal through legalized theft.

            • Quantumcat on 11/08/2022 - 15:31
              +2

              @burningrage:

              And even if it was your parents/grandparents, they are not government's to steal through legalized theft.

              Maybe, but it isn't like you worked hard for it, or that changes in taxation laws would encourage you to work any harder (you would have received this no matter what you did). That's the argument people seem to be fond of when wanting tax breaks for the rich.

              Statistics to back this?

              Well, it might have been your uncle's or your sibling's, but people tend to pass assets to their children first of all before considering other family. Only if they had no children, or the children and children's children are already dead, or the children have pissed them off so much they don't want them inheriting, would an inheritance come from someone other than a parent or grandparent

              • burningrage on 11/08/2022 - 15:47
                +4

                @Quantumcat: "Well, it might have been your uncle's or your sibling's, but people tend to pass assets to their children first of all before considering other family."

                And what is wrong with this? Are you saying when my grandfather passed away and bequested me with some of his wealth, the Government should have a taste of it???????

                Remember the wealth that my grandfather has already paid taxes for.

                • Quantumcat on 11/08/2022 - 15:57
                  +6

                  @burningrage: No, I'm saying that "we should tax the rich less so as to encourage people to work hard" is a nonsense argument as all the ultra rich make money by turning money into more money, not by working.

              • banana365 on 11/08/2022 - 22:30

                @Quantumcat:

                but people tend to pass assets to their children first of all before considering other family

                That's less and less relevant these days. I'm in my fifties, maybe ten years from retirement. My parents are still going strong. Inheritance is largely irrelevant in terms of an individual's wealth for most people and with improving aged health care it will only get less relevant.

                • Quantumcat on 11/08/2022 - 23:10
                  +2

                  @banana365: That's true. I guess the modern equivalent is getting loans from the bank of mum and dad or being groomed to take over as CEO of your dad's company. Wealth tax couldn't affect those things much even though they do help the individual a lot in starting out

        • afoveht on 11/08/2022 - 14:19
          +2

          Watch the first 2 minutes of this.

          Wealth is a limited resource. The idea of someone having more than they can ever use is, IMO, ridiculous.

          At the risk of being accused of a naturalistic fallacy - and there are plenty of arguments to show why it isn't - everything, including wealth, should decay if unmaintained. Tax is one such type of decay.

          • jv on 11/08/2022 - 14:21
            +1

            @afoveht:

            The idea of someone having more than they can ever use is, IMO, ridiculous.

            The idea of someone taking something that does not belong to them is, IMO, ridiculous.

            • afoveht on 11/08/2022 - 14:21
              +1

              @jv: I agree. We only (might) have different opinions on who's taking from whom.

              Watch the video before you reply again.

              • jv on 11/08/2022 - 14:35
                +1

                @afoveht: It's a stupid, nonsensical analogy that is nothing like what we are discussing.

                Taking something that does not belong to you is not the same as working and earning something or having something given to you by the owner.

                • afoveht on 11/08/2022 - 14:36
                  +2

                  @jv: It is exactly what we are discussing in this comment stream: hoarding wealth. If you're uncomfortable with the video then maybe it's something you should think about.

                  • jv on 11/08/2022 - 14:37
                    +2

                    @afoveht:

                    It is exactly what we are discussing

                    Nope, in your video, he is taking something that does not belong to him and hoarding it.

                    If I work and buy something, it is mine to do with what I want.

                    • afoveht on 11/08/2022 - 14:39
                      +5

                      @jv: Most people with lots* of money didn't work for it. Even if they were getting $10000/hour, most didn't. They did certain things but not work more in the traditional sense than others who have much less

                      *depends on what you mean by lots. The billionaire class for sure.

                      • jv on 11/08/2022 - 14:42
                        +1

                        @afoveht:

                        Most people with lots* of money didn't work for it.

                        Where they given it by the person who owned it? Or did they steal it from someone ?

                        • afoveht on 11/08/2022 - 15:21
                          +3

                          @jv: They scraped value from others who did work for it. A "boss" of 1000 people each producing $100 of value per hour but paying them $50 per hour is making $50000 per hour "working" overseeing them, whether that's smoking a cigar on a yacht or something else.

                          Noone can make billions on their own - it is always a combined effort, often using the benefits of those before them and ahead of them.

                  • burningrage on 11/08/2022 - 15:25

                    @afoveht: "Hoarding wealth" is the new catch-phrase to demonize the word "savings" just like the word "fairness" has been perverted to actually mean "I don't have what you have so it's not fair and I must have that".

                    Once upon a time, "fairness" used to mean just that. Equal rights/responsibility with just compensation on the work involved. Nowadays, it's the other way around.

                • GandalfTheCheap on 13/08/2022 - 09:06

                  @jv: JV, it might be wrong to tax the rich higher if life was a perfect pure meritocracy.

                  It isn't yet, and until the last century or two, it wasn't even close.

                  If humanity had started 50 years ago, and everyone had been given the same home, family, education, and opportunities such that life was fair, the people who worked hardest and smartest would always get ahead.

                  That's not the world we live in. And it's only recently it's even started approaching a meritocracy.

                  Much of the wealthiest 1% can trace their family lines back to feudal times when their ancestors became kings and lords by, quite literally, murdering other people and stealing their land, herds, and gold.

                  That's on top of the more recent fortunes made by organised crime, political corruption, ecologically irresponsible corporations, gambling, arms dealing, human trafficking, etc.

                  Yes, a few billionaires started from nothing. Yes, a few of us started poor but got ahead by working smarter and harder. Yes it's essential we be able to.

                  But that means, because the world isn't close to being a pure meritocracy quite yet, we do need some sensible measures, like progressive income tax, to help level a very uneven playing field.

            • Mr Haj on 11/08/2022 - 16:59
              +1

              @jv:

              The idea of someone taking something that does not belong to them is, IMO, ridiculous.

              Well that is what tax is. I personally think that taxing dead people would be the best way for the government to pay for things. Everyone seems to be outraged by the idea and wants their inheritance untouched. Wouldn't it be great if you didn't have to pay tax until you were dead!? I know people will argue that the government will still tax you normally and this would just be an additional tax. Maybe I have more faith in our government than most people; and I don't think I have a lot!

              • jv on 11/08/2022 - 17:09

                @Mr Haj:

                Well that is what tax is

                So I can go rob my local bank and just call it a tax ?

                • Mr Haj on 11/08/2022 - 21:39
                  +3

                  @jv: Sure. It's more earned than an inheritance.

      • burningrage on 11/08/2022 - 15:20

        "what that limit is is something for discussion "

        This is exactly the problem. Once you say that, it becomes an emperor's decision to say "Hmmm, I will only allow John to save $100 per month before I'll tax 50% of the rest of his "already taxed" earnings" as what you called "hoard" tax.

        People save for something. Holiday, new house, bucket list, whatever. They should not be compelled to spend when they don't want to.

        • afoveht on 11/08/2022 - 15:22

          Of course. Wealth tax should not stop people from want to have things that they can enjoy.

          So fine. Start at $100million. Let democracy do it's thing.

      • TheBird on 11/08/2022 - 17:31
        +3

        Not quite. A wealth tax would encourage people to pull investment away from our country and park it in another.

  • tsunamisurfer on 11/08/2022 - 13:03
    -4

    I posted this yesterday.

    https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Research-and-statistics/In-…

    If we rank our 100 people by their taxable incomes:

    the 3 people with the top taxable incomes paid 29% of all net tax
    the next 6 paid 19% of all net tax
    the next 31 paid 40% of all net tax
    the next 35 paid 12% of all net tax
    the final 25 didn't pay any tax.

    The top 6% of taxpayers shoulder 48% of the tax burden.

    All the while the lowest 60% carry on life contributing only 12% of tax receipts.

    It is absolutely disgusting that such a heavy burden of taxation falls on so few, whilst so many contribute virtually nothing to nothing.

    This is made worse by another statistic that about 50% of Australian households pay zero tax after you consider the amount of Centrelink handouts they receive.

    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.

    No we must never tax wealth.

    The lower rungs of society must be made to contribute more, they are getting a free ride.

      • boirganz on 11/08/2022 - 13:48
        +15

        Pretty sure you're just trolling now - unless you really refer to people like that in the real world?

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 11/08/2022 - 13:50
          +1

          Ill give you a real life example

          i had a client that he and his wife lived in social housing, got full disability support and carers pension (for his back pain) - he worked from home doing cash jobs as a mechanic for people and sold weed and other drugs on the side - this man not only paid no tax get was getting money from the government and housing all paid for whilst making about 2-3k per week in cash money…..

          dont believe the media and everything they say

          i probably have about 20-30 more examples that would make you want to get rid of the entire welfare system and leave the 'bottom feeders' to fend for themselves - i know not all of them are like that but there is far more then people realise that milk the system

          • boirganz on 11/08/2022 - 14:06
            +12

            @Trying2SaveABuck: It's not great those individuals were doing that - but you don't punish the 90 for the 10?

            The example you've given wouldn't even be possible to catch - and is clearly an outsider. There's also plenty of people on welfare who just don't give a f# about finding jobs as well. However you don't throw away an entire system because of a few bad eggs.

            There will always be shitty people who rort the system - from the drug dealer getting welfare all the way up to billionaires.

          • ForkSnorter on 11/08/2022 - 14:19
            +19

            @Trying2SaveABuck: The poorest people in society typically have to spend all their income to survive. All that money they spend comes back into the economy, supporting businesses, supporting employment. None of that money is lost or hidden away for a rainy day, or used to pull even more property off the market.

            On the other hand, the richest in society typically don't spend all their money. They save some of it, they put some of it away in tax havens, they put some in superannuation, some in property, some in shares. Some of it is coming back into the economy, but a lot of it isn't.

            • tsunamisurfer on 11/08/2022 - 15:27
              -1

              @ForkSnorter:

              The poorest people in society typically have to spend all their income to survive. All that money they spend comes back into the economy, supporting businesses, supporting employment. None of that money is lost or hidden away for a rainy day, or used to pull even more property off the market.

              That 'income' is probably an array of handouts funded by the top tiers of society.

              The fact that they spend it is not of great significance, they likely don't pay any GST since they spend more of their money on food and lodgings which are GST exempt.

              If those above them paid less tax they'd also be able to spend.

              On the other hand, the richest in society typically don't spend all their money. They save some of it, they put some of it away in tax havens, they put some in superannuation, some in property, some in shares. Some of it is coming back into the economy, but a lot of it isn't.

              They will likely spend much more in goods and services, re-invest much more, from there earn more and generate more revenue for the government.

              You don't need to spend all your money on good bags, ciggies and Glue to be good for the economy.

            • TheBird on 11/08/2022 - 17:35

              @ForkSnorter:

              they put some in superannuation, some in property, some in shares. Some of it is coming back into the economy, but a lot of it isn't.

              What do you think the economy is? Why would you think isn't putting it back into the economy?

          • nedski on 11/08/2022 - 15:22
            +4

            @Trying2SaveABuck: Oh look, a few examples, well obviously that must apply to all people on the fringes of society.

            Wont someone just think of the poor millionaires / billionaires.

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 11/08/2022 - 15:24

              @nedski:

              Oh look, a few examples, well obviously that must apply to all people on the fringes of society.

              people earning 90-180k are not necessarily millions and certainly not billionaires but dont like the facts get in the way of a 'good story'

              • nedski on 11/08/2022 - 15:28
                +12

                @Trying2SaveABuck: Well obviously people on 90k-180k arent millionaires, they are about $910k to $820k short.

                I view taxes as the cost of living in a civilised society. You know what happens when we dont look after the poor people of our society, they rise up.

                Look at the Nordic countries, they dont have a f**k you, got mine attitude. They pay higher taxes and with everyone being looked after, they are all more generally happy.

          • mooney on 11/08/2022 - 15:56
            +3

            @Trying2SaveABuck: I will give you a real life example… there is a billionaire ex president in the USA who robbed from charities he set up. Long story short- there are poor criminals and there are rich criminals. You dont demonise everyone by the actions of a few bad apples.

          • tomfool on 12/08/2022 - 17:50
            +2

            @Trying2SaveABuck: I also know of a few multi national companies that rort the tax system it makes what your mechanic do look like child's play.

            Most people want to work and contribute to society. The wealthy, and I am not talking the the people making 200 the very rich they are the ones likely paying less tax then you and they continuously complain about how much they pay I would not be to concerned with their tax burden at all. Perhaps if they actually paid their fair share your tax could be reduced

        • burningrage on 11/08/2022 - 15:26
          +1

          No. I feel the same way as Trying2SaveaBuck. and pretty sure he is not alone.

      • ForkSnorter on 11/08/2022 - 14:19

        *

      • snoopydoop on 11/08/2022 - 15:35
        +18

        Sounds like you both have an empathy problem more than anything.

        I'm fortunate to be in the secure, very comfortable financial position I'm in, and it's certainly not a "burden" to prop up those who are less fortunate. Couldn't think of many ways my life would be tangibly improved with the extra money.

        If anything, I've had more of a free ride than the "lower rungs of society", having gone to private school, come from a safe, support family, and have been free thus far of health ailments.

        If you insist on having a society where the least fortunate have generations of children who are starving, or die on the side of the road with no support - I suspect there are plenty of other places you can go which have the same values as you.
        I don't think you'll find many Australians want to purposefully increase homelessness, domestic violence, starvation, disability, or the gap between people who have wealthy parents, and those who don't - just for the sake of everyone "fending for themselves".

        The "real life" example you bring up below sounds like a really sad existence, and not one I'd like to trade my position for. If you're so jealous of them, why don't you just do what they're doing?
        Perhaps if there were more support there at a younger age for them, this person may have ended up having a more positive life, and if the only value you see in an Australian life is putting them to labour, quite possibly been a more productive economic member of society too, both from input and output.

        Additionally, you seem to not understand the true economic cost of paying someone support of "2-3k per week" (if that's truly the real number, relatively broad range of $52,000 per year you're not sure of there that makes it feel like a pretty inaccurate anecdote) - you do understand that this gets funnelled back into the economy through Australian businesses, right? Money doesn't disappear into thin air.
        They're also more likely to spend it all immediately in Australian businesses, as they're not likely to be in a position to tuck it all away into savings.

        Either way - why are you so keen to have Australians suffer, starve to death, and have many in our society have an eroding quality of life? Why not build up our least fortunate, even just so that they can enter the workforce, if that's your only care? Honestly seeming pretty reminiscent of some very tough countries.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 12/08/2022 - 21:34

          I'm fortunate to be in the secure, very comfortable financial position I'm in, and it's certainly not a "burden" to prop up those who are less fortunate. Couldn't think of many ways my life would be tangibly improved with the extra money.

          you are welcome to pay additional taxes if you want boss otherwise give all your extra income to charity

          anyone who 'doesnt' mind paying tax is more then welcome too the issue is people shouldnt be forced to pay unfair levels of tax

          i think certain taxes should be optional i wounder how many people who say they 'dont mind paying tax' would pay them if they were optional - i'd hazard to guess it would be close to zero

          • snoopydoop on 12/08/2022 - 21:58
            +1

            @Trying2SaveABuck: Taxes are at fair levels. Feel free to view it more like lower income people receive a discount if you'd like.

            In fact, the amount of subsidies the more fortunate of us receive through things like negative gearing and franking credits likely outweighs the funding for people who are on Centrelink. How is that fair?

            You use plenty of services that are likely "paid for" by people and businesses earning more than you. In that respect, it's highly unlikely you're paying your fair share given the amount of services you use, unless you live off the grid in the middle of nowhere.

            In a big way, you're mooching off people earning more than you, and it's crappy of you to look down on others less fortunate than you, when you're benefiting just the same. You're not better than anyone.

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 12/08/2022 - 22:03
              +1

              @snoopydoop:

              You're not better than anyone.

              I'm saying we should all be treated the same…..i'd all be for a flat tax structure

              • snoopydoop on 12/08/2022 - 22:53
                +1

                @Trying2SaveABuck: Doesn't sound very fair to me. I wouldn't expect someone who's been born with no arms or legs to fend for themselves or starve on the streets. Very cruel attitude you have.

                Nor do I expect someone who's come from a worse upbringing than me to be able to get a leg up in life without needing more support from society than I need.

                If you're fortunate enough to be in the highest tax bracket you're paying your fair share. Your quality of life is extremely high, unless you're poor with your money, and being taxed the level you're taxed at makes little to no difference on your quality of life.

                Arguing that some Australians deserve to starve and be homeless isn't something I agree with. It's not a society I'd be proud to live in.

                Really abandoning the age old premise of giving everyone a fair go.

      • freefall101 on 11/08/2022 - 17:34
        +4

        People born overseas are generally unemployed for shorter periods than Australian born.

        Want to know the people who are in the long term unemployed boat? Australian born men aged 55-64 with no education.

        I wonder how much your experiences are driving your prejudices. According to this thread, you know:
        - Someone who inherited 5 houses and doesn't work
        - Loads of people who have never worked and milked the welfare system
        - Drug dealer earning cash under the table while also getting a disability payment and you've seen their tax return to know they pay no tax.

        That isn't a remotely normal cross-section of Australia.

      • idonotknowwhy on 12/08/2022 - 10:06

        Ozbargain has a decent mix. If you want left-wingers go to reddit

        • PiratePete1911 on 13/08/2022 - 00:12

          Everyone is a left winger if you are far right enough :D

    • crentist on 11/08/2022 - 15:03
      +1

      But those numbers could also be a consequence of wealth disparity. 97 lazy people or 3 greedy people are kinda indistinguishable in these figures.
      Run those numbers again to estimate what those top 3 are earning compared to the rest. My rough and rushed estimate puts them at 10x median income, earning $400k, but I don't stand by that atm.

      Focusing on the lower earners shifts attention away from the fact that those 3 people are also paying a huge amount more that the bracket immediately below them. And those 6 people are doing quite well, and paying a fair share. And they aren't paying a huge amount more tax, as a percentage of income. It's the same 28.7% up to $180k, plus 45% of anything over.

      To me it kinda looks like we have a range of people earning up to $180k, then a massive jump up to a very small number of people earning far above.

      And thats not having a go at them, just saying that they are probably contributing so much tax because their income is an anomaly to the rest of the population.
      Having a billionaire neighbour doesn't make the rest of the street disgusting and lazy and not contributing. It just makes them an outlier.

    • freefall101 on 11/08/2022 - 15:14
      +12

      Because how did those handful become so wealthy? Did they do it by working a hundred thousand times harder than everyone else, or did they do it by utilising the resources and people of this country?

      Rinehart didn't get rich by digging the holes herself, she got rich off selling the resources of this country and getting far more out of it than anyone else did. There was no equal opportunity there. And the wealthiest can up and move to Sudan whenever they feel like if they want to live in an impoverished shithole.

      Also you're solely looking at income tax and excluding GST. The poorest pay relatively more of their income on GST than anyone else.

      The top 6% of taxpayers shoulder 48% of the tax burden.

      That would be the top 9%.

      All the while the lowest 60% carry on life contributing only 12% of tax receipts.

      Why is this a problem? Once you get over the idea that it's "unfair", they get money, they spend money and it goes back into the economy. They're not saving money overseas or stashing it away, they're creating an economic foundation to work from and it all flows up to the wealthiest anyway. If you taxed them more it would simply shrink the economy and the wealthiest would become relatively richer while becoming absolutely poorer.

      If you put aside the tabloid anger for a second, increasing taxes on the poorest would achieve absolutely nothing. If you're a high tax payer you'd actually be worse off, the only victory being the moral one which doesn't pay the bills.

        • freefall101 on 11/08/2022 - 16:06
          +14

          I've never heard anyone defend Rinehart so vehemently.

          A good idea is worth nothing if you don't have the resources or the labour to make use of it. If anyone wants to pay less taxes they're more than welcome to do it in another country, simple as that. Presumably if Australia's resources mean nothing then it should work as well in a low tax nation instead.

          The poor pay VERY LITTLE GST because most of their spend is on accommodation and food which are GST exempt.

          https://www.austaxpolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/GST3…

          Because they don't contribute?

          Again, the moral issue. Once you get over the tabloid rantings there isn't a problem.

          You make it sound like the poor are the only ones that know how to spend money.

          Where did you get that idea? The wealthy don't spend all their money back into the Australian economy, that shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

          I don't need help paying bills, I don't care for a moral victory, I want a fairer spread of taxation.

          Why do you want a fairer spread of taxation if not the moral standpoint? You've already said you won't get over the notion that it's unfair and that seems to be the bottom line for you.

          It makes no difference if they pay more tax or less, so you should worry about your own situation and not everyone else's.

          • ThithLord on 11/08/2022 - 16:19
            +11

            @freefall101: Welcome to TsunamiSurfer's inner musings. They often contradict each other or don't amount to anything substantial other than IT'S NOT FAIR THAT RICH PEOPLE BENEFIT GREATLY FROM A SOCIETY THAT USES TAX BRACKETS BUT POOR PEOPLE DON'T PAY ENUFF TAX!!!!1!

      • FlyingMiffy on 11/08/2022 - 22:15

        The moral victory will incentivise people to pull their own weight. No one gets to the top without hard work or sacrifice but if you can get by with hand outs, why would you even need to try?

        • freefall101 on 12/08/2022 - 09:07

          So basically we should make life harder for people in order to incentivise them to work?

          This is a capitalist society. There’s plenty of incentive just by paying people. Taxing them more won’t do anything. And shouldn’t that apply to the rich too? We should tax income that doesn’t involve work, like investment income, way higher. Otherwise they could do nothing when they could contribute more.

          There are very few long term unemployed, and taxing lower incomes would just hurt those who can’t work, students, the elderly and the disabled.

          More importantly, why is it so important that people work to their capacity? This isn’t communism, that sounds like you’re just worried about what other people do instead of yourself.

          • FlyingMiffy on 12/08/2022 - 11:07
            +1

            @freefall101: Nah just worried about been penalized with taxes to carry others who don't pull their weight. If you want to donate to them, you are free to just don't expect me to hand out more of my hard earned via taxes. While others are lounging around with their spare capacity, I'm working away for 55 cents to the dollar. Thanks but no thanks.

            • freefall101 on 12/08/2022 - 12:04
              +1

              @FlyingMiffy: The idea that everyone should work to their maximum capacity sounds like some communist dystopia, "from each according to their ability". Or move to somewhere like the UAE where there are very few income taxes and social safety nets. Australia seems the wrong country for you. If you want to live here though, you have to pay taxes, you don't actually get a choice in the matter.

              You'd hate me, my last job was less money than I could earn but 36 hours a week (and I very rarely worked overtime), extra week off at Christmas, extra holidays during the year and 17% super. I had so much spare capacity I was getting bored.

              Nothing of what you said actually responded to what I said. Why do people have to work to capacity? How will taxing students, the elderly and disabled help more (as has been mentioned many times, there are very few long term unemployed people in this country)? Isn't it incentive enough to earn a salary which pays many, many more times than the dole?

              And if it pisses you off so much, why not quit your job and pay no taxes? Sounds easy. Or learn to become a better negotiator with your employer. If your salary doesn't meet your expectations ask for more. Personally, every pay rise I get tends to be more than the last, getting from $80k to 100k was much harder than getting from $130k to $150k. More tax comes out but it's much easier.

              • FlyingMiffy on 12/08/2022 - 15:45
                +1

                @freefall101: You seem to have a fixation on communism… not very healthy mate. And no I won't be hating on you, that is until you pack your bags and ask for a handout when you are able bodied but simply choosing to relax or if you decide to work less but expecting someone else to pay for taxes to cover your share. No wonder Australia has a productivity problem.

                And what's with the old school vibe on "leave the country if you don't like it". Someone might need help with the passive aggression…

                • freefall101 on 12/08/2022 - 16:57
                  +1

                  @FlyingMiffy: Just calling a spade a spade.

                  What is this productivity problem you speak of? Australia is at nearly full employment and long term unemployed is low.

                  It’s amazing how when decent jobs are available, people take them, despite the whinging about this country having so many dole bludgers. That’s the old school vibe here, if you don’t work then you’re a drain on society. Reality is anyone on low income is paying plenty of gst and pumping what little they have back into the economy. Taxing them more achieves nothing

    • mooney on 11/08/2022 - 15:53
      +13

      “The lower rungs of society must be made to contribute more, they are getting a free ride”

      We are still in the throes of the pandemic, we have seen the impact this had had on nurses (poorly paid, so guessing you think they are lower rung) we have seen our reliance on truck drivers and the impact when the network falls over, we can see issues today with lack of people working as baggage handlers in airports.

      The ‘lower rungs’ are the backbone of our society, they keep shit moving. They are being impacted way more by these cost of living increases that the top 6% of earners in Australia, they also cant afford to buy houses or (in many cases) go to university to improve their situation. You clearly have fallen for the American dream… it is a fallacy. And if the top 6% want to pay less tax there is a VERY simple solution… have less money. You are welcome.

      • Viper8 on 12/08/2022 - 14:26
        +1

        Teachers, Nurses, Police etc. aren't poorly paid. $85-$120k dependant upon loading, over-time and location for a base position isn't "poorly paid".
        They're poorly paid relative to what they have to put up with. There is a difference.

        • mooney on 12/08/2022 - 15:42
          +1

          Doesn't really change my point. Net effect is taxing them more, to reduce the unfair tax burden on the billionaire top 6% of all earners. These people keep our country running (I didn't mention police) why do people want to reduce their income and quality of life to prop up multi billionaires?

          tsumanisurfer (who I am assuming by the idiotic nature of his/ her comments) is not in the top 6% of all Aussie earners, is absolutely 'disgusted' that they aren't paying more tax so billionaires can pay less.

          People constantly vote against their own interests and threads like this one completely demonstrate to me why that is the case.

    • grimeywaifu on 11/08/2022 - 16:47
      +8

      "The lower rungs of society must be made to contribute more, they are getting a free ride."

      I sincerely hope you don't actually believe this

    • Chandler on 12/08/2022 - 12:50
      +2

      the 3 people with the top taxable incomes paid 29% of all net tax
      the next 6 paid 19% of all net tax
      The top 6% of taxpayers shoulder 48% of the tax burden.

      Lets look at this another way: why are the top 6% earning so much of all income that they're having to pay 29% of all tax?

  • Muzeeb on 11/08/2022 - 13:06
    +1

    I recall the sweet spot for earnings in a family situation is about 60k per annum.

    The tax you pay is offset by government allowances eg part A,B etc.

    Sweeeeeet.

    • Quantumcat on 11/08/2022 - 16:22
      +16

      Only an idiot would prefer to have less money to spend just so they can say they've paid less tax. If you earn more you have more to spend, even if you end up paying more tax.

      • Chandler on 12/08/2022 - 12:51

        There is the "welfare trap" but - for some, they could work more/harder and get more $, but then they'd lose $$ by losing some allowances/payments.

        • Quantumcat on 12/08/2022 - 13:04
          +1

          In terms of newstart / dsp yeah there definitely needs to be a much shallower tapering off of payments. You lose so much so fast, if you work a proper part time number of hours you end up with like $5/hr with the amount you are losing. But if they're going to progress to a full time job and no longer need newstart at all they will need to go through that short term pain, to get the experience etc. It must be really hard to figure out a better way to do things cause if the tapering off is spread too far then you'll have people that weren't unemployed, working the same hours as someone who was who is still getting a subsidy in the form of newstart, which would feel very unfair. I think the only solution is a UBI, so everybody gets the same subsidy and if someone can only work part time in a lower paid job they'll still be able to put food on the table and keep a roof over their head. And everything you earn you keep, without these complicated rules of losing a percentage of your welfare payment. So there's no discouragement to taking on more hours and progressing in your career.

  • bobbified on 11/08/2022 - 13:13
    +4

    Those that don't pay tax want more government handouts.
    Those that do pay tax think they pay too much and only those who have more than them should pay more.

    But I do think that there should be a flat tax rate.

    • boirganz on 11/08/2022 - 13:32
      +14

      Do you understand that a flat tax rate hits the poorest in society the hardest?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join