https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/tax/its-absurd-amazon-…
TLTR: essentially he argues in the USA and it would be similar here there is a 'small' % of tax revenue collected from those earning in the bottom 50% thus based on the median salary in Australia anyone earning just under 100k AUD p.a should pay no (federal) income tax
do you agree with a tax free threshold that spanning to 50% of earnings is a good thing?
A bad actor is also one who plays the man and not the ball. Kind of like plmko here.
Sounds like he wants an excuse to pay them even less:
“Yes, we’re dropping your pay by 25%, but you’re still going home with the same amount of money”
This is exactly it. Lower pay, therefore lower payroll taxes, lower redundancy payouts, reduced cost for leave entitlements and reduced entitlements payout when someone leaves. All around he wins a lot more.
Yep.
Also the attached article is a bit sparse on detail. I assume Bezos is talking about federal tax - the difference between USA and Australia is that there's a lot more state tax in the USA. As well as county taxes if you are (un)lucky. The example of the nurse in Queens paying $12k on a $75k earn is lower than here (it would be $13,288). The nurse will also be paying around $5.5k in state taxes to the state of New York on to of that federal tax.
I disagree only because the wealthy would find ways for themselves to be considered in that tax avoidance bracket and abuse it, causing extra tax burden on the median income earners.
Sorry of agree but they already avoid tax, so nothing would change for them
Reduce taxes on income from labour up to some reasonable but generous ceiling - instead tax wealth, rents, dividends, and other passive income.
tax wealth, rents, dividends, and other passive income.
Why is there a constant hate on people who wish to save for their future? Is it not a desirable characteristic we would wish more people to do?
When i was growing up in my poor family, mum always said work hard, spend a little less than you make so you have money for a rainy day or a house one day.
Now they're getting old, and everyone is telling them, oh you shouldn't have saved so much, spend it all so you can get full age pension.
I find the current discourse of taxing assets and savings very strange.
Maybe tax wealth above a certain amount is what people should be arguing?
I used to save pretty hard but have given up on that, particularly with the recent changes. We seem to punish being responsible in this country.
Instead of spending time at work, you're better off putting your time into learning new skills for personal satisfaction, enjoying hobbies, building community, (although they seem to want to destroy that with mass immigration) and maintaining your health and fitness. Stuff that can't easily be taken away from you by a thieving government.
@CaptainJack: Me too! Gosh I’m spending more per year the last 3 years since Covid-(profanity) than I have in the prior 10.
Of course people should be able to save - but not hoard. Set sensible limits for comfortable lives. Progressive taxes on wealth - by the time you hit $1B it should be 90%. Have concessions to encourage investment in productive activities (tech, industry, services, etc.).
by the time you hit $1B it should be 90
I have a feeling the rich would just move to another country and take the money with them.
by the time you hit $1B it should be 90%
We really as a country need to stop the tall poppy.
Accept the reality that when you are Uber rich and have travelled the world doing whatever you want you don't have to live in Australia. And to disincentivise those who have built their wealth to stay by slapping 90% tax on their wealth isn't going to help the country at all. Because they can happy move. Only the poor plebs have no choice. But if you're rich you do have choice.
I am not saying for one second don't tax the rich, let me be clear. But don't discriminate against them.
As I have said before, increase GST. Rich people usually love to spend, and are price insensitive.
@cloudy: It's nothing to do with tall poppy.
People often reminisce about the "good old days" - post war, 60s, 70s. Life in America and Australia was the envy of the world - great services, great job prospects, etc. Check out what taxes were like then, particularly for the wealthy, you might be surprised. This all started changing in the 80s with neoliberalism. Accepting massive wealth disparity has become normalised. It's no wonder we're now hanging by a string, selling everything off, denying basic services, having poor mental health epidemics.
@fantombloo: Ok so you’re saying everything wrong in the world is because of wide wealth disparity being accepted, and therefore all assets should be taxed more, and if you reach a billion it should be up to 90% taxed.
This sounds a lot like the setting my grandparents fled their mother land to come here tbh.
Ok so you’re saying everything wrong in the world is because of wide wealth disparity being accepted,
No.
all assets should be taxed more, and if you reach a billion it should be up to 90% taxed.
Yes. Probably sooner like 10M.
This sounds a lot like the setting my grandparents fled their mother land to come here tbh.
BS. Your grandparents fled an authoritative state where only a select few (either Party members or aristocrats) were wealthy and the rest were hungry peasants or other proletarians. There were no tax implications at all.
@Benno007: It’s not about causing issues. It’s about a way to gather taxation in a manner that is fairer.
I’d much rather a billionaire domiciled here and have overseas holidays than for them to be based else where and never spend a cent here.
@fantombloo: You want to chase the people who pay for all of our stuff out of the country? That is counter-productive.
@Leiothrix: That bar stool economics completely dismisses the capitalist class (those that don't actually work, that accumulate wealth on the backs of others) and only includes the upper end of the labour class. Most in the labour class think $200k/year is a sh1t-tonne, the wealthy laugh at that.
This is why Australia needs a Buffet Rule tax.
The man, worth an estimated +$270b, stated he shouldn't be taxed more.
Nice bait m8
I can assure you, every one regardless of their net work, thinks they themselves should not be taxed more. It's always some one else that can 'afford' it.
Well most taxpayers believe the government has more than enough money coming in already - it just needs to stop wasting it on such an astronomical scale.
Well most taxpayers believe the government has more than enough money coming in already - it just needs to stop wasting it on such an astronomical scale.
I agree that we seem to waste a lot of money and then we seem to keep trying to find more ways to spend money we don't even have instead of just waiting a while and pay for what we've already committed to, even if we didn't want to roll back things already in place.
(Like seriously - what is the point of that proposed $250 per year for tax payers in 2028 FFS? He really needed to commit to that now?).
Despite that, I don't think the govt does get enough money, there are a heap of things they need to do so much better with (including healthcare, education & social housing (supply and maintenance).
Plus, I think we NEED some better access to legal assistance and resources for the general public. I don't think it should be an unlimited free for all, but we should be able to pursue reasonable remedies as opposed to legal aid only for some family law stuff or where there is a possibility of you losing your liberty for ten years or more or relying on those no win no pay ambulance chasing personal injury lawyers to hopefully represent your claim.
LOL, we have this amazing ACL framework that they're educating people about, but very few people can afford to actually pay someone to help them enforce it when applicable.
It's like an old man shaking his fist at the clouds - "I know I has rights, but I can't do anything about enforcing those rights". stomp foot. shake fist.
As a taxpayer, I disagree
@tenpercent: Sure. I will if everyone else does.
The government needs more revenue, and to be frank, there isn't that much fat left to trim without really impacting the services it provides.
@aub: There isn't much fat left to trim in many people's household budgets to accommodate the government helping themselves to more.
I'm curious if that is true. Although I myself would agree, I don't reckno most taxpayers do. Unless by taxpayer you mean people that are net positive tax payers, i.e., contribute more than they take out.
The man, worth an estimated +$270b
On paper.
We could probably eliminate all personal income tax in Australia if our Lab-Lib governments had properly managed access to the country's natural mineral, oil and gas wealth over the decades.
In the absence of major reforms in that area, the tax free threshold should be increased to match some basic cost of living (perhaps the first quartile cost of living for each state and territory, optionally differentiate between capital cities and elsewhere). And both the supply side and demand side of cost of living pressures needs to be addressed (root causes, not just monetary and fiscal policy settings) until the structural housing deficit in this country becomes a structural housing surplus. It's very inefficient for an economy to have a majority of citizens spending more money on housing (repaying mortgages and paying rents) than anything else. No wonder Australia is stagnating; there isn't money left over to invest into productive enterprises and projects.
Bezos is advocating for this because it would mean all the poors, whose business Amazon relies upon, would have more disposable income to spend through his site. He is not suggesting it out of the goodness of his heart.
Bezos is advocating for this because it would mean all the poors, whose business Amazon relies upon, would have more disposable income to spend through his site. He is not suggesting it out of the goodness of his heart.
He could also give all his workers a paycut equivalent to the income tax %, and they wouldn't be losing any money.
Jeff can kick off the idea by offering free prime membership to bottom half of earners..
Moronic.
Generally listening to any billionaires idea about how to run government is a bad idea. "It's just 3% of all tax revenue, who cares?"
Amazon is literally the company that optimises to capture even 1% of profit… So it's hilarious him saying the 3% is irrelevant.
Yeah,Bezos is making amazon delivery drivers piss in to a bottle as they dont even have time to go to the toilet.
I dont think anybody should listen to Billionaires fantasies as gospel.
The only downside is that there would be a reduced incentive above whatever threshold is used ($100k in this example). E.g. if I drive a taxi and earn $110k now, why the hell would I work the extra hours for the $10k or whatever extra that earns the equivalent tax cost.
This reduces total revenue base, threshold has to reduce, and so on.
No there wouldn't, I assume it would work like the tax free threshold we have now, just at a higher level. So the extra 10k isn't taxed at 40%, it's taxed at the first tax bracket rate.
You can't pull money out of thin air; first bracket rate will have to increase or later ones will (or all), which reduces incentive.
They could try actually charging for our resources. They could also try not wasting so much money. Or try actually taxing big corporations.
We've just increased taxes in some areas, it makes sense (to anyone but politicians, and perhaps those reliant on tax handouts) that we can decrease it in other areas.
perhaps those reliant on tax handouts
A scary proportion of the population these days.
The article actually talks about the 'small %' of revenue from the bottom 50% of earners could easily be made up from other sources
I don't read News.com, but there would be incentive implications of any other source.
I don't read News.com, but there would be incentive implications of any other source.
odd comment
There is very little concrete evidence that this is actually the case. It only really exists in theoretical economics, amplified by media and corporations who have a particular agenda.
May as well just use UBI, the U.S. and Australia already have the systems in place to do this really.
We should never pay anything to able bodied people who don't want to work.
What if they're 67 years old or older?
I'll still be working at 67…
@trapper: So you don't work weekends? Pathetic. You just lay about the house do you on weekends? Sitting on your can eating bonbons.
@AustriaBargain: If I was asking for a government handout whilst refusing to 'work weekends' you would have a point.
But I'm not, and you don't.
@trapper: Did you take advantage of the 50% CGT concession? If so, then you most certainly did take a government handout.
@AustriaBargain: Paying less tax:
Getting a handout:
@tenpercent: Actually Hanson is the lifelong sponge. She has produced absolutely nothing useful in all her time in parliament.
She has produced absolutely nothing useful in all her time in parliament.
So far. She will prob be PM soon enough, so you will be pleased to get some value from her then. :)
@trapper: Yeah, nah. The Resolve polls had Dutton as PM for a fair bit of the time prior to the last election. ON are noisy but, ultimately, they fall apart and fight like cats in a sack.
Life on the dole is not fun.
Everyone should have some skin in the game, regardless of income level.
It doesn’t need to be a large amount, but having some contribution matters.
People are naturally less concerned about waste when something costs them nothing at all.
The bottom half have a higher marginal propensity to consume, so not taxing them results in more revenue to his business as effectively a retailer.
propensity to consume
How are you measuring that?
I'm not measuring it, I'm not an economist.
Using logic, if the bottom half had a higher propensity to save or invest they would become more wealthy and then move into the top half. But instead they have a higher propensity to consume which means they are in the bottom half.
There are certain things in life that are implied.
If you drive on the wrong side of the road, higher likelihood to have an accident.
If you do extreme sports, higher likelihood of injury.
If you have a higher propensity to spend than save, you'll remain lower in wealth accumulation.
Okay I see what your meaning is now. I disagree then.
I would have agreed if your meaning was more like: poorer people spend a greater proportion of their money on consumption as opposed to saving/investing because they don't have as much disposable income so a small spend is proportionally bigger.
@tenpercent: Fair enough, we are both discussing anecdotal things so agreement is unlikely. My example is anecdotal as is yours.
if the bottom half had a higher propensity to save or invest they would become more wealthy and then move into the top half.
If the bottom half move into the top half, this results in everybody being in the top half.
Who's in the bottom half?
You can guarantee there's an ulterior motive, greedy dogs like him aren't generous so they wouldn't suggest something so generous unless there was something in it for them
Tax the country's natural mineral, oil and gas wealth at rates similar to Norway. Most of us will live richer.
The US is different to Australia in that they have state (and even city/county) income taxes, which are deductible from federal income taxes, and a huge chunk of their tax revenue comes from payroll taxes (30% of all federal taxes are payroll taxes) which is charged to both employers and employees. As a result the bottom 50% mostly aren't paying much federal income tax but are still paying plenty of taxes.
The different structure means they can do something like this. It wouldn't work in Australia.
Wonder why he did not say companies pay more ?
And how much corporate tax does Amazon pay in Australia?
Approx. 2% of revenues.
And we are seeing a fair bit of the problem.
the problem
Is the problem that companies can claim almost all their expenses against income and then only pay tax on that?
Or is that natural persons can't do the same?
@tenpercent: We need taxes to provide services. Big companies have good accountants to cook the books.
I rest my case, your honour
How much of that revenue is profit?
How much of a worker's revenues are profit?
@Muppet Detector: The difference is a business can deduct all their operating costs for property, plant and equipment before tax.
Naked self interest. He is starting to realise regular people have no spare money to buy his stuff due to cost of living pressures and the rich never shop there.
He is not suggesting this from a place of altruism.
Naked self interest. He is starting to realise regular people have no spare money to buy his stuff due to cost of living pressures and the rich never shop there.
You think other businesses men, politicans or anyone else isnt acting in self interest?
You get what you tolerate. Taxes aren't going anywhere.
I agree with it in principle but doesn't this just bring to light the real issue:
"Billionaire says, the bottom 50% of people aren't paid a meaningful amount"
It will fall on middle income earners to pay more.
frak yeah, i think anyone over $150000 and up over the millions and billions should be taxed higher, they wont feel it or care they make enough. my g0d how that would help us all out, im just a bit under it and its tough on my own but if it was zero man would that make a huge diff!
Why not? Let Bezos and his Billionaire mates make up the short fall. I’m sure he is willing to cover the bill.
nice joke
His proposal, he can pony up at least some of the money. It is only a joke when you consider how much tax these blokes avoid.
How much do they avoid, and why is the Australian government failing to go after them?
Tax avoidance is illegal, and it is the government's responsibility to resolve. No ifs, no buts.
@CaptainJack: Yeah, nah. It all gets caught up in international trade and who has the best lawyers.
@try2bhelpful: Translation: I just made that up and have no clue how much tax they 'avoid', if any.
Jeff Bezos
News.com.au
Reposted by Checkkmate3023
Just bad actors all over