Australian Politics Forum - Show us the alternatives says Morrison

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #75 - Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:50am

stunspore wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 6:39pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 6:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 3:49am:

stunspore wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 2:19am:

Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not.
Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie".

You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger". After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off? No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that.

Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.

Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair. Businesses benefit from:
- educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not)
- better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers
- security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force)
- better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives)

Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake. Every entity benefits from these. They all should pay. You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough.

As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.

Well said. And it is fair to have those who can to pay more. We should base tax on share wealth not share of oxygen breathing.

And you dont think we have that already with a tax system spectacularly weighted against high-income earners? A person on $160K doesnt pay 4 times the tax of someone on $40K. He pays 20 times as much. And if you take welfare into account, the margin can rise as high as 100+ times.

A person on 160k can afford to apply tax deductions that a 40k wouldn't have. And in any case, does this result in a person on 40k with enough for basic cost of living?

I won't argue is the appropriateness of progressive taxation. There is a whole series of fors and against on many a website.
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Progressive_tax_vs._flat_tax as an example.

It would be up to each individual to weigh the merits of each argument/reason based on their values. Having dealth with this topic before, it seems pointless to rehash the same arguments and expect people to change sides. The best I can do is to ensure people have a relook at the debate and reconsider their values.

To me it isn't the 160k paying more based on percentage fairness argument. Though not religious but there is a parable from Jesus that said that a poor woman who donated 1 coin from a purse that became empty did more than a rich man who donated a many a coins - because the woman paid more based on percentage of wealth.

To me it is about does a person on 40k able to have access to quality education, water, electricity, food and shelter, and social mobility without severe disadvantage? If that isn't possible then that's a problem that can be solved through money/taxation.

Rubbish. What tax deductions do you think exist for PAYG earners? there are very, very few and they apply to EVERYONE

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #76 - Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:52am

stunspore wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 6:39pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 6:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 3:49am:

stunspore wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 2:19am:

Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not.
Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie".

You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger". After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off? No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that.

Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.

Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair. Businesses benefit from:
- educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not)
- better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers
- security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force)
- better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives)

Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake. Every entity benefits from these. They all should pay. You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough.

As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.

Well said. And it is fair to have those who can to pay more. We should base tax on share wealth not share of oxygen breathing.

And you dont think we have that already with a tax system spectacularly weighted against high-income earners? A person on $160K doesnt pay 4 times the tax of someone on $40K. He pays 20 times as much. And if you take welfare into account, the margin can rise as high as 100+ times.

A person on 160k can afford to apply tax deductions that a 40k wouldn't have. And in any case, does this result in a person on 40k with enough for basic cost of living?

I won't argue is the appropriateness of progressive taxation. There is a whole series of fors and against on many a website.
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Progressive_tax_vs._flat_tax as an example.

It would be up to each individual to weigh the merits of each argument/reason based on their values. Having dealth with this topic before, it seems pointless to rehash the same arguments and expect people to change sides. The best I can do is to ensure people have a relook at the debate and reconsider their values.

To me it isn't the 160k paying more based on percentage fairness argument. Though not religious but there is a parable from Jesus that said that a poor woman who donated 1 coin from a purse that became empty did more than a rich man who donated a many a coins - because the woman paid more based on percentage of wealth.

To me it is about does a person on 40k able to have access to quality education, water, electricity, food and shelter, and social mobility without severe disadvantage? If that isn't possible then that's a problem that can be solved through money/taxation.

You are missing the point. If the $160K person is already paying 20 times the tax of the $40K person then you simply cannot say the $160K person is not carrying a significantly larger share of the load.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #77 - Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:53am

Dnarever wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 6:56pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 6:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 3:49am:

stunspore wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 2:19am:

Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not.
Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie".

You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger". After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off? No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that.

Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.

Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair. Businesses benefit from:
- educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not)
- better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers
- security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force)
- better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives)

Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake. Every entity benefits from these. They all should pay. You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough.

As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.

Well said. And it is fair to have those who can to pay more. We should base tax on share wealth not share of oxygen breathing.

And you dont think we have that already with a tax system spectacularly weighted against high-income earners? A person on $160K doesnt pay 4 times the tax of someone on $40K. He pays 20 times as much. And if you take welfare into account, the margin can rise as high as 100+ times.

Quote:

0 – $18,200

Nil

$18,201 – $37,000

19c for each $1 over $18,200

$37,001 – $80,000

$3,572 plus 32.5c for each $1 over $37,000

$80,001 – $180,000

$17,547 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000

$180,001 and over

$54,547 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

He pays 20 times as much.

Its a bit under 10 X.

'only' ten times? You think this changes the tenor of the argument in any way? And all you have to do is add just a little bit of the welfare than the lower paid receives into the figures and suddenly it becomes more like 50 times or 100 times or possibly undefined because the lower paid pays ZERO net tax.

Back to top

IP Logged

Phemanderac Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3507 Gender:	Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison Reply #78 - Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:55am I guess those poor people paying the most tax could elect to earn less money...
Back to top	On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day... "They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean.. IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 47794 Gender:	Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison Reply #79 - Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:02am The other issue is, the higher you go up the income ladder the declared income becomes a smaller and smaller part of the total income. In the extreme case we had 70 millionaires paying zero tax.
Back to top	Get the vaxx! 💉💉 If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings. IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #80 - Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:05am

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 8:48pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 8:15pm:

THE POLITICS OF ENVY. The only politics you are now capable of. You will never be successful while envy is the only thing you bring to the table.

Perhaps you could be so kind as to explain to us fully exactly how this 'politics of envy' works, and exactly what it means.... the phrase is bandied about like a chorus of parrots trained by Maggie Thatcher - yet nobody ever explains how it is 'envy' to expect those getting more out of society to pay more proportionately... I mean ... it's not like they're being asked to fork over every cent they get over a certain amount or whatever - only a percentage.....

I will credit you with the belief that this was a genuine question. When you say 'proportionately' in the question of paying tax, do you mean that everyone should pay tax 'proportionate' to their income? Well please, BRING IT ON! Imagine the person on $100K paying twice the tax of someone on $50K! That would mean a tax CUT of about 80%!!

You description of 'those getting more out of society' is curious since it is in fact the other way around. Those who BUILD society are often those with the higher wages. Those roads, bridges and buildings are not designed by school dropouts, but by highly educated and paid engineers. Those highly paid business owners you seem to despise are the ones employing hundreds of people - not the protesting marchers of Occupy. Those highly paid doctors who put 10 years of tertiary education into their professions... are they the ones you think are bad people?

The ENVY I refer to is the people who complain long and hard about those with good incomes, but who have never done any of the hard yards involved in getting there. No university education and post-grad studies. No risk-taking in a business and going without for years to acheive. In fact the single missing ingredient is 'going without'. If you want wealth and reward then you are going to have to take risks and go without for a period while you build it. Small business owners understand it but the envious never will.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #81 - Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:07am

Phemanderac wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:55am:

I guess those poor people paying the most tax could elect to earn less money...

The point you seem to miss is that 'they' are not complaining. That is the job of the envious and idle. 'They' are too busy working, studying, expanding business and doing all those other things that contribute to wealth and success.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #82 - Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:11am

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:02am:

The other issue is, the higher you go up the income ladder the declared income becomes a smaller and smaller part of the total income. In the extreme case we had 70 millionaires paying zero tax.

You dont know much about tax or accounting do you? Ever wonder why none of them were prosecuted?

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 47794
Gender: male

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #83 - Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:36am

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:11am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:02am:

The other issue is, the higher you go up the income ladder the declared income becomes a smaller and smaller part of the total income. In the extreme case we had 70 millionaires paying zero tax.

You dont know much about tax or accounting do you? Ever wonder why none of them were prosecuted?

What does that have to do with the price of eggs? Did I say it was illegal? Nope. So you are talking crap again!

Back to top

Get the vaxx! 💉💉

If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings.

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 75097 Gender:	Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison Reply #84 - Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:38am mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:11am: Ever wonder why none of them were prosecuted? ahhh derrrr. I think that was kinda the point he was making
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 75097 Gender:	Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison Reply #85 - Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:40am mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:50am: Rubbish. What tax deductions do you think exist for PAYG earners? there are very, very few and they apply to EVERYONE how many of those on $160k are just PAYG earners? hey almost all buy shares, property etc to reduce their tax bills.
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 47794 Gender:	Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison Reply #86 - Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:41am Easier to answer a point I wasn’t making than tackling the real question. Of such are the days of Longy’s life.
Back to top	Get the vaxx! 💉💉 If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings. IP Logged

stunspore

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5097
Gender: male

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #87 - Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:33am

This particular thread is pretty pointless overall. Yes, people like Maria/longy/swag might say it isn't fair that those with a lot more to give, give more based on equal % (regressive) rather than progressive.

I already pointed out links such as: http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Progressive_tax_vs._flat_tax. Any actual new arguments be nice rather than "it isn't fair etc etc".

No need to denigrate, etc. The other side simply believes that it's all lifestyle choices. Being working poor with little social mobility due to poor government policies is not a choice.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59186
Here
Gender: male

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #88 - Dec 19^th, 2015 at 8:58pm

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:50am:

stunspore wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 6:39pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 6:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 3:49am:

stunspore wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 2:19am:

Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not.
Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie".

You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger". After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off? No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that.

Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.

Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair. Businesses benefit from:
- educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not)
- better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers
- security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force)
- better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives)

Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake. Every entity benefits from these. They all should pay. You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough.

As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.

Well said. And it is fair to have those who can to pay more. We should base tax on share wealth not share of oxygen breathing.

And you dont think we have that already with a tax system spectacularly weighted against high-income earners? A person on $160K doesnt pay 4 times the tax of someone on $40K. He pays 20 times as much. And if you take welfare into account, the margin can rise as high as 100+ times.

A person on 160k can afford to apply tax deductions that a 40k wouldn't have. And in any case, does this result in a person on 40k with enough for basic cost of living?

I won't argue is the appropriateness of progressive taxation. There is a whole series of fors and against on many a website.
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Progressive_tax_vs._flat_tax as an example.

It would be up to each individual to weigh the merits of each argument/reason based on their values. Having dealth with this topic before, it seems pointless to rehash the same arguments and expect people to change sides. The best I can do is to ensure people have a relook at the debate and reconsider their values.

To me it isn't the 160k paying more based on percentage fairness argument. Though not religious but there is a parable from Jesus that said that a poor woman who donated 1 coin from a purse that became empty did more than a rich man who donated a many a coins - because the woman paid more based on percentage of wealth.

To me it is about does a person on 40k able to have access to quality education, water, electricity, food and shelter, and social mobility without severe disadvantage? If that isn't possible then that's a problem that can be solved through money/taxation.

Rubbish. What tax deductions do you think exist for PAYG earners? there are very, very few and they apply to EVERYONE

High earners have the option to use some of them.

A high earner can divert pre tax Dollars into superannuation. They can also invest and save money both tax free and non GST. People earning $40K can do none of this type of thing. They pay all their tax and are their entire wage is subject to GST when spent. There is no salary sacrifice and no investments or negative gearing etc. Work related expenses are much more basic if at all.

The guy on $160K has a tax consultant (deductable expense in itself) who will be advising on tax minimisation.

The guy on $40K is probably doing his tax online with no real deductions.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #89 - Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:41am

Phemanderac wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:55am:

I guess those poor people paying the most tax could elect to earn less money...

THEY are not complaining about paying 20 times the tax. That would be you and your fellow travellers who then want to say they arent paying enough - only twenty times as much as they are.

Back to top

IP Logged