Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
THE GREAT HOUSING FIASCO (Read 1050 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.
Re: THE GREAT HOUSING FIASCO
Reply #15 - Jul 10th, 2022 at 3:42pm
 
Quote:
This can be as low as a fraction of cent  per dollar on each transaction.


How much revenue would that raise, compared to current taxes?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Bias_2012
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 10725
Gender: male
Re: THE GREAT HOUSING FIASCO
Reply #16 - Jul 10th, 2022 at 3:44pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 3:30pm:
I'm pretty sure the land and sales taxes would keep the prices down.

Quote:
That's why schools are few and far between and many miles away for parents to drops kids off


No, schools are far between because the students are far between. You will find there are far more schools per student in rural areas. You cannot expect to have the same services as the city without putting up with all the people.


Schooling is compulsory, the onus is on the government to provide public transport in the bush to travel long distances that are at present costing parents dollars using their own vehicles on third rate roads

There is also not enough polling booths, for me to vote, I need to travel to the next village for State, and to a far away town for Fed election, the nearest PO mail box is there too

Back to top
 

Our Lives Are Governed By The Feast & Famine Variable
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.
Re: THE GREAT HOUSING FIASCO
Reply #17 - Jul 10th, 2022 at 3:46pm
 
Quote:
the onus is on the government


So if you move to a remote Island, the government is obliged to fly your kids back and forth to school every day? Or at least, a ride on a large boat?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sophia
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 8280
Re: THE GREAT HOUSING FIASCO
Reply #18 - Jul 10th, 2022 at 3:52pm
 
Bias_2012 wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 3:44pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 3:30pm:
I'm pretty sure the land and sales taxes would keep the prices down.

Quote:
That's why schools are few and far between and many miles away for parents to drops kids off


No, schools are far between because the students are far between. You will find there are far more schools per student in rural areas. You cannot expect to have the same services as the city without putting up with all the people.


Schooling is compulsory, the onus is on the government to provide public transport in the bush to travel long distances that are at present costing parents dollars using their own vehicles on third rate roads

There is also not enough polling booths, for me to vote, I need to travel to the next village for State, and to a far away town for Fed election, the nearest PO mail box is there too



Sounds ideal… living far away from the madding crowds!

Getting back to what John write earlier… re: tax paying for government services…. I’m trying to recall which decade … 80s or 90s ? Where the government actually cutback on a lot of services… to pay the escalating debt… if I remember there were schools being closed down and sold off… I remember something about crowded class rooms…
Child health services that were closed and hence mums with new bubs travelled further for baby checks.
So in a way we put up with closures of many types of services to minimise debt…. Now I’m thinking… here we are decades later and it was all to no avail… we on more debt than ever.
I’m still unimpressed  Angry
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 74217
Gender: male
Re: THE GREAT HOUSING FIASCO
Reply #19 - Jul 10th, 2022 at 4:06pm
 
Linus wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 3:36pm:
Without going into any length, and not to derail the current discussion, I'd prefer that the whole taxation system gets scuttled and rolled over into an automated payment transactions tax.

That is, all current taxes at all levels of government get nixed and rolled over into this one transactions tax. And all tiers of government would be funded by it. Such tax would be automatically and anonymously deducted and  transferred to government coffers in real-time as you make an electronic transaction-receiving or spending. This can be as low as a fraction of cent  per dollar on each transaction. Over 90% of income and expenditure is electronic these days. And with a few tweaks, it would be 100% or very close to it.

This tax would be unobtrusive, broad-based,would free up a vast amount of resources tied up in administration and compliance, would stop governments using taxation as a political football, and frankly make everyone's life a lot easier.




sounds good to me. I've suggested something along those lines in the past


Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
Linus
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 471
Gender: male
Re: THE GREAT HOUSING FIASCO
Reply #20 - Jul 10th, 2022 at 4:39pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 3:42pm:
Quote:
This can be as low as a fraction of cent  per dollar on each transaction.


How much revenue would that raise, compared to current taxes?


From what I've read on it, it could easily be revenue neutral. Government will get what it needs to carry out its necessary functions. They'll be able to tweak the rate accordingly.

The APPT is an American idea and the actual rate will vary. But for the economist that proposed it  for the US, he determined that it could be as little as 0.3% on the dollar.

Here in Australia it could be as little as 0.5% on the dollar from one article I read some time ago. After each side of the transaction is taxed( the spending and receiving side), you're looking at 1c in the dollar going to government.

It's  low because the value of total transactions in the economy is huge.

I think the benefits of this solution far outweigh those of the current clunky, eclectic, burdensome, resource sucking, politicised system we have now.

Of course , it will probably dispense with  the need for heaps of public servants, accountants and lawyers involved in the current system. They can move into more useful areas. And it will stop politicians playing games with tax.

It might, therefore,have little prospect of seeing the light of day unless there's a popular outcry for it.  SadGrin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 83710
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: THE GREAT HOUSING FIASCO
Reply #21 - Jul 10th, 2022 at 5:33pm
 
"When governments do as they please, just follow their noses and spend their easy money from taxpayers in failure policies, shouldn't we take stock of their efficacy?

Are modern governments an anachronism? Are they a modern aristocratic class exacting money from their surfs and squandering it hither an thither? Does their constant interference and overreach cause more harms than goods?"


Yes to all of the above.......
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.
Re: THE GREAT HOUSING FIASCO
Reply #22 - Jul 10th, 2022 at 6:25pm
 
Linus wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 4:39pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 3:42pm:
Quote:
This can be as low as a fraction of cent  per dollar on each transaction.


How much revenue would that raise, compared to current taxes?


From what I've read on it, it could easily be revenue neutral.


Did you think about what you read?

Currently, you get paid. Depending on what you earn, you might pay 30% tax. Plus 10% into super. Plus medicare levy. When you spend the money, you pay about 10% GST. Plus other taxes and levies, depending on what you buy.

If all of this gets replaced by a tax of a 'fraction of' 1%, where is the rest going to come from?

Currently, the government collects 29% of GDP as tax.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Linus
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 471
Gender: male
Re: THE GREAT HOUSING FIASCO
Reply #23 - Jul 10th, 2022 at 7:31pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 6:25pm:
Linus wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 4:39pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 3:42pm:
Quote:
This can be as low as a fraction of cent  per dollar on each transaction.


How much revenue would that raise, compared to current taxes?


From what I've read on it, it could easily be revenue neutral.


Did you think about what you read?

Currently, you get paid. Depending on what you earn, you might pay 30% tax. Plus 10% into super. Plus medicare levy. When you spend the money, you pay about 10% GST. Plus other taxes and levies, depending on what you buy.

If all of this gets replaced by a tax of a 'fraction of' 1%, where is the rest going to come from?

Currently, the government collects 29% of GDP as tax.


You're possibly missing that the same 29% would be collected over a trillion or more transactions. Every TRANSACTION of every person would be contributing every time their accounts are debited or credited. It will be maximally broad-based. Everyone who spends and receives a dollar will pay.

As the old Chinese proverb goes, many hands make like work.

Again, the benefits of an automatically collected single tax rate  on every transaction  in the economy is a hell of a lot better in my view than the eclectic, politicised, resource sucking system we have now.

Just look at the taxes you mentioned. Look at the wasted time and effort involved in administration and compliance activites-public and private, which could be spent productively elsewhere. Look at the ever growing encyclopedic tax laws and  regulations with virtually every kind of tax . Veritable minefields-CGT, FBT, GST, Payroll tax, Land tax etc, etc- not to mention the unnecessary intrusion into everyone's personal lives by big brother. All that could be dispensed with.




I







 
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 10th, 2022 at 7:37pm by Linus »  
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 74217
Gender: male
Re: THE GREAT HOUSING FIASCO
Reply #24 - Jul 10th, 2022 at 7:39pm
 
Linus wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 7:31pm:
Everyone who spends and receives a dollar will pay.


as will anyone who sends money to offshore accounts, or brings money back in from their offshore accounts.
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
Linus
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 471
Gender: male
Re: THE GREAT HOUSING FIASCO
Reply #25 - Jul 10th, 2022 at 7:43pm
 
John Smith wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 7:39pm:
Linus wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 7:31pm:
Everyone who spends and receives a dollar will pay.


as will anyone who sends money to offshore accounts, or brings money back in from their offshore accounts.


For sure. It will all be captured. And no one has to worry or fight over who pays or doesn't pay tax. Every dollar in motion will be contributing.

Also, such a tax would be skewed toward the rich as they embrace a disproportionate amount of an economy's transactions.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 10th, 2022 at 8:14pm by Linus »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.
Re: THE GREAT HOUSING FIASCO
Reply #26 - Jul 10th, 2022 at 8:32pm
 
Linus wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 7:31pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 6:25pm:
Linus wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 4:39pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 3:42pm:
Quote:
This can be as low as a fraction of cent  per dollar on each transaction.


How much revenue would that raise, compared to current taxes?


From what I've read on it, it could easily be revenue neutral.


Did you think about what you read?

Currently, you get paid. Depending on what you earn, you might pay 30% tax. Plus 10% into super. Plus medicare levy. When you spend the money, you pay about 10% GST. Plus other taxes and levies, depending on what you buy.

If all of this gets replaced by a tax of a 'fraction of' 1%, where is the rest going to come from?

Currently, the government collects 29% of GDP as tax.


You're possibly missing that the same 29% would be collected over a trillion or more transactions. Every TRANSACTION of every person would be contributing every time their accounts are debited or credited. It will be maximally broad-based. Everyone who spends and receives a dollar will pay.

As the old Chinese proverb goes, many hands make like work.

Again, the benefits of an automatically collected single tax rate  on every transaction  in the economy is a hell of a lot better in my view than the eclectic, politicised, resource sucking system we have now.

Just look at the taxes you mentioned. Look at the wasted time and effort involved in administration and compliance activites-public and private, which could be spent productively elsewhere. Look at the ever growing encyclopedic tax laws and  regulations with virtually every kind of tax . Veritable minefields-CGT, FBT, GST, Payroll tax, Land tax etc, etc- not to mention the unnecessary intrusion into everyone's personal lives by big brother. All that could be dispensed with.


If this tax came in, the first thing I would do is get the bank to combine all my accounts into one. Home loan, credit card, online transactions, ATM withdrawals etc. No more shifting large amounts of money between different accounts. So, where are all the extra transactions? I would get paid the same amount - tax down from over 30% to a fraction of 1%. I would buy the same things - tax down from over 10% to a fraction of 1%.

You are the only one saying it could be revenue neutral at that rate. And all you have said is that you "read it somewhere". Yet you have latched onto it like a religion. You are full of crap. No wonder John has taken an instant liking to you.

Quote:
Every TRANSACTION of every person would be contributing every time


It already is, when they get paid, and when they buy anything.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Linus
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 471
Gender: male
Re: THE GREAT HOUSING FIASCO
Reply #27 - Jul 10th, 2022 at 10:31pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 8:32pm:
Linus wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 7:31pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 6:25pm:
Linus wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 4:39pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 3:42pm:
Quote:
This can be as low as a fraction of cent  per dollar on each transaction.


How much revenue would that raise, compared to current taxes?


From what I've read on it, it could easily be revenue neutral.


Did you think about what you read?

Currently, you get paid. Depending on what you earn, you might pay 30% tax. Plus 10% into super. Plus medicare levy. When you spend the money, you pay about 10% GST. Plus other taxes and levies, depending on what you buy.

If all of this gets replaced by a tax of a 'fraction of' 1%, where is the rest going to come from?

Currently, the government collects 29% of GDP as tax.


You're possibly missing that the same 29% would be collected over a trillion or more transactions. Every TRANSACTION of every person would be contributing every time their accounts are debited or credited. It will be maximally broad-based. Everyone who spends and receives a dollar will pay.

As the old Chinese proverb goes, many hands make like work.

Again, the benefits of an automatically collected single tax rate  on every transaction  in the economy is a hell of a lot better in my view than the eclectic, politicised, resource sucking system we have now.

Just look at the taxes you mentioned. Look at the wasted time and effort involved in administration and compliance activites-public and private, which could be spent productively elsewhere. Look at the ever growing encyclopedic tax laws and  regulations with virtually every kind of tax . Veritable minefields-CGT, FBT, GST, Payroll tax, Land tax etc, etc- not to mention the unnecessary intrusion into everyone's personal lives by big brother. All that could be dispensed with.


If this tax came in, the first thing I would do is get the bank to combine all my accounts into one. Home loan, credit card, online transactions, ATM withdrawals etc. No more shifting large amounts of money between different accounts. So, where are all the extra transactions? I would get paid the same amount - tax down from over 30% to a fraction of 1%. I would buy the same things - tax down from over 10% to a fraction of 1%.

You are the only one saying it could be revenue neutral at that rate. And all you have said is that you "read it somewhere". Yet you have latched onto it like a religion. You are full of crap. No wonder John has taken an instant liking to you.

Quote:
Every TRANSACTION of every person would be contributing every time


It already is, when they get paid, and when they buy anything.


The rate was given by way of making the concept concrete. I did say that it would have to be determined by government. The rate could go up or down depending on circumstances.

The main point is that what will be taxed is the total value of the transactions base in the economy, which is several times that of the current tax threshold determined base. That's why a minuscule amount can be collected on every dollar.

Even with actions like yours, the transactions base would be so large that only minor tweaks to the rate would probably be needed. You'd probably find, eventually, that trying to live an ascetic style to beat such a small amount on your dollar would not be worthwhile.

The economist who developed this alternative tax proposal for the US, calculated that even if the amount in the transaction base halved, the government could just double 0.3% to 0.6% i.e from 3/10 of a cent in every dollar to 6/10 of cent in every dollar (on each side of the transaction). I very much doubt actions like yours would cause the total value of transactions to fall by as much as 50%-even if they did, the rate would be adjusted.

I would restate the benefits of the automated transaction payments tax:

- one tax to cover all taxes from all tiers of government.

- no transaction escapes tax.

- a minuscule amount of tax is paid on each dollar.

- no red tape for tax collection, no tax returns required.

- a freeing up of human endevour from taxation.

- skewed to the rich as they embrace a disproportionate amount of total transactions in the economy

- it is collected automatically in real-time. People don't have to worry about it and everyone knows that every dollar is being taxed.


The economist who came up with it is Dr Edgar L. Feige.


If you want to see his proposal, look here:

https://www.slideshare.net/kadiam/the-automated-payment-transaction-tax
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.
Re: THE GREAT HOUSING FIASCO
Reply #28 - Jul 11th, 2022 at 6:42am
 
That link is broken.

Can you only find one person claiming such a low tax rate would be revenue neutral?

I would suggest to you that in order to raise enough revenue, the tax would have to be high enough to motivate people to find ways of avoiding it. Even at sub 1% I gave you examples of how I would easily avoid it on many transactions I currently make.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 74217
Gender: male
Re: THE GREAT HOUSING FIASCO
Reply #29 - Jul 11th, 2022 at 9:29am
 
freediver wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 8:32pm:
I would buy the same things


most people would have more discretionary income so they'd spend more

freediver wrote on Jul 10th, 2022 at 8:32pm:
If this tax came in, the first thing I would do is get the bank to combine all my accounts into one. Home loan, credit card, online transactions, ATM withdrawals etc


most people already minimise the number of accounts they have. Why pay extra bank fee's when you don't need it.
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print