Preface: this thread has been prompted by a heated tangent on another thread (see http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1279677842/120) - and I wasn't sure whether it would be more apt to post it in General or Politicians Suck. For the sake of broadening the debate here, I shall post something similar to my initiating post on that other thread.


I, for one, am concerned about the increasingly-regressive nature of our taxation system on individuals and families - and the associated opportunity costs to the nation as a whole.

So, as a matter of interest, I suggest that people utilise the following tables to calculate the comparative WEATH-fare BENEFITS to middle-high income Aussies over the past decade (and quarter century)...

I suggest that people first calculate relative tax payable (for FY86, FY01, and FY10/11) on, say: -

* Diferent $25K income increments up to $150K, then jump by $50K to $250K, and then calculate the tax on $500K and $1M

* Or use the latest FY10 or FY11 thresholds for a more direct comparison

Then: -

Take a look at the current annual Newstart and Aged Pension rates...

IM(not-so)HO, the results will surprise most and alarm some - not least because the Libs are carrying on so much about the post-2007 Federal debt and deficit, despite being the proud architects of the biggest budget black holes in Australian history...


http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/


Quote:

Residents 1985–86 Taxable income/Tax on this income $0–$4,594 = Nil $4,595–$12,499 = 25 cents for each $1 over $4,595 $12,500–$19,499 = $1,976.26 + 30 cents for each $1 over $12,500 $19,500–$27,999 = $4,076.25 + 46 cents for each $1 over $19,500 $28,000–$34,999 = $7,986.25 + 48 cents for each $1 over $28,000 $35,000 and over = $11,346.25 + 60 cents for each $1 over $35,000 2000-01 Taxable income /Tax on this income $1 - $6,000 = Nil $6,001 - $20,000 = 17 cents for each $1 over $6,000 $20,001 - $50,000 = $2,380 + 30 cents for each $1 over $20,000 $50,001 - $60,000 = $11,380 + 42 cents for each $1 over $50,000 $60,001 and over = $15,580 + 47 cents for each $1 over $60,000 2009–10 Taxable income/Tax on this income 0 – $6,000 = Nil $6,001 – $35,000 = 15c for each $1 over $6,000 $35,001 – $80,000 = $4,350 plus 30c for each $1 over $35,000 $80,001 – $180,000 = $17,850 plus 38c for each $1 over $80,000 $180,001 and over = $55,850 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000 2010–11 Taxable income/Tax on this income 0 – $6,000 = Nil $6,001 – $37,000 = 15c for each $1 over $6,000 $37,001 – $80,000 = $4,650 plus 30c for each $1 over $37,000 $80,001 – $180,000 = $17,550 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000 $180,001 and over = $54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000 The above rates do not include the Medicare levy...(read Medicare levy reduction or exemption for more information). Tax offsets reduce the tax payable. Tax offsets based on taxable income levels apply to a range of circumstances. For more information read About tax offsets.

Of course, income tax breaks have been but one of many regressive taxation and WEALTHfare measures - and many middle-high income individuals now have an effective marginal tax rate of only 15%, thanks to the effectively-exclusive Superannuation Tax Concessions scam.

The past decade has been really good for some Aussies - and not others, eh!?

On that other thread, I suggested that we should restore a semblance of progressivity, by reintroducing one or more high-end thresholds - either 60% at, say, $250K or maybe 50% at $250K and 60% at $500K (and, given that the lower thresholds are remarkably close together, why not have additional threshold/s at, say, $750K, $1M, etc.!?).

Of course, taxation is but one of many socio-economic engineering tools but I think that it is time to address both the growing income and wealth inequity and other opportunity costs - especially in terms the Federal Govt's crucial roles in providing equitable access to affordable essential services and infrastructure and ensuring long-term socio-economic stability and environmental sustainability.

Discuss.

One thing that I didn't mention was the relevance of curbing regressive taxation and inter-related WEALTHfare waste in order to prepare for the grave issues raised in the dreaded Intergenerational Report.

Personally, I reckon that the Howardian Era set some very bad precedents, in terms of pretending that some of its WEALTHfare, tax and pensions and other policies were designed to responsibly address those and other increasingly-daunting long-term socio-economic issues...

ParkesACT 2600

20’th Nov.2008
Submission for the tax Review

In the last four decades all the tax-changes have been for the benefit of the top 20% of the population.
e.g.
1)Death Duty abolished in the 1970’s
2)Estate Duty abolished 1979
3)Gift Duty abolished  1979
4) Probate abolished in the 1970-1980’s in all states
5)Huge tax concessions for super.
6) Last but not least, now tax-free super for the over sixties, if paid from a taxed super fund.
7)Tax rates have progressively been reduced
8)Dividend imputation introduced. When the company pays 30% tax and the shareholders receive the imputation credit, it is almost a zero numbers game, eg: company pays tax and the Government returns most, if not all back, to the shareholders.
How many countries have Dividend imputation?
The UK has recently abolished it.

The changes to the tax rules for super-pensions from taxed super for the over sixties must be really the icing on the cake.
Much of accumulated super assets have been accumulated with generous tax concessions, and at times no tax was paid in the accumulating stages; due to dividend imputations, negative gearing, etc.
Is there any country which has such generous provisions for the very rich?
As almost 78% of the people over the pension age receive some part of Centrelink pension, this people pay the highest tax rate, namely 40% in loss of Centrelink pension, plus marginal tax rate, if income is above the tax threshold.

The loss of Centrelink pension has increased from $0.40 in the dollar to $0.50 since this submission was made; e.g. the part-pensioners will pay for the recent increase of the age pension.

What should be the first priority in changing the tax system:
1)       Abolish all tax concessions for super and abolish the compulsory super contributions, increase the wages by the amount of the compulsory super, because the super was only granted to the workers to forfeit any wage increase at the time of introduction.
2)      Abolish all the means-testing of the age pension, but retain the tax offsets for seniors. The reason for the tax offsets is, that the aged are not able do certain tasks which a person of younger age can do and have to pay for that. The means test of the age pension is the meanest in the whole developed world. The Government just uses it to keep the pensioners just above the poverty, with no chance of the pensioners improving their conditions.
The compulsory super and all the tax concessions for super is turning Australia from a Democracy into a Plutocracy.

||In the last four decades all the tax-changes have been for the benefit of the top 20% of the population.
e.g.
1)Death Duty abolished in the 1970’s  

EVERYONE DIES - not just 20%

2)Estate Duty abolished 1979

ALMOST EVERYONE leaves an estate - not just 20%

3)Gift Duty abolished  1979

DO YOU REALLY WANT THAT INSANE TAX BACK?

4) Probate abolished in the 1970-1980’s in all states

BRING BACK DEATH TAXES!!! YAY!  are you serious?

5)Huge tax concessions for super.

BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE GOVT BE THE SOLE PROCIDER FOR RETIRMENT and ensure that the budget is unable to cope with that drain. or you could be clever and promote retirment savings with incentives! guess which one we chose?

6) Last but not least, now tax-free super for the over sixties, if paid from a taxed super fund.

DONT FORGET TO BE A REAL SCUMBAG and make it harder for our retirees or near retirees.

7)Tax rates have progressively been reduced

HOW sad! we have to pay less tax! I personally am devastated that my tax has been reduced at the same time as australia has gotten richer. TAX ME HARDER!!!

8)Dividend imputation introduced. When the company pays 30% tax and the shareholders receive the imputation credit, it is almost a zero numbers game, eg: company pays tax and the Government returns most, if not all back, to the shareholders.
How many countries have Dividend imputation?
The UK has recently abolished it.

DIVIDEND IMPUTATION is an extremely equitable tax regime as it ensures that earnings are taxed ONCE. surely that is not only fair but mandatory. so your alternative is that the company pays 30% on the profit and then the receipient pays tax on it again??? why not just confiscate profit altogether and then we can stand araound and sing marxist songs in the Workers Paradise?

||

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 5:25pm:

One thing that I didn't mention was the relevance of curbing regressive taxation and inter-related WEALTHfare waste in order to prepare for the grave issues raised in the dreaded Intergenerational Report. Personally, I reckon that the Howardian Era set some very bad precedents, in terms of pretending that some of its WEALTHfare, tax and pensions and other policies were designed to responsibly address those and other increasingly-daunting long-term socio-economic issues...

and those bad precedents woudl be...

1) lower taxes
2) higher welfare
3) no debt
4) deficit
5) increased savings for retirement

and your problem with these is what? since we can manifestly afford them what is your problem - other than an ideological attachment to high taxes and punishment for high earners?

|\8)Dividend imputation introduced. When the company pays 30% tax and the shareholders receive the imputation credit, it is almost a zero numbers game, eg: company pays tax and the Government returns most, if not all back, to the shareholders.||

not even close to being true. the tax already paid to generate this dividend is a credit to the taxpayer who then has to pay tax on the entire pre-tax earnings. if you are in the 30% bracket then nothing changes but if you are in the 45% bracket you pay an additional 15%. it is exceptionally fair an equitable and treats it like any other non wage income you have and taxes it. the only difference is that it has already been taxed once and that is taken into consideration.

Quote:

I, for one, am concerned about the increasingly-regressive nature of our taxation system on individuals and families

Are you sure it is actually getting more regressive? Goods taxes are not new. Historically there have been a lot of them. Also, government spending is trending more 'progressive'. You cannot look at income tax alone. You have to look at the whole package. Your table also brushes over inflation. It would be more meanigful to quote the % of people in each bracket.

it still makes the unsubstantiated claim that the old tax scales were intrinsically superior to the current ones. given that the old ones existed when australia had a highly regulated moribund economy and the new ones exist when we have literally the worlds best economy, I woudl hesitate to suggest that the new scales are wrong. given how good our economy is in regards to the rest of the world we would be stupid to make major changes without good reason.

BUT THE BIGGIE IS STILL THIS: if we can afford  the current scales - and we can - why would we increase income taxes at all? why reduce peoples standard of living just for the hell of it?

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 6:07pm:

Quote: I, for one, am concerned about the increasingly-regressive nature of our taxation system on individuals and families Are you sure it is actually getting more regressive? Goods taxes are not new. Historically there have been a lot of them. Also, government spending is trending more 'progressive'. You cannot look at income tax alone. You have to look at the whole package. Your table also brushes over inflation. It would be more meanigful to quote the % of people in each bracket.

Geeze, FD, you don't ask for much...LOL

I really wish I could readily find the stats on the relative proportions of people in each tax bracket over time - but I suspect that our pollies have strongly vested interests in making such difficult to find...

For starters, I know for a fact, that the 'Median Income' of Aussie Adults has been slipping further and further below the headline 'Average (Full-Time) Wage' - it is currently remarkably close to the Minimum Wage - but we rarely hear of that figure from our pollies because it highlights the rapidly-growing inequality in our society and economy...

Yup, about 50% of all Aussie adults have annual incomes of the Minimum Full-Time Wage or less - FACT!

Clearly, that is not enough to them to live on, much less provide for their own retirement!

Curiously, tho': the Howard Govt (and probably the Labs since) always made its submissions to the annual Minimum Wage case based on the Median Wage rather than the headline Average (Full-Time) Wage...

Similarly, the determination of Child Support payments has revolved around Median and not the Average wage...

So, do you not find it strange, that we don't routinely hear the headline Median Income and Median Wage as well as the Minimum Wage and Average Wage!?

I digress...again...

Even allowing for inflation and welfare transfers, I am certain that our entire system has become far more regressive over the past quarter century - and that's without the various new and effectively-exclusive WEALTHfare payments introduced over the last decade in particular...

There have been a number of commentators (with different perspectives from all sides of politics) who have highlighted these regressive trends, in the past few years - including in recent weeks. I shall try to dig some of their articles up...

||Yup, about 50% of all Aussie adults have annual incomes of the Minimum Full-Time Wage or less - FACT! ||

actually that is utter garbage. income is still distributed as a bell graph

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 6:41pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 6:07pm: Quote: I, for one, am concerned about the increasingly-regressive nature of our taxation system on individuals and families Are you sure it is actually getting more regressive? Goods taxes are not new. Historically there have been a lot of them. Also, government spending is trending more 'progressive'. You cannot look at income tax alone. You have to look at the whole package. Your table also brushes over inflation. It would be more meanigful to quote the % of people in each bracket. Geeze, FD, you don't ask for much...LOL I really wish I could readily find the stats on the relative proportions of people in each tax bracket over time - but I suspect that our pollies have strongly vested interests in making such difficult to find... For starters, I know for a fact, that the 'Median Income' of Aussie Adults has been slipping further and further below the headline 'Average (Full-Time) Wage' - it is currently remarkably close to the Minimum Wage - but we rarely hear of that figure from our pollies because it highlights the rapidly-growing inequality in our society and economy... Yup, about 50% of all Aussie adults have annual incomes of the Minimum Full-Time Wage or less - FACT! Clearly, that is not enough to them to live on, much less provide for their own retirement! Curiously, tho': the Howard Govt (and probably the Labs since) always made its submissions to the annual Minimum Wage case based on the Median Wage rather than the headline Average (Full-Time) Wage... Similarly, the determination of Child Support payments has revolved around Median and not the Average wage... So, do you not find it strange, that we don't routinely hear the headline Median Income and Median Wage as well as the Minimum Wage and Average Wage!? I digress...again... Even allowing for inflation and welfare transfers, I am certain that our entire system has become far more regressive over the past quarter century - and that's without the various new and effectively-exclusive WEALTHfare payments introduced over the last decade in particular... There have been a number of commentators (with different perspectives from all sides of politics) who have highlighted these regressive trends, in the past few years - including in recent weeks. I shall try to dig some of their articles up...

and not a supported fact in sight...

||I really wish I could readily find the stats on the relative proportions of people in each tax bracket over time - but I suspect that our pollies have strongly vested interests in making such difficult to find...||

nothing like a good paranoid conspiracy to keep you warm at night.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 5:51pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 5:25pm: One thing that I didn't mention was the relevance of curbing regressive taxation and inter-related WEALTHfare waste in order to prepare for the grave issues raised in the dreaded Intergenerational Report. Personally, I reckon that the Howardian Era set some very bad precedents, in terms of pretending that some of its WEALTHfare, tax and pensions and other policies were designed to responsibly address those and other increasingly-daunting long-term socio-economic issues... and those bad precedents woudl be... 1) lower taxes 2) higher welfare 3) no debt 4) deficit 5) increased savings for retirement and your problem with these is what? since we can manifestly afford them what is your problem - other than an ideological attachment to high taxes and punishment for high earners?

Crikey, Longy, don't let your fellow Libs catch you dogmatically denying that we have major, unprecedented, catastrophic, urgent and life-threatening Federal Govt Debt and Deficit problems!

And, no, I am not about punishing high income earners - rather I am concerned about the risks and opportunity costs of fiscally, socially and environmentally reckless policies.

Notably, since the turn of the century (in particular), our progressive tax and transfer systems have been stealthfully bastardised, by dogmatic and elitist short-term-thinkers - for the benefit of the very same elite few, whose income and wealth levels also benefitted disproportionately from the most recent extended boom.

Moreover, this has been at the expense of both the living standards of the majority of Australians and the ongoing conservation of our environment and the maintenance and upgrading of First World essential services and infrastructure.

Given the looming intergenerational and environmental crises, and associated budget strains, I believe we need to restore a semblance of scoio-economic equity and fiscal and environmental responsibility to our national budget.

Clearly, Longy, and despite your petty protests, you appreciate that such can and should be done without widespread pain - purely by restoring personal taxation levels closer to where they ought to have been left in the first instance...

||Curiously, tho': the Howard Govt (and probably the Labs since) always made its submissions to the annual Minimum Wage case based on the Median Wage rather than the headline Average (Full-Time) Wage...

Similarly, the determination of Child Support payments has revolved around Median and not the Average wage...
||

yet you are the same person that trumpets the supremacy of median over mean... but apparently your convictions are flexible depending on circumstances...

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 6:47pm:

||Yup, about 50% of all Aussie adults have annual incomes of the Minimum Full-Time Wage or less - FACT! || actually that is utter garbage. income is still distributed as a bell graph

That is either a lie or an assumption - so I challenge you to prove it if you can!

As for your false claims about the absence of facts - ye and me both know that I have provided them on Yahoo previously and that I can and will find present same here in due course...

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 7:00pm:

||Curiously, tho': the Howard Govt (and probably the Labs since) always made its submissions to the annual Minimum Wage case based on the Median Wage rather than the headline Average (Full-Time) Wage... Similarly, the determination of Child Support payments has revolved around Median and not the Average wage... || yet you are the same person that trumpets the supremacy of median over mean... but apparently your convictions are flexible depending on circumstances...

Again, you stoop low, in seeking to misrepresent me - I really wish you'd stop doing that, ta!

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 6:58pm:

||I really wish I could readily find the stats on the relative proportions of people in each tax bracket over time - but I suspect that our pollies have strongly vested interests in making such difficult to find...|| nothing like a good paranoid conspiracy to keep you warm at night.

Sorry ol' man, but you took the cake in today's bake-off with your own smouldering fire and this half-baked conspiracy theory...



longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 3:11pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 3:06pm: mellie wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 2:58pm: Where has $140 billion gone, can Labor even begin to explain where it went? And do you suppose Labor will be capable of restoring this $40 billion surplus in the 3 short years it took them to blow a whopping $140 billion? Think about it. ...  Has anyone thought to ask where it went to begin with? I heard you the first 5 or 6 times you posted those rhetorical statements - and I need only two words to summarise the answer: 'structural deficit'. I suggest that you google 'structural deficit costello' or 'structural deficit howard' - but I doubt that you will be inclined to appreciate the relevant commentary that has been debated out there the past couple of years or so... 'structural deficit' is one of those new and convenient terms used by economists and pollies to magically construct bad news out of good news. it is how you turn a surplus into a deficit and no debt into debt without changing a single dollar in the bank. it is one of those trendy new ways of making truth into lie.

LOL...you great big silly ol' conservative conspiracy theorist, you...

::)

Quote:

For starters, I know for a fact, that the 'Median Income' of Aussie Adults has been slipping further and further below the headline 'Average (Full-Time) Wage' - it is currently remarkably close to the Minimum Wage - but we rarely hear of that figure from our pollies because it highlights the rapidly-growing inequality in our society and economy...

By how much? Less than inflation?


Quote:

Yup, about 50% of all Aussie adults have annual incomes of the Minimum Full-Time Wage or less - FACT!

What does that actually mean? Maybe it just means the minimum wage is too high.


Quote:

So, do you not find it strange, that we don't routinely hear the headline Median Income and Median Wage as well as the Minimum Wage and Average Wage!?

I don't routinely hear either.


Quote:

Even allowing for inflation and welfare transfers, I am certain that our entire system has become far more regressive over the past quarter century - and that's without the various new and effectively-exclusive WEALTHfare payments introduced over the last decade in particular...

The fact that the middle class is now on welfare (even I get lots of handouts I don't need) is not a sign of regression. It is a sign that we are so geneourous to the lower class we have to shift the handouts up otherwise there would be an extremely high effective tax rate for the poor. You end up with more people in the absurd situation that they get little more in the bank, maybe even less, as their salary rises.

Your certainty means little.


Quote:

There have been a number of commentators (with different perspectives from all sides of politics) who have highlighted these regressive trends, in the past few years - including in recent weeks. I shall try to dig some of their articles up...

I would go for the facts myself. This is the sort of thing you can find commentators saying anything on.


Quote:

actually that is utter garbage. income is still distributed as a bell graph

That would be highly unlikely given the nature of income.


Quote:

Moreover, this has been at the expense of both the living standards of the majority of Australians and the ongoing conservation of our environment and the maintenance and upgrading of First World essential services and infrastructure.

You think our living standards have dropped?

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 7:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 6:47pm: ||Yup, about 50% of all Aussie adults have annual incomes of the Minimum Full-Time Wage or less - FACT! || actually that is utter garbage. income is still distributed as a bell graph That is either a lie or an assumption - so I challenge you to prove it if you can! As for your false claims about the absence of facts - ye and me both know that I have provided them on Yahoo previously and that I can and will find present same here in due course...

of course that depends a lot on your dataset. do you for instance only include people who actually EARN their incomes as opposed to welfare. if you include welfare recipients you distort the figure greatly by including in a distribution of earnings, people who doent actually EARN anything. when you remove non-earned income such as welfare, the distribution is a bell curve withthe median and mean not very different.

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 7:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 7:00pm: ||Curiously, tho': the Howard Govt (and probably the Labs since) always made its submissions to the annual Minimum Wage case based on the Median Wage rather than the headline Average (Full-Time) Wage... Similarly, the determination of Child Support payments has revolved around Median and not the Average wage... || yet you are the same person that trumpets the supremacy of median over mean... but apparently your convictions are flexible depending on circumstances... Again, you stoop low, in seeking to misrepresent me - I really wish you'd stop doing that, ta!

you have repeateldy trumtped the median over the mean in past discussions because it served your purpose.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 7:43pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 7:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 6:47pm: ||Yup, about 50% of all Aussie adults have annual incomes of the Minimum Full-Time Wage or less - FACT! || actually that is utter garbage. income is still distributed as a bell graph That is either a lie or an assumption - so I challenge you to prove it if you can! As for your false claims about the absence of facts - ye and me both know that I have provided them on Yahoo previously and that I can and will find present same here in due course... of course that depends a lot on your dataset. do you for instance only include people who actually EARN their incomes as opposed to welfare. if you include welfare recipients you distort the figure greatly by including in a distribution of earnings, people who doent actually EARN anything. when you remove non-earned income such as welfare, the distribution is a bell curve withthe median and mean not very different.

Sounds pretty dubious to me Longy. Perhpas you should stick to the facts rather than making up theories.

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 7:47pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 7:43pm: Equitist wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 7:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 6:47pm: ||Yup, about 50% of all Aussie adults have annual incomes of the Minimum Full-Time Wage or less - FACT! || actually that is utter garbage. income is still distributed as a bell graph That is either a lie or an assumption - so I challenge you to prove it if you can! As for your false claims about the absence of facts - ye and me both know that I have provided them on Yahoo previously and that I can and will find present same here in due course... of course that depends a lot on your dataset. do you for instance only include people who actually EARN their incomes as opposed to welfare. if you include welfare recipients you distort the figure greatly by including in a distribution of earnings, people who doent actually EARN anything. when you remove non-earned income such as welfare, the distribution is a bell curve withthe median and mean not very different. Sounds pretty dubious to me Longy. Perhpas you should stick to the facts rather than making up theories.

wage statistics basically follow a normal distribution if your data is internally consistent eg you use FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT income. if you add welfare payments which are artificially constrained to a narrow band or you use part-time income you again distart the resultant distribution curve. this is the real challenge in statistics: to get a result which is not only accurate but represents truth. eg you can add in all sources of income for all people - including those not actually working - and you get a distribution that is accurate but is NOT a distribution of earnings. it is something altogether different. plotting fulltime earnings is basically a normal distributiuon.

Quote:

wage statistics basically follow a normal distribution if your data is internally consistent eg you use FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT income

No they don't.

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 8:24pm:

Quote: wage statistics basically follow a normal distribution if your data is internally consistent eg you use FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT income No they don't.

Yup, they don't!

Australia has disproportionately-high levels of both low income earners and non-full-time employees.  So, Longy's suggestion of artificially annualising part-time and casual wages becomes all the more pointless when determining median and average disposable incomes and associated living standards!

Earlier, I promised to post some independent reports - so here's my first link, an international one: -

http://www.lisproject.org/publications/liswps/154.pdf

It is over a decade old, but it confirms my claim that income inequality in Australia rose significantly in the 1980's (and from an already high inequality base).

Now for some more recent reports...

If you didn't realise, the tax-free threshold and lower tax brackets have become larger and moved to a lower rate. It's not only the wealthy who benefit. It includes everyone who can be bothered to work.

Also, even if taxes are becoming more regressive, it's a good thing. The current tax system is shockingly inequitable with almost half of some peoples' hard earned income going to dole bludgers.

And I don't see how income inequality is a bad thing, where living standards have improved for earners of all classes. Income inequality in relatively free economies usually correlates with strong growth. I think this is something we should be clinking glasses to.

Hlysnan wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 9:57pm:

If you didn't realise, the tax-free threshold and lower tax brackets have become larger and moved to a lower rate. It's not only the wealthy who benefit. It includes everyone who can be bothered to work. Also, even if taxes are becoming more regressive, it's a good thing. The current tax system is shockingly inequitable with almost half of some peoples' hard earned income going to dole bludgers. And I don't see how income inequality is a bad thing, where living standards have improved for earners of all classes. Income inequality in relatively free economies usually correlates with strong growth. I think this is something we should be clinking glasses to.

LOL, Jeimi...clink all you want - but I point out that a token % tax break on an income of SFA = SFA!

Meantime, perhaps you should consider the long-term benefits of helping children in low income households to have a better education and a higher standard of living - since they could well be the ones calculating your toxic drug doses, driving your taxi, fixing your electrical wiring and rolling you over in bed to wipe your nose and backside...in your dotage...

I'm sure there are benefits to helping poor people, but I don't believe that it should be the government's responsibility anyway. If people like donating to poor Australians, there are plenty of charities to go to. No need to force everyone to pay up. Generally the wealthier people are, the more generous they become anyway.

Maybe I missed it somewhere in the thread, but what is SFA?

Hlysnan wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 10:24pm:

I'm sure there are benefits to helping poor people, but I don't believe that it should be the government's responsibility anyway. If people like donating to poor Australians, there are plenty of charities to go to. No need to force everyone to pay up. Generally the wealthier people are, the more generous they become anyway. Maybe I missed it somewhere in the thread, but what is SFA?

Err...ummnnn....actually, Jeimi, you appear to be suffering from socio-economic misconceptions/ignorance as well as prejudice - notably "Generally the wealthier people are, the more generous they become anyway" (which, according to Aussie charities does not bear out in practice).

Meantime, SFA = sweet bugger all!

This report might help some of you to understand the nature, extent and broader implications of the inequality in Australia...

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/23905/20100315-0017/evatt.labor.net.au/publications/papers/226.html#


Quote:

The distribution of wealth in Australia A 'fair go'? By Frank Stilwell & David Primrose The latest figures confirm the trends to inequality, explain Frank Stilwell and David Primrose. The National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) was commissioned by Catalyst Australia to conduct a study of the distribution of wealth in Australia. The NATSEM data supplements previous sources and gives us an up-to-date picture of who is wealthy in Australia and who is not. What is particularly interesting about the new data is the disaggregated analysis of wealth distribution, classified according to a number of overlapping social categories: age, income, gender, occupation, industry and household composition. This supplements a previous NATSEM analysis that showed that the richest fifth of Australian households each have, on average, forty times more wealth than the poorest fifth of the population. Analysis of the new NATSEM data confirms that wealth in Australia remains concentrated in the hands of a wealthy few. The minority sitting at the higher end of the income scale have reaped the benefits of the economic growth in recent decades by disproportionately increasing their personal wealth. This has been at the expense of the majority at the other end of the income scale, whose share of personal wealth has declined relative to those high-income earners. Large wealth disparities also exist between different occupational and industry groupings. The NATSEM data also highlights the persistence of disparities in the wealth of Australian men and women. Average levels of wealth for men and women remain highly unequal across the categories of age, income, occupation and industry. Even when women and men appear to be relatively equal according to some measurements, there are other gendered dimensions of economic inequality. For example, while the wealth levels of those working in high-status occupations are not dissimilar on average, there are many fewer women within those occupations. Such discrepancies often translate into relative poverty for women during retirement, as well as increased reliance on government support and pensions. These persistent economic inequalities run counter to the ethos of 'a fair go' often assumed as a fundamental characteristic of Australian society. Comprehending the complex dimensions of this problem is therefore an essential first step in remedying the situation and promoting more effective egalitarian social policies. Wealth & the life cycle Wealth is typically accumulated over the life cycle. However, people's capacity to get wealthier over time varies according to their socio-economic position, good fortune (such as receiving inherited wealth), thrift, and a host of other factors. Personal wealth is also commonly run down in old age. These patterns are confirmed by the NATSEM data. Average household wealth increases with the age of the principal household reference person until 55-64 years of age, after which it declines. This decline is particularly rapid in the case of men, falling from an average wealth of $205 500 at 60-64 years to $138 800 after the age of 65 is reached. A slightly less marked decline occurs in the case of women, falling from around $125 300 for 55-59-year-olds to $89 000 for women over 65. Overall, men aged 25-64 and women in the 25-59 range possess the greatest average wealth, while those under 25 years and retirees own the least wealth. Not surprisingly, flows of income correlate strongly with stocks of wealth. Households with high incomes can more readily accumulate valuable assets, and those assets then commonly generate more incomes. Meanwhile, households with low incomes are less able to accumulate wealth and tend to be locked into a more disadvantaged position, sometimes into a vicious cycle of poverty. The NATSEM figures show the relationships between wealth and income for both men and women. Men aged 25-64 years who earn $50 000 or less annually have an average wealth in the range $67 800 to $92 000. Fifty-eight per cent of all men are in this category. By contrast, men who earn $100 000 or more annually have average wealth in the range of $236 800 to $534 400. Only 6.1% of surveyed men aged 25-64 years earn this amount. The strong link between income and wealth applies also to women. Those annually earning $50 000 or below have an average wealth ranging from $45 500 to $61 700, which is less than men's wealth at the same income level. This applies to 85% of women. Women with an annual personal income of $100 000 or above have average wealth in the range of $242 100 to $492 500. While women in these higher income categories possess only slightly less average wealth than men at the same income level, a very small proportion of women fit into this income category (1.3% of all women). Overall, these figures suggest that wealth is concentrated among a small proportion of the population with high incomes. There evidently exists an intimate relationship between who owns what and who gets what. This confirms earlier studies of the distribution of wealth in Australia. [...]

Perhaps because I know "poor" people who are leeching off society. I also see a few with booze in one hand and a smoke in the other, chucking dirties and sitting outside Central station every morning.

Quote:

[...] Conclusion The new information from NATSEM draws attention to important dimensions of wealth inequality in Australia. Analysis of the disaggregated yet overlapping categories -- age, income, gender, occupation, industry and household composition -- shows that wealth inequality exists at a number of levels. A political-economic analysis that recognises the interconnections between political, social, cultural and economic factors is necessary to show how wealth inequalities are structured and reproduced. Do these inequalities matter? For a society that has historically sought some degree of fairness in economic outcomes, issues of equity are always important. The superficial egalitarian ethos in Australian society sits awkwardly beside the entrenched wealth inequalities that exist in practice. Economic inequality also creates social stresses. There is now mounting evidence linking inequality to ill health, crime, greater stresses on social services and lower levels of overall happiness in society.

Ahh an article by Frank Stilwel .. my Economics professor at Sydney Uni .. good times lol :P

Hlysnan wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 10:24pm:

I'm sure there are benefits to helping poor people, but I don't believe that it should be the government's responsibility anyway. If people like donating to poor Australians, there are plenty of charities to go to. No need to force everyone to pay up. Generally the wealthier people are, the more generous they become anyway. Maybe I missed it somewhere in the thread, but what is SFA?

I'm not sure you really want to know?

However -
S = Sweet
A = All
And, I will leave the F, to your imagination!

Hlysnan wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 10:51pm:

Perhaps because I know "poor" people who are leeching off society. I also see a few with booze in one hand and a smoke in the other, chucking dirties and sitting outside Central station every morning.

I would suggest that you get of your superficial high horse and try to learn to separate symptoms from causes...

Just read back  through this topic ...

1) As per usual .. my old Economics Professor Frank Stilwell has produced an informative paper  

2) Tax scales have been reproduced by the OP .. again very informative

What's the problem???

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 10:11pm:

Hlysnan wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 9:57pm: If you didn't realise, the tax-free threshold and lower tax brackets have become larger and moved to a lower rate. It's not only the wealthy who benefit. It includes everyone who can be bothered to work. Also, even if taxes are becoming more regressive, it's a good thing. The current tax system is shockingly inequitable with almost half of some peoples' hard earned income going to dole bludgers. And I don't see how income inequality is a bad thing, where living standards have improved for earners of all classes. Income inequality in relatively free economies usually correlates with strong growth. I think this is something we should be clinking glasses to. LOL, Jeimi...clink all you want - but I point out that a token % tax break on an income of SFA = SFA! Meantime, perhaps you should consider the long-term benefits of helping children in low income households to have a better education and a higher standard of living - since they could well be the ones calculating your toxic drug doses, driving your taxi, fixing your electrical wiring and rolling you over in bed to wipe your nose and backside...in your dotage...

your trouble is that it is NEVER enough. more welfare than ever before, tax cuts at the same rate as the high earners, more education, more opportunities and you still complain. standard of living is significantly higher than the 80s you long to see revisted and incomes have a very high REAL increase on then as well. the real problem is as long as ayone earsn more than anyone else then you will have un an assailable problem. your problem isnt equity - your problem is greed - yours.

Personally, I reckon that the Howardian Era set some very bad precedents, in terms of pretending that some of its WEALTHfare, tax and pensions and other policies were designed to responsibly address those and other increasingly-daunting long-term socio-economic issues...

- Thy Equitist

Earlier, I promised to post some independent reports - so here's my first link, an international one: -

http://www.lisproject.org/publications/liswps/154.pdf

It is over a decade old, but it confirms my claim that income inequality in Australia rose significantly in the 1980's (and from an already high inequality base).

- Thy Equitist

Oh dear .. now who was in Federal office in the 80's?

and in the meantime, to ask for the tenth time, SUPPORT YOUR case for higher income tax rates particularly this 60% rate for high earners in the absence of any economic or fiscal reason.

and if you arent will to justify your stupid beliefs please do us all a favour and stop repeating them.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:22pm:

Personally, I reckon that the Howardian Era set some very bad precedents, in terms of pretending that some of its WEALTHfare, tax and pensions and other policies were designed to responsibly address those and other increasingly-daunting long-term socio-economic issues... - Thy Equitist Earlier, I promised to post some independent reports - so here's my first link, an international one: - http://www.lisproject.org/publications/liswps/154.pdf It is over a decade old, but it confirms my claim that income inequality in Australia rose significantly in the 1980's (and from an already high inequality base). - Thy Equitist Oh dear .. now who was in Federal office in the 80's?

the same people who maintained a 60% tax rate - the rate she is so in love with for reasons noone can understand and she is unwilling/unable to explain.

It would be prudent for certain posters to take a deep breath and read what they've previously posted if they wish to preclude the risk of rambling incoherently.

that would generally be a first.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:25pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 11:22pm: Personally, I reckon that the Howardian Era set some very bad precedents, in terms of pretending that some of its WEALTHfare, tax and pensions and other policies were designed to responsibly address those and other increasingly-daunting long-term socio-economic issues... - Thy Equitist Earlier, I promised to post some independent reports - so here's my first link, an international one: - http://www.lisproject.org/publications/liswps/154.pdf It is over a decade old, but it confirms my claim that income inequality in Australia rose significantly in the 1980's (and from an already high inequality base). - Thy Equitist Oh dear .. now who was in Federal office in the 80's? the same people who maintained a 60% tax rate - the rate she is so in love with for reasons noone can understand and she is unwilling/unable to explain.

I'm all ears .. and eyes lmao :)

I do have a few comments to offer afterwards.

They do say good things come to those who wait ....

I am sure the reply will be worth the wait lol :)

Hmmnnn....you right whingers and/or good Xtians will love this one then...


http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=1&subclassID=2&articleID=969&class=&subclass=CW%20National


Quote:

Report backs claims on wealth inequality       By MARILYN RODRIGUES 26 June, 2005 Research showing that the top 10 per cent of Australians hold half of the nation’s wealth has bolstered controversial claims by the St Vincent de Paul Society that inequality is growing at a rapid rate. The society’s claim, based on latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and its call for a national strategy to address structural causes of poverty were rejected by Senator Kay Patterson, the Minister for Family and Community Services, and by Prof Peter Saunders, from the Centre for Independent Studies. But a report by the Melbourne Institute into how wealth is distributed across the country has found that 45 per cent of the wealth is held by the richest 10 per cent of the population, who have a net worth of almost $2 million each. Five per cent of Australians hold 31 per cent of the country’s wealth. The findings are based on property and business ownership, bank accounts, superannuation and equity investments and vehicle ownership. Gary Marks, research associate with the institute, says he is surprised at the level of inequality in wealth. But Dr John Falzon, national research and advocacy officer for Vinnies, is not. “That report uses a different measure from our paper (The Reality of Income Inequality in Australia) but it does indicate the fact that income and education are the real determinants of wealth inequality, and that wealth inequality is skyrocketing,” he said. “It’s no surprise unfortunately.” Vinnies has been involved in a public debate since its paper was published in May challenging Federal Government claims that people on low incomes are better off than they were several years ago. The paper says that although lower incomes have risen slightly, almost a quarter of Australian households have an income of less than $400 a week while those on the highest incomes have enjoyed a disproportionately higher income rise. “I think we disturb the comfort zones of some who would like to perpetuate a number of myths around the significant number of Australians being left out in all this prosperity that has been generated over the last 10-15 years,” said Dr Falzon. “If you continue to perpetuate the myths that people only miss out through their own fault or bad luck, you are then able to justify a withdrawal of government from its responsibility to provide essential services such as affordable transport, health and housing, education and childcare, by saying the market does a good job of providing them anyway. “You also open the door to undermining the income of people in the lowest income groups, such as the elderly and people with disabilities.

With 37% of all Superannuation subsidies going to the top 5% earners (i.e. massive pre-paid pensions for those who would never have been entitled to the Age Pension in any event), there can be no doubt that inequality got much worse since...

Lisa Jones wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:28pm:

I'm all ears .. and eyes lmao :) I do have a few comments to offer afterwards.

C'mon Lisa, show us your stats - you know you want to...

Hey Longy, this isn't looking like much of a bell curve: -

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6523.0

---

but still no justification for the 60% rate!!!

so i presume you ahve no answer at all?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 12:32am:

but still no justification for the 60% rate!!! so i presume you ahve no answer at all?

On the contrary, my dear Master Bates...as usual, you weren't paying attention to my answers because you were too preoccupied with putting words in my mouth...amongst other things...

Here's a table from the same source (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6523.0)

Note that the income share  of the 'high income' (top 2 deciles) and 'low income' (2nd and 3rd decile) households changed significantly from FY95 to FY08 - and that all other independent sources point to a far more dramatic increase in wealth distribution inequality!

Note also that the 'low income' figures do not include the poorest decile...

---

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:38pm:

Hmmnnn....you right whingers and/or good Xtians will love this one then... http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=1&subclassID=2&articleID=969&class=&subclass=CW%20National Quote: Report backs claims on wealth inequality       By MARILYN RODRIGUES 26 June, 2005 Research showing that the top 10 per cent of Australians hold half of the nation’s wealth has bolstered controversial claims by the St Vincent de Paul Society that inequality is growing at a rapid rate. The society’s claim, based on latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and its call for a national strategy to address structural causes of poverty were rejected by Senator Kay Patterson, the Minister for Family and Community Services, and by Prof Peter Saunders, from the Centre for Independent Studies. But a report by the Melbourne Institute into how wealth is distributed across the country has found that 45 per cent of the wealth is held by the richest 10 per cent of the population, who have a net worth of almost $2 million each. Five per cent of Australians hold 31 per cent of the country’s wealth. The findings are based on property and business ownership, bank accounts, superannuation and equity investments and vehicle ownership. Gary Marks, research associate with the institute, says he is surprised at the level of inequality in wealth. But Dr John Falzon, national research and advocacy officer for Vinnies, is not. “That report uses a different measure from our paper (The Reality of Income Inequality in Australia) but it does indicate the fact that income and education are the real determinants of wealth inequality, and that wealth inequality is skyrocketing,” he said. “It’s no surprise unfortunately.” Vinnies has been involved in a public debate since its paper was published in May challenging Federal Government claims that people on low incomes are better off than they were several years ago. The paper says that although lower incomes have risen slightly, almost a quarter of Australian households have an income of less than $400 a week while those on the highest incomes have enjoyed a disproportionately higher income rise. “I think we disturb the comfort zones of some who would like to perpetuate a number of myths around the significant number of Australians being left out in all this prosperity that has been generated over the last 10-15 years,” said Dr Falzon. “If you continue to perpetuate the myths that people only miss out through their own fault or bad luck, you are then able to justify a withdrawal of government from its responsibility to provide essential services such as affordable transport, health and housing, education and childcare, by saying the market does a good job of providing them anyway. “You also open the door to undermining the income of people in the lowest income groups, such as the elderly and people with disabilities. With 37% of all Superannuation subsidies going to the top 5% earners (i.e. massive pre-paid pensions for those who would never have been entitled to the Age Pension in any event), there can be no doubt that inequality got much worse since...

This is a measure of accumulated wealth, not actual wealth. If someone earns $100k pa and spends 90% of it that year, they are pretty well off in my book, but that analysis would make them a pauper.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/ABS_Household_Disposable_Income_Distribution_trends__FY95-FY08.JPG

That seems remarkably stable to me.

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 10:15am:

This is a measure of accumulated wealth, not actual wealth. If someone earns $100k pa and spends 90% of it that year, they are pretty well off in my book, but that analysis would make them a pauper. http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/ABS_Household_Disposable_Income_Distribution_trends__FY95-FY08.JPG That seems remarkably stable to me.

Where you see stability in that table I see marked changes which trend towards benefiting the rich thus supporting the claims made by The Equitist.

Between 94/95 and 07/08 disposable income for the lowest and middle  income percentile has reduced by 0.7% whilst those in the highest income percentile over that same period have seen a growth in their disposable income of 2.7%.

I also notice that the relationship; that is the ratio of difference, between low and middle income earners has remained remarkably stable.

Where it is that the wealthiest percentile have an increase in disposable income whilst all others suffer a decrease in same, therein you will find the divide between rich and poor growing.

Quote:

Between 94/95 and 07/08 disposable income

07/08 used different measures so the comparison is not entirely valid. See the a)

It is not a measure of disposable income. I think you would find the opposite trend if you focussed on disposable income.

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 11:10am:

Quote: Between 94/95 and 07/08 disposable income 07/08 used different measures so the comparison is not entirely valid. See the a) It is not a measure of disposable income. I think you would find the opposite trend if you focussed on disposable income.

Whilst I agree that it is not a measure, I would also claim that my intend in my post was not to measure, but to identify trends... which is the intent of the ABS table. You are therefore adopting a straw-man approach by identifying that which was not intended in my post.

You speak of an opposite trend to that which the ABS table identifies as 'Equivalised Disposable Household Income'. You need to clarify that and provide evidence to support that clarification.

Unfortunately, it would seem that most of the available stats are substantially pre-tweaked and pre-digested, according to the assumptions and agendas of the different authors/publishers...

These and many other ABS stats contain so many statistical smoothers and methodological changes that they are starting to look meaningless - especially since there seems to be a positive socio-economic spin put on almost everything that they have published over the past few years...

There has also been the intermittent injection, in some of their publications of negative hints about statistical unrealiability due to bureaucratic funding cuts...

Perhaps the ABS is no longer as independent of political influence as it once was!?

Whaddya reckon, Longy et al!?

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 11:38am:

Unfortunately, it would seem that most of the available stats are substantially pre-tweaked and pre-digested, according to the assumptions and agendas of the author/publisher... These and many other ABS stats contain so many statistical smoothers and methodological changes that they are starting to look meaningless - especially since there seems to be a positive socio-economic spin put on almost everything that they have published over the past few years... There has also been the intermittent injection, in some of their publications of negative hints about statistical unrealiability due to bureaucratic funding cuts... Perhaps the ABS is no longer as independent of political influence as it once was!? Whaddya reckon, Longy et al!?

None the less, whilst it is that Freediver persistently demands that all which is said is to be said with data evidencing the claims, the ABS are one of the better sources to quote. Even when tweaking the stats, they do so according to statistical conventions commonly accepted.

Notwithstanding my earlier comments, the latest (2009-10) ABS Year Book has recently been released - its link is: -

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4EABC33B47FEE100CA25773700169C75?opendocument

Yesterday, I chose the other link because it contained more graphical and tabulated data for the past quarter century - but the above link contains some interesting data.

Notably, it includes data on all 5 quintiles - whereas some of the stuff I posted last night ignores the bottom 10% of households (who, for what seems to me to be inexplicable reasons, are not classifed as 'Low Income')...

Using the link supplied above this post....


Quote:

Over the period from 1994-95 to 2007--08 there was a 48% increase in the average real incomes of low income people compared with 52% for middle income people and 70% for high income people.

So, whether we are looking at the ABS 'Equivalised Disposable Household Income' or 'Average Real Incomes'... it is clear that the trend in incomes is towards an increasing divide between the rich and the others.

I wonder at what the average real inflation rate was during the same period. I'm curious to know whether real low incomes kept pace with real inflation.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/boom-time--especially-if-youre-a-ceo/2006/08/20/1156012414986.html

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/08/20/income_gr.jpg


Quote:

Boom time - especially if you're a CEO John Garnaut Economics Correspondent August 21, 2006 AUSTRALIA'S super rich are earning a larger share of national income than at any time since 1950 - and the huge salaries paid to chief executives may be to blame, latest statistics show. In 1992 the salaries of chief executives were 25 times the average worker's salary - but by 2002 they were 100 times the average. In the 2003-04 tax year, the richest 1 per cent of individuals earned 9.2 per cent of individual income - up from 8.8 per cent in the previous year and double their share of 25 years ago. To enter the 1 per cent club, individuals had to earn more than $148,366 - a rise of more than $12,000 on the previous year. This group had not enjoyed such a large slice of income since a huge rise in wool prices in 1950. In their study, The Distribution of Top Incomes in Australia, the economists Andrew Leigh, of the Australian National University, and Anthony Atkinson, of Oxford University, said the trend was evident in the salaries of judges, top public servants and chief executives. They believe chief executives have received pay rises so large as to skew the country's income distribution. "The rapid rise in Australian CEO salaries during the 1990s suggests that much of this recent increase may have been caused by higher executive pay," they said. The chief executive of Louis Vuitton Australia, Philip Corne, said the luxury goods market had grown rapidly in Sydney despite the city's comparatively lethargic economy. In 2003-04, an individual had to earn $59,832 to step into the richest 10 per cent and $78,260 for the top 5 per cent. While the rich are getting richer, inequality is not rising as fast in Australia as in other English-speaking countries because the poor have not been getting poorer. The incomes of Australia's low earners have been bolstered by a strong labour market, generous family welfare and minimum wage standards. The status of the merely rich, rather than super rich, has remained stable. The income share of the top 10 per cent declined from 34.6 per cent in 1941 to 25 per cent in 1979, before rising again to 32 per cent in 2003-04. In 1921, when the federal Tax Office first separated tax data for individuals and companies, the top 0.05 per cent of earners received 2.8 per cent of all income. Over the next 60 years their share fell to 0.61 per cent. It has since risen to 2.1 per cent in 2003-04.

Clearly, private sector employers don't pay as well as some might believe...

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6302.0Main+Features1Feb%202010?OpenDocument#

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/ABS_Average_Weekly_Earnings_Feb2010.JPG

As a matter of interest, what are the respective proportions of minimum wage employees in the public v's private sectors!?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Michelle-Grattan/Funding-Costellos-future/2005/05/10/1115584966225.html

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/05/11/wbspoonerOP22.jpg


Quote:

Funding Costello's future by Michelle Grattan May 11, 2005 If this is indeed Peter Costello's last budget, he's going out on one that, to reprise Paul Keating, brings home the bacon. He's smiling on taxpayers; lecturing single mums (for the economy's and their own good); and showing us all that he can be simultaneously reformer and giveaway man. It is a good budget for a treasurer with aspirations: big, packed with measures, going well beyond election promises. It's diverse, with some hard-to-sell aspects but a lot that's appealing. Costello has brought down the ultimate counter-intuitive budget. The usual pattern is to have the hand-outs before the election and the belt-tightening after it. At least in part, this is an election budget without the election. Costello (and John Howard, of course, because he has told us he owns these budgets too) is throwing around money after the election with almost the enthusiasm the PM displayed in his pre-election spending. "It's great to be able to cut tax," Costello said, but assured us it was only after doing the right economic things. Far from Labor's dire warnings that the $66 billion pre-poll spree would be unsustainable, we're getting another instalment. It's made possible by the unexpectedly big revenue growth - brought about by the best terms of trade for three decades, booming company tax collections flowing from strong profits, and very healthy personal income tax receipts. This is despite economic growth slowing to 2 per cent this financial year, rising to only 3 per cent in 2005-06. It is not entirely clear how Treasury failed to anticipate this surge of money - it must be relieved its error was on the conservative side. Once the Government knew it would be awash with money, tax cuts followed inevitably. John Howard always said any leftover funds would be given back to taxpayers. The pressure from business and back bench made that a certainty, although only a few months ago it looked an impossibility. The numbers are staggering. The Government is able to provide $21.7 billion in personal income tax cuts over four years, $2.5 billion to abolish the super surcharge, and $1.8 billion tax cuts for business - all this while still expecting surpluses of about $8 billion to $9 billion annually over the forward estimates. The dramatic change in outlook is shown by one comparison: last budget Treasury estimated the surplus for 2005-06 would be $1.6 billion; now it's anticipated at nearly $9 billion. The tax relief is being sold by Costello as reform that takes Australia's tax system from below the OECD average to better than average. This, combined with the business changes, undercuts party and business pressure, although the demands will never be satisfied. Importantly, the tax relief allows the Government to keep to its goal, operating since the GST package, that more than 80 per cent of taxpayers will continue to face a top marginal tax rate of 30 per cent or less. It can also boast that by 2006-07 the top marginal rate will apply to only 3 per cent of taxpayers. Costello was always determined that welfare reform should be a centrepiece of this budget. The Government makes significant progress, although stepping back from its earlier, more ambitious proposals. While critics will complain, single mothers and new applicants for the disability support pension are given fair notice of a tougher, work-oriented regime. There is total "grandfathering" for existing DSP recipients; single mothers at present on the parenting payment will stay on it (rather than going to the dole) if they can't get work. A lot is being spent on incentives. It will be eight years before savings from the changes outweigh the spending accompanying them. Of course, some people will feel prodded, but if you think it is important to get more people into the workforce, that is inevitable. Low unemployment has enabled the Government to move on welfare. The big question, however, is still how many of these people will actually get jobs. The Government hopes to move 190,000 into work by 2008-09. Costello admits the measures could increase unemployment. One reason the Government didn't crack down harder was it was advised many people would simply go into the dole queue. Depending on where they're coming from, critics will say that the Government went too far or not far enough on welfare, but it was always going to be a balancing act. Others will say Costello has failed to do enough on skills and neglected infrastructure. The Government, however, would dispute the claimed crises. One budget mystery is why, given its money, the Government decided to trash its election promise (and Health Minister) and cut the Medicare safety net. Costello explains it as sustaining an expanding health budget for an ageing population, but it was a macho gesture that cost the Government a lot of credibility. The ageing population and Australia's need to insulate against a squeezed workforce and increasing proportion of older people continues a theme Costello began with his intergenerational report in 2002's budget. "This is a budget for the future," Costello declared. [...]

Quote:

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/ [quote] Taxable income/Tax on this income 1985–86 $0–$4,594 = Nil $35,000 and over = $11,346.25 + 60 cents for each $1 over $35,000 2000-01 $1 - $6,000 = Nil $60,001 and over = $15,580 + 47 cents for each $1 over $60,000 2009–10 0 – $6,000 = Nil $180,001 and over = $55,850 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000 2010–11 0 – $6,000 = Nil $180,001 and over = $54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

[/quote]

What's right and wrong with the above trends!?

How can it be that the tax-free threshold barely moved in a 1/4 century - and certainly didn't get indexed for inflation - but the threshold for the top marginal rate was dramatically increased and, to add insult to injury to 97% of Australians, the top rate was also dramatically lowered for the elite 3%!?

Now, add to this the dramatic polarisation of income and wealth over the past 1/4 century - and compound the inequity by the introduction of the regressive GST from 2000, the patently inequitable 15% Superannuation Tax Concessions Scam and a range of other effectively-exclusive WEALTHfare handouts....

How is it that we have allowed our pollies to make our income tax and transfer systems so much more regressive!?!?!?!?

Sappho wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 11:24am:

freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 11:10am: Quote: Between 94/95 and 07/08 disposable income 07/08 used different measures so the comparison is not entirely valid. See the a) It is not a measure of disposable income. I think you would find the opposite trend if you focussed on disposable income. Whilst I agree that it is not a measure, I would also claim that my intend in my post was not to measure, but to identify trends... which is the intent of the ABS table. You are therefore adopting a straw-man approach by identifying that which was not intended in my post. You speak of an opposite trend to that which the ABS table identifies as 'Equivalised Disposable Household Income'. You need to clarify that and provide evidence to support that clarification.

Sorry. You are right about the disposable bit. I couldn't see that before. I would like to see the figures based on actual income, as a lot of assumptions go into calculating disposable incomes. I expect that would make it look more regressive.

If you want to look at the trends you need to ignore the last figure.

Freediver wrote:

Quote:

I would like to see the figures based on actual income, as a lot of assumptions go into calculating disposable incomes. I expect that would make it look more regressive

You must have missed my post on the same page as that which you quote. I've edited it to add the source to which I refer to and which I quote.


Sappho wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 12:17pm:

Using the link supplied above this post.... Quote: Over the period from 1994-95 to 2007--08 there was a 48% increase in the average real incomes of low income people compared with 52% for middle income people and 70% for high income people. source So, whether we are looking at the ABS 'Equivalised Disposable Household Income' or 'Average Real Incomes'... it is clear that the trend in incomes is towards an increasing divide between the rich and the others. I wonder at what the average real inflation rate was during the same period. I'm curious to know whether real low incomes kept pace with real inflation.

They did their best to make that graph hard to read.

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 9:13pm:

Sappho wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 11:24am: freediver wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 11:10am: Quote: Between 94/95 and 07/08 disposable income 07/08 used different measures so the comparison is not entirely valid. See the a) It is not a measure of disposable income. I think you would find the opposite trend if you focussed on disposable income. Whilst I agree that it is not a measure, I would also claim that my intend in my post was not to measure, but to identify trends... which is the intent of the ABS table. You are therefore adopting a straw-man approach by identifying that which was not intended in my post. You speak of an opposite trend to that which the ABS table identifies as 'Equivalised Disposable Household Income'. You need to clarify that and provide evidence to support that clarification. Sorry. You are right about the disposable bit. I couldn't see that before. I would like to see the figures based on actual income, as a lot of assumptions go into calculating disposable incomes. I expect that would make it look more regressive. If you want to look at the trends you need to ignore the last figure.

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 9:38pm:

They did their best to make that graph hard to read.

Indeed, the graph is confusing and it simply compounds their dubious smoothing and pre-digesting of the data...

I think that it depends on your perspective. I have become accustomed to reading, interpreting and creating statistical analysis.

I do not find it hard.

The first rule of reading data however, is to read the title.

Cross-post: -

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1280120619/45#45


Equitist wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 1:37pm:

Yo Longy et al The following extracts from a 2009 Brotherhood of St Lawrence Report provide a fairly good illustration of the extraordinary nature and extent of counter-productive waste perpetrated by the last Lib Govt in relation to current and future budget challenges: - http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/BrodyMcNess_Assets_for_all_2009.pdf

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/Support_for_Retirement_-_esp_Super_per_Brotherhood_StL_2009_-_a.JPG

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/Support_for_Retirement_-_esp_Super_per_Brotherhood_StL_2009_-_1.JPG

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/Support_for_Retirement_-_esp_Super_per_Brotherhood_StL_2009_-_2.JPG

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/Support_for_Retirement_-_esp_Super_per_Brotherhood_StL_2009_-_3.JPG


Equitist wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 1:40pm:

Seriously, what was the point in doleing out of serial annual Federal Budgets sums in the order of $11,000 pa, over a 40 year working life, to someone earning over $200,000 pa when the current single rate of aged pension is only around 50% more than that!? Whatever was the point, in Howard and Costello paying out 26 years worth of pre-paid pensions in a single hit into the private wealth accounts of the uber wealthy!? What was the point, in them annually forking out 2 1/2 times the aged pension rate in annual pre-paid pensions into the private wealth accounts of high income/wealth individuals!? Where is the saving!? Where was the benefit!? Where have been the long-term cost-benefits!? Surely, it is obvious that our Federal Budget and National Coffers were systematically raided, by the Howardian Libs with the tacit support of the Labs - and at great expense to the majority of current and Aussies who missed out on their fiscally reckless largesse!? Surely, there has to be a far better way, of ensuring that subsidies go where they benefit national budgets and citizens best overal - one that stacks up in NATIONAL costs-benefits at every stage of the process!?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 5:49pm:

||In the last four decades all the tax-changes have been for the benefit of the top 20% of the population. e.g. 1)Death Duty abolished in the 1970’s   EVERYONE DIES - not just 20% The only fair thing in life. 2)Estate Duty abolished 1979 The only good thing is, the dying cannot take their riches into the grave. ALMOST EVERYONE leaves an estate - not just 20% The word almost is very true. 3)Gift Duty abolished  1979 DO YOU REALLY WANT THAT INSANE TAX BACK? Was fairer than most rich people would admit. 4) Probate abolished in the 1970-1980’s in all states BRING BACK DEATH TAXES!!! YAY!  are you serious? yes, very serious 5)Huge tax concessions for super. BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE GOVT BE THE SOLE PROCIDER FOR RETIRMENT and ensure that the budget is unable to cope with that drain. or you could be clever and promote retirment savings with incentives! guess which one we chose? The government gives the very rich as much in tax concessions as it pays out on total age-pension 6) Last but not least, now tax-free super for the over sixties, if paid from a taxed super fund. DONT FORGET TO BE A REAL SCUMBAG and make it harder for our retirees or near retirees. Before I would use words like that, I would look in the mirror. 7)Tax rates have progressively been reduced HOW sad! we have to pay less tax! I personally am devastated that my tax has been reduced at the same time as australia has gotten richer. TAX ME HARDER!!! Most of the riches have gone to the upper 20% 8)Dividend imputation introduced. When the company pays 30% tax and the shareholders receive the imputation credit, it is almost a zero numbers game, eg: company pays tax and the Government returns most, if not all back, to the shareholders. How many countries have Dividend imputation? The UK has recently abolished it. DIVIDEND IMPUTATION is an extremely equitable tax regime as it ensures that earnings are taxed ONCE. surely that is not only fair but mandatory. so your alternative is that the company pays 30% on the profit and then the receipient pays tax on it again??? why not just confiscate profit altogether and then we can stand araound and sing marxist songs in the Workers Paradise? Yes, the company pays the tax and the government returns it back to the shareholder. By the way I do hold some shares. ||

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 5:58pm:

|\8)Dividend imputation introduced. When the company pays 30% tax and the shareholders receive the imputation credit, it is almost a zero numbers game, eg: company pays tax and the Government returns most, if not all back, to the shareholders.|| not even close to being true. the tax already paid to generate this dividend is a credit to the taxpayer who then has to pay tax on the entire pre-tax earnings. if you are in the 30% bracket then nothing changes but if you are in the 45% bracket you pay an additional 15%. it is exceptionally fair an equitable and treats it like any other non wage income you have and taxes it. the only difference is that it has already been taxed once and that is taken into consideration.

And if you have a Self Managed Super Fund with a million dollars worth of shares, and it is a so called taxed, and one is over sixty, he/she pays no tax and gets a cheque for the dic=vidend imputation

hawil wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 6:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 5:58pm: |\8)Dividend imputation introduced. When the company pays 30% tax and the shareholders receive the imputation credit, it is almost a zero numbers game, eg: company pays tax and the Government returns most, if not all back, to the shareholders.|| not even close to being true. the tax already paid to generate this dividend is a credit to the taxpayer who then has to pay tax on the entire pre-tax earnings. if you are in the 30% bracket then nothing changes but if you are in the 45% bracket you pay an additional 15%. it is exceptionally fair an equitable and treats it like any other non wage income you have and taxes it. the only difference is that it has already been taxed once and that is taken into consideration. And if you have a Self Managed Super Fund with a million dollars worth of shares, and it is a so called taxed, and one is over sixty, he/she pays no tax and gets a cheque for the dic=vidend imputation

If you had any idea about investments you wouldn't talk such nonsense.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/13/2897932.htm


Quote:

The other super tax flies under radar By economics correspondent Stephen Long, staff Posted Thu May 13, 2010 1:00am AEST Longstanding big tax concessions on superannuation are costing up to $30 billion a year in foregone revenue and creating a tax dodge for high income earners, a leading expert says. The resources super profits mining tax is dividing the political parties and polarising public debate, but what has been dubbed the "super tax rort" is receiving less attention. The concessions on superannuation have bipartisan political support, but Dr Mike Rafferty of the University of Sydney says they are undermining the Government's ability to deliver needed social and economic programs. He says the Government will not wind back the concessions because they benefit the financial services industry, which has become a key Labor constituency. "Tax concessions under the end of the Howard government cost about $30 billion a year," he said. "Wayne Swan's slightly trimmed them; they're now running at about $25 billion, but in the next couple of years they'll be up to about $30 billion again. "By way of comparison, the age pension currently costs $27 billion a year, so we're giving away more money in tax concessions to super than the cost of the current age pension." Dr Rafferty says that $30 billion is essentially lost tax revenue. "What it means is that if you put money into superannuation you can reduce your tax bill so much so that people were borrowing money to put into their superannuation funds to reduce their taxation," he said. The Henry review raised concerns that the tax concessions on superannuation were fundamentally inequitable. "Both [political] parties keep saying they want to keep a weather eye on the budget and on the budget balance, but when you're letting $25 billion of tax revenue effectively stay out there, amongst very high income earners, no-one can be taking any of this debate seriously," Dr Rafferty said. He says the financial services sector, a powerful lobby group, is keen to protect those people who are currently benefiting from the tax concessions. "The Labor Party in government has made a very big play for the finance sector to become a financial centre for South East Asia," he said. "So, as much as this is a massive tax lurk, they also see it as a sort of industry policy to channel money into the funds management sector which they hope will be able to sort of be exported around South East Asia." But Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner has rejected the claim the Government is leaving open superannuation loopholes for the wealthy. He says the Government has substantially diminished the ability of wealthy people to exploit concessions by reducing the cap on the amount of money people can put into the funds. He says the Government is unlikely to take up the rest of the Henry review's super recommendations. "We ultimately formed the view that the broad structure of the existing system was OK," Mr Tanner said. "We chose to put our emphasis on increasing the superannuation guarantee, bringing that in over an extended period of time and copping the budget hit that's involved as a result of that. "That's ultimately where the long-term interests of our community lie."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/retirees-elect-a-government-for-a-bigger-house/story-e6frgd0x-1225842748459


Quote:

Retirees elect a government for a bigger house    * Mike Steketee    * From: The Australian    * March 20, 2010 12:00AM HERE'S a question for an election year: what's government for, anyway? To judge by the tenor of the public debate, it is to look after those who can look after themselves. To misquote John F. Kennedy, ask not what you can do for yourself, but what government can do for you. People worry that their superannuation savings will not be adequate. Past generations expected to rely on the age pension in retirement, together with a few assets and, if lucky, a modest superannuation payout, often taken as a lump sum to clear the mortgage or go on a trip. Not any more. Just as we cannot live in a house that is not three times as large as that of our parents, we must have a retirement income just as large as our previous salary, and expect the government to provide this. Discussion about superannuation typically is framed in terms of the "limits" set by government. The complaint is that the 9 per cent of income required to be taken in compulsory superannuation is too low. So are the extra voluntary contributions that attract a tax concession. As Michael Dwyer, head of First State Super, said in last week's Inquirer cover story, many people, particularly women, want to catch up on their super contributions in later years. "They want to put as much money as they can into super because they know they have nowhere near enough to retire on, but they can't." Here's a tip: they can. Dwyer's problem is that last year's budget reduced the voluntary contributions, taxed at only 15 per cent, that those under 50 can put into super from $50,000 a year to $25,000, and for those over 50 from $100,000 to $50,000. But there is nothing to stop people putting in as much additional money as they like. They just have to pay normal tax on it. It is not as though the limits on tax concessions are stingy. Who has a spare $25,000 to $50,000 a year lying around? The 5 per cent of taxpayers on incomes above $100,000 in 2005-06 made 24 per cent of the concessional contributions to superannuation, according to a paper released last year by the Henry tax review and, because they receive the biggest deductions, they sucked up 37 per cent of the total tax concessions. Projecting forward to this financial year, Treasury estimates that those on incomes between $140,000 and $200,000 made an average contribution to superannuation of about 15 per cent -- that is, six percentage points above the compulsory level. And why wouldn't they when they have to pay only 15 per cent on the contributions rather than a marginal tax rate of 41.5 per cent or 46.5 per cent. A common assumption is that these tax concessions pay for themselves through savings on the age pension. They don't, not by a long shot, thanks particularly to how far up the income scale the Howard government extended the pension. The proportion of people over 65 receiving the pension is expected to hardly fall from the present 80 per cent over the next 40 years. The only real change is that some will move from a full to a part-pension. Paul Keating, who introduced compulsory superannuation when he was treasurer, this week called the halving of the cap on voluntary contributions that receive a tax break as a "dreadful decision", "shocking" and, in case his Radio National audience missed the point "bad, b-a-d, bad". His aspiration is to increase what he says is already the fourth largest pool of savings in the world, thereby reducing our reliance on overseas borrowings. It was the government's job, he said, to raise confidence in the superannuation system. Wasn't the tax benefit generous, asked Fran Kelly. "It's not generous enough." replied Keating, because to live as well in retirement as when working required 70 per cent of previous income and "what this system is giving is 40 per cent". No it's not. Treasury calculates that, for a person who works for 35 years, the age pension and 9 per cent superannuation provide a so-called replacement rate -- retirement spending power compared with previous income -- of about 75 per cent for those who were on three quarters of average earnings and falling to 40 per cent on 2 times average earnings. But that only covers the minimum compulsory superannuation contribution. Adding the average additional contributions that employees make through salary sacrifice lifts the replacement rate slightly to 80 per cent for the first group, while for the second it leaps to 95 per cent. Still, Keating demands that the compulsory superannuation level be raised from 9 per cent to 12 per cent. Australia has always borrowed heavily overseas to finance our capital requirements. It might be nice if we could rely more on domestic savings, but at what cost? Tax concessions for superannuation cost $24 billion last financial year, are projected to increase to $32bn in four year, and will keep rising steeply as the population ages.

/Contd.


Quote:

The first step in superannuation reform should be not to extend this largesse even further but to redistribute it to make it fairer. The 2.4 million on incomes up to $34,000 get no benefit at all from the concessions because they are below the tax threshold, or receive a break of only 1.5 percentage points because they are on the 16.5 per cent tax rate. In their submission to the Henry inquiry, the industry super funds put forward options such as eliminating the tax altogether for low income earners and setting it at 15 percentage points below marginal tax rates for others. In other words, people at different income levels would receive the same proportional benefit on their contributions and earnings. Even the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, representing commercial as well as other funds, argues for a ceiling on tax concessions because "the community should not direct too much tax support towards high-income earners who are likely to save or provide for themselves in retirement in any case". Nice as it sounds for high-income earners to go into retirement on pre-retirement incomes, it should not be the government's job to get them there. There is a case for compulsory superannuation, given that people typically regret not having saved enough for their future. There is a weaker case for tax concessions, since it pays people for something they are required to do anyway. The government's basic obligation is to provide a safety net, which it does through the age pension. Beyond that, it makes sense to provide or pay for services where it is more efficient or fairer to spread the cost over the whole community. Even high-income earners should not have to bear all the costs of open heart surgery. On the other hand, there is no reason why, if people want quicker treatment for elective surgery or a private hospital room, the government should pay a subsidy of 30 per cent or 40 per cent for their private health insurance. This tax concession has never achieved its much touted goal of taking pressure off public hospitals. Long economic booms raise people's expectations and election years encourage the belief that governments can meet them. Access Economics calculated in 2008 that in the 22 years to 1997-98, federal government spending per person rose by $2285 in current dollars and that it took only another nine years for the figure to rise by another $3207 to a total of $11,716. Perhaps a big budget deficit will slow down the rate of increase, though the election auction has not got off to a promising start with Tony Abbott's bid, under which women on an income of $150,000 would receive $75,000 as a six months' parental leave payment. As the Labor candidate for prime minister said in the 2007 election, "this sort of reckless spending must stop".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/retirees-elect-a-government-for-a-bigger-house/story-e6frgd0x-1225842748459

Have you heard the Liberal Democratic Party's tax reform policy? It's called 30/30. It's basically a negative income tax (flat tax supplemented by a sliding-scale of government payments). So in essence it is still a progressive tax.

There's a tax-free threshold of $30,000. You pay a flat rate of 30% on your income above $30,000. If you earn under $30,000, you receive a payment from the government depending on how much under $30,000 you earn. If you earn nothing, you receive 30% of $30,000, which is $9000. But if you earn $10,000 for example, you would receive 30% of $20,000 (because you earn $20,000 less than the threshold), which is $6000. So that's $16,000 at year's end, as you aren't taxed at all on your actual income because it's under the threshold.

I think it's a great tax system because there's no disincentive for earning more. You're tax rate doesn't go up even if you earn a million dollars a year. But that doesn't shift the burden of taxation onto low-income earners because there's a tax-free threshold of $30,000. And if you earn under $30,000 you'll get at least some government assistance. The worse off you are, the more government assistance you will receive.

BobH wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 4:39pm:

Have you heard the Liberal Democratic Party's tax reform policy? It's called 30/30. It's basically a negative income tax (flat tax supplemented by a sliding-scale of government payments). So in essence it is still a progressive tax. There's a tax-free threshold of $30,000. You pay a flat rate of 30% on your income above $30,000. If you earn under $30,000, you receive a payment from the government depending on how much under $30,000 you earn. If you earn nothing, you receive 30% of $30,000, which is $9000. But if you earn $10,000 for example, you would receive 30% of $20,000 (because you earn $20,000 less than the threshold), which is $6000. So that's $16,000 at year's end, as you aren't taxed at all on your actual income because it's under the threshold. I think it's a great tax system because there's no disincentive for earning more. You're tax rate doesn't go up even if you earn a million dollars a year. But that doesn't shift the burden of taxation onto low-income earners because there's a tax-free threshold of $30,000. And if you earn under $30,000 you'll get at least some government assistance. The worse off you are, the more government assistance you will receive.

Yes Bill, I have heard of it (amongst other bizarre things that the LDP euphemistically call 'Competitive Federalism' policies)...

IM(not-so)HO, your agenda amounts to thinly-veiled fascism-cum-anarchy - which would result in even more extreme polarisation of income, wealth, opportunity and power than traditional unbridled corporativism!

It is founded in inherently short-sighted monetary-cum-egocentric and anti-social dogma - and my gut feeling is that it would destroy all socio-economic order and promote mass environmental destruction - and ultimately result in premature Darwin Awards all round!

Kindly go back to your gated 'community', where self-selected individuals of your ilk belong - and continue to self-flagellate ad nauseum over your infinite self-importance - to decay in amoral isolation...

Oh, and enjoy your Darwin Award - but I'll pass, ta!

Cheers

Nem

White Dove what do call nonsense? Pleas explain.

The LDP 'Principles'


Quote:

The Liberal Democratic Party stands for greater freedom, smaller government and personal responsibility. The LDP stands for the following principles Economic Principles    * Free markets and freedom of choice    * Low tax, limited public spending and minimal regulation    * Widespread ownership of private property Social Principles    * Civil society and volunteerism    * Civil liberties and individual freedom    * Individual liberty and personal responsibility under the rule of law Government Principles    * Constitutional liberal democracy    * Ethical and impartial government under the rule of law    * Devolution of power including decentralised government and competitive federalism International Principles    * Free trade in goods, services and capital    * Free trade in ideas and culture    * Freedom and human rights

Then there's the 'Policies' - where the devil definitely lies in detail...


Quote:

LDP Policies    * Assisted suicide (Voluntary euthanasia)    * Civil liberties and individual freedom    * Competitive federalism    * Democracy    * Deregulate and Privatise    * Energy    * Environment    * Firearms    * Free trade    * Global warming    * Health    * Immigration    * Labour market regulation    * Lifestyle choices    * Motorcycles    * Nuclear power    * Property rights    * School education    * Smoking    * Taxation    * Traffic laws    * Victimless crimes    * Welfare Assisted Suicide (Voluntary Euthanasia) The LDP is committed to enacting legislation to allow all adult Australians of sound mind the right to assisted suicide provided there are appropriate safety mechanisms to ensure consent is freely and rationally given. It also supports the free speech right to provide those who may wish to end their lives the information they require to do so. .. read more Civil Liberties and Individual Freedom The LDP supports individuals' ownership of themselves and their right to pursue their own lifestyles, make their own decisions and engage in their own hobbies and interests as long as they do not directly harm other people or their property. However, with freedom comes responsibility. The LDP believes that individuals should also take responsibility for their own decisions in life. .. read more Competitive Federalism The LDP supports competitive federalism as it was intended by the founders of the constitution. Where possible, government activities should be decentralised to the State level to allow the benefits of governmental competition, policy experimentation and individual choice. This will also allow the removal of bureaucratic duplication of federal and state agencies. Democracy The LDP believes in a constitutional democracy. The LDP supports voluntary voting, citizens initiated referendums, fixed parliamentary terms, the option of recall elections, constitutional protection of private property and sunset clauses on legislation. These reforms represent a tangible step forward in promoting both liberty and democracy in Australia. .. read more Deregulate and Privatise The LDP supports the privatisation policies of ALP and Coalition governments over the past 20 years. We believe this process should continue and support an immediate end to state and federal ownership of the ABC, SBS, Australia Post, Medibank Private, electricity generation corporations, and bus, ferry and rail services. The LDP also supports a new round of regulation reforms modelled on the National Competition Council, focused on assessing all regulations for their impacts on productivity and economic welfare. .. read more Energy The LDP does not believe in either subsidising or unfairly taxing any particular source of energy. Energy is a vital element of any economy and the LDP recognises the valuable contribution the energy sector (and especially coal) makes to the Australian economy. The LDP would not restrict nuclear energy or uranium mining in Australia. .. read more Environment The LDP values the natural environment within the context of a prosperous society that provides equal protection under the law and is based on respect for individual freedom, personal responsibility, small government and the defence of private property. We recognise that societies in which government is smaller rather than bigger have produced better environmental quality and a better and fairer outcome for all members of society, including the poor. .. read more Firearms The LDP supports the right to own firearms for sport, hunting, collecting and self defence. .. read more Free Trade The LDP supports the free international trade in goods, services and capital. We are committed to achieve the APEC goals of complete free trade by 2010. .. read more Global Warming The LDP acknowledges that there is scientific evidence to suggest a trend towards global warming and the possibility that humans may be partly responsible. However, it does not consider governments have the competence to address the problem and looks to market responses instead. .. read more Health The LDP proposes to wrest back from government and return to consumers control of individual health care choices. It seeks to rescue people from a situation in which they are dependent on decisions by government to one in which they are able to make decisions for themselves and to provide for themselves. By cutting back the proportion of health care funded directly by government and re-aligning incentives, enormous savings can be made by reducing the waste and excessive costs of a public system.  At the same time, relaxation of regulatory controls will allow new organisations providing health services to emerge that will help to limit costs while improving quality. .. read more Immigration The LDP supports immigration and believes immigrants generally provide a net social and economic benefit to Australia. It supports expanding opportunities to live and work in Australia while carefully guarding opportunities to receive welfare or become full citizens. The LDP also supports additional “free immigration agreements” with appropriate countries (Japan, Singapore, Canada, Sweden, etc) similar to the current agreement with New Zealand...

Quote:

Immigration The LDP supports immigration and believes immigrants generally provide a net social and economic benefit to Australia. It supports expanding opportunities to live and work in Australia while carefully guarding opportunities to receive welfare or become full citizens. The LDP also supports additional “free immigration agreements” with appropriate countries (Japan, Singapore, Canada, Sweden, etc) similar to the current agreement with New Zealand and along the same lines as “free trade agreements” . .. read more Labour Market Regulation The LDP supports a free market in labour and opposes excessive labour market regulation and the minimum wage. The LDP would replace the minimum wage with a negative income tax to support low-income earners. Details are provided in the Welfare policy. Lifestyle Choices Adults must be free to make their own decisions without interference by the government or requiring its approval. Adults are not like children and do not need anyone to make their choices for them. They can choose where to live, which job to take, where to go on holiday and what to do with their money, and live with the consequences. Similarly, they can choose their particular lifestyle including such things as how to live, whether to live alone or with others and who to live with. .. read more Motorcycles The LDP believes those who choose to use motorcycles and scooters should not be discouraged by government policies. The use of motorcycles and scooters is a matter of individual choice. So long as nobody else is likely to be harmed, it is not acceptable for the government to interfere in it. .. read more Nuclear Power There is a longstanding perception that nuclear power plants are expensive and dangerous with the potential for accidents and leaks outweighing the potential benefits they could provide. There are also concerns about what to do with nuclear waste products such as spent fuel rods. Whether or not these concerns were once valid, they are certainly not valid now. Advances in the design of nuclear power plants mean that they are now safe and produce quite small quantities of waste. Moreover, waste can now be safely stored indefinitely. .. read more Property Rights The LDP believes that people have the right to own and control private property and that the only legitimate way to deal with each other is through voluntary exchange. It believes that maintaining the safety and security of the Australian people and their property must be the government’s first priority. The LDP supports a shift in security resources away from victimless crimes (seatbelts, bicycle helmets, drugs) and towards preventing physical and property crimes such as assault, rape and theft. .. read more School Education The LDP opposes the state-federal jurisdictional duplication in education policy and believes that school funding and regulation should be decentralised and devolved to the state level. At the state level the LDP supports the introduction of school vouchers to allow greater competition between schools and greater parental choice. .. read more Smoking It is everyone's right to control the property they own, and everyone's right to determine the standards of behaviour on their own property. Just as a private individual has the right to dictate whether visitors or guests may smoke in their lounge-room or their car, so too the owner of a bar or restaurant should have the right to determine whether smoking should or should not be permitted on their premises. .. read more Taxation The LDP believes we need significant cuts in income tax. It supports the 30/30 tax system where nobody pays income tax on their first $30,000 and there is a flat 30% income tax on income above $30,000. The LDP would also bring all taxes into line so that the same tax applied on all income - whether wages, capital gain, company profits or fringe benefits. .. read more Traffic Laws The LDP believes traffic laws should strike a better balance between safety and the need for efficient travel over long distances. The balance is currently determined by public servants, whereas it should be a matter for the community. .. read more Victimless Crimes The LDP does not generally support the criminalisation of victimless crimes. Wherever possible it will seek to reduce the intrusion of government into these areas. .. read more Welfare Economic growth has led to all Australians (including the poor) getting richer and more money going to charity. Consequently there is less and less need for our large and expensive welfare system. The LDP supports the replacement of all current welfare programs with a comprehensive negative income tax that provides a basic standard of living and some assistance to the working poor. .. read more

Quote:

Welfare       LDP Principles The LDP supports a society that fosters individual responsibility and civic institutions in preference to government funded welfare. People who are healthy and capable should as far as possible provide for their own material needs through personal effort, thrift and financial independence. Where people are genuinely unable to provide for themselves they should be supported primarily through social institutions such as family, friends, their local community, religious groups and private charities. Australians already demonstrate an enormous level of goodwill towards those in need through numerous voluntary organisations including institutions such as the volunteer bush fire services and surf life saving clubs. Over successive generations the role of government welfare has shifted from being an ancillary service that supplements and supports community and family-based efforts, to full scale intervention that in many instances completely displaces civil society. In the process it has created many perverse incentives and dependencies that in some instances exacerbate problems rather than provide assistance. There are currently 700,000 Australians of working age on the disability support pension. This number does not include those on unemployment benefits or over the age of 65. As a proportion of the working age population, the percentage of people receiving the disability support pension has more than doubled in the last 25 years in spite of improvements to work safety and general health trends. Respected aboriginal leader Noel Pearson has complained that welfare dependency has in fact been destructive of aboriginal culture, society and self respect. Welfare handed out by government, without obligation from the recipients, was described as sit down money. The criticisms of welfare mentality in the Aboriginal community ring true of the wider community. What started out as a system for assisting people in need has mutated into a system that prepares people for nothing except welfare dependency. The welfare system has grown into a self serving industry with whole government departments, consultants, lobbyists and companies all depending on large numbers of “clients” to justify their existence. In more recent times political expediency has seen the expansion of so called middle class welfare through initiatives such as Family Tax Benefits and the baby bonus. In response to an expanding welfare budget, governments have at the same time found it necessary to means-test such benefits and phase them out as incomes rise. When combined with the income tax system, effective marginal tax rates (EMTR) now commonly exceed 50% and in many instances reach 75% (even before considering other taxes like GST). Some families that take the initiative to earn an extra dollar will find that they get to keep just 25 cents or less. Whilst this problem has received lip-service recognition from the major political parties there has been decidedly little in the way of action to fix the problem. Specific Policies Under the LDP 30/30 tax policy, for every dollar an individual earns over $30,000 they pay 30 cents in income tax and for every dollar they earn under $30,000 they receive a low income subsidy of 30 cents. Hence the LDP tax policy forms the core of the approach to government funded welfare support. What follows are the supplementary reform details specific to current welfare recipients. * Disability Support Pension The existing disability support pension would be replaced with the general low income subsidy as outlined in the 30/30 tax policy. The LDP would use any savings from this simplification to provide grants to better fund existing private charities working in the area of disability support. * Unemployment benefits Existing unemployment benefits would be replacing with the general low income subsidy as outlined in the 30/30 tax policy. This subsidy would end the current process of harassing the unemployed. At the same time the LDP would increase the incentive for employers to create jobs by eliminating the minimum wage and allowing the labour market to operate freely. Combined, these measures would allow some wages to fall in areas of high unemployment whilst protecting the actual income level of workers. * Family Benefits. The existing Family Tax Benefits part-A and part-B as well as the Child Care Tax Rebate and Baby Bonus would be replaced. However the LDP tax policy would recognise the additional cost of raising children with an increased tax free threshold of $6,000 per child for the nominated parent (usually the primary income earner) and a corresponding increase in the low income subsidy for families. * Aged Pension The aged would be eligible for the low income subsidy along with everyone else. Those that prefer to continue working will not be confronted by disincentives from...

Quote:

* Aged Pension The aged would be eligible for the low income subsidy along with everyone else. Those that prefer to continue working will not be confronted by disincentives from the taxation system. For those of pension age with no income apart from the low income subsidy, the low income subsidy will be topped up to the current pension level. However, in recognition of the introduction of compulsory superannuation in 1992 and of the increasing health and physical capability of older Australians, eligibility for this would be raised over time. For those born prior to 1945 there would be no change in the eligibility age. For each year of birth after 1945 the pension eligibility age would rise by one year. Thus, for example, somebody born in 1950 would be eligible for the top up when they turn 70. For any individuals that suffer hardship, the LDP would support tailored assistance delivered by private charities and state governments in preference to blanket policies delivered by the Commonwealth..

Equitist wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 9:11pm:

BobH wrote on Jul 29th, 2010 at 4:39pm: Have you heard the Liberal Democratic Party's tax reform policy? It's called 30/30. It's basically a negative income tax (flat tax supplemented by a sliding-scale of government payments). So in essence it is still a progressive tax. There's a tax-free threshold of $30,000. You pay a flat rate of 30% on your income above $30,000. If you earn under $30,000, you receive a payment from the government depending on how much under $30,000 you earn. If you earn nothing, you receive 30% of $30,000, which is $9000. But if you earn $10,000 for example, you would receive 30% of $20,000 (because you earn $20,000 less than the threshold), which is $6000. So that's $16,000 at year's end, as you aren't taxed at all on your actual income because it's under the threshold. I think it's a great tax system because there's no disincentive for earning more. You're tax rate doesn't go up even if you earn a million dollars a year. But that doesn't shift the burden of taxation onto low-income earners because there's a tax-free threshold of $30,000. And if you earn under $30,000 you'll get at least some government assistance. The worse off you are, the more government assistance you will receive. Yes Bill, I have heard of it (amongst other bizarre things that the LDP euphemistically call 'Competitive Federalism' policies)... IM(not-so)HO, your agenda amounts to thinly-veiled fascism-cum-anarchy - which would result in even more extreme polarisation of income, wealth, opportunity and power than traditional unbridled corporativism! It is founded in inherently short-sighted monetary-cum-egocentric and anti-social dogma - and my gut feeling is that it would destroy all socio-economic order and promote mass environmental destruction - and ultimately result in premature Darwin Awards all round! Kindly go back to your gated 'community', where self-selected individuals of your ilk belong - and continue to self-flagellate ad nauseum over your infinite self-importance - to decay in amoral isolation... Oh, and enjoy your Darwin Award - but I'll pass, ta! Cheers Nem

Well first-of-all, thank you for copy-pasting the LDP's policies here. I wasn't going to go to all that trouble, but I'm glad someone did.

I must say it's a little hard to decipher your muddle of quasi-intellectualisms. But I guess I get the general gist of what you're saying. You think a flat tax, even when supplemented by a sliding-scale of government payments to the unemployed and low income earners, would result in greater economic disparity. I suppose you'd rather a more progressive tax (I assume because you call the current tax system to regressive in your OP). But in my estimation, progressive tax rates end up squeezing the middle class, which is what causes the disparity between low-income earners and high-income earners. Because when you put higher rates on income over a certain amount, there's an incentive for high-income earners to hide their assets over that amount in investments overseas. But the common man can't as easily do that so the tax burden gets shifted to him.

And then there's the part where you randomly throw in "mass environmental destruction". I don't know if I even want to know the logic behind that one, if it's as disjointed as your original response to me. If you want to talk environmentalism, then you can't take the tax policy on its own. You have to put in the context of other Liberal Democratic policies. I think what you want to look at is point #3 under the economic policies you copy-pasted. Obviously private land is some of the most well looked after and preserved. There is an economic incentive for private property owners to look after their own property. Especially if they use that property for further economic gain. E.g. if they own a tree farm or something. The incentive is to keep breeding trees so you can keep making money. Private property rights are key to protecting the environment.

BobH wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 11:42pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 29th, 2010 at 9:11pm: BobH wrote on Jul 29th, 2010 at 4:39pm: Have you heard the Liberal Democratic Party's tax reform policy? It's called 30/30. It's basically a negative income tax (flat tax supplemented by a sliding-scale of government payments). So in essence it is still a progressive tax. There's a tax-free threshold of $30,000. You pay a flat rate of 30% on your income above $30,000. If you earn under $30,000, you receive a payment from the government depending on how much under $30,000 you earn. If you earn nothing, you receive 30% of $30,000, which is $9000. But if you earn $10,000 for example, you would receive 30% of $20,000 (because you earn $20,000 less than the threshold), which is $6000. So that's $16,000 at year's end, as you aren't taxed at all on your actual income because it's under the threshold. I think it's a great tax system because there's no disincentive for earning more. You're tax rate doesn't go up even if you earn a million dollars a year. But that doesn't shift the burden of taxation onto low-income earners because there's a tax-free threshold of $30,000. And if you earn under $30,000 you'll get at least some government assistance. The worse off you are, the more government assistance you will receive. Yes Bill, I have heard of it (amongst other bizarre things that the LDP euphemistically call 'Competitive Federalism' policies)... IM(not-so)HO, your agenda amounts to thinly-veiled fascism-cum-anarchy - which would result in even more extreme polarisation of income, wealth, opportunity and power than traditional unbridled corporativism! It is founded in inherently short-sighted monetary-cum-egocentric and anti-social dogma - and my gut feeling is that it would destroy all socio-economic order and promote mass environmental destruction - and ultimately result in premature Darwin Awards all round! Kindly go back to your gated 'community', where self-selected individuals of your ilk belong - and continue to self-flagellate ad nauseum over your infinite self-importance - to decay in amoral isolation... Oh, and enjoy your Darwin Award - but I'll pass, ta! Cheers Nem Well first-of-all, thank you for copy-pasting the LDP's policies here. I wasn't going to go to all that trouble, but I'm glad someone did. I must say it's a little hard to decipher your muddle of quasi-intellectualisms. But I guess I get the general gist of what you're saying. You think a flat tax, even when supplemented by a sliding-scale of government payments to the unemployed and low income earners, would result in greater economic disparity. I suppose you'd rather a more progressive tax (I assume because you call the current tax system to regressive in your OP). But in my estimation, progressive tax rates end up squeezing the middle class, which is what causes the disparity between low-income earners and high-income earners. Because when you put higher rates on income over a certain amount, there's an incentive for high-income earners to hide their assets over that amount in investments overseas. But the common man can't as easily do that so the tax burden gets shifted to him. And then there's the part where you randomly throw in "mass environmental destruction". I don't know if I even want to know the logic behind that one, if it's as disjointed as your original response to me. If you want to talk environmentalism, then you can't take the tax policy on its own. You have to put in the context of other Liberal Democratic policies. I think what you want to look at is point #3 under the economic policies you copy-pasted. Obviously private land is some of the most well looked after and preserved. There is an economic incentive for private property owners to look after their own property. Especially if they use that property for further economic gain. E.g. if they own a tree farm or something. The incentive is to keep breeding trees so you can keep making money. Private property rights are key to protecting the environment.

Actually, Bob, methinks we may have crossed political swords in another forum - hence my above comments are somewhat abridged...

Suffice to say that my concluded opinion is that: the LDP's exclusive individualistic and money-obsessed demographic is gravely out of touch with human needs and nature - and terminally unable to appreciate the fragiliity and intrinsic value of the dynamic and life-giving natural systems upon which humans necessarily rely...

Well I am active on a few forums around the place so maybe we have discussed this before. But it's very apparent to me that you are on such a difference wavelength to me. I'm not in the business of basing public policy on human nature and social theories. I don't believe that's the way to set public policy. I'm sorry but the early 20th century progressives you became the Bolsheviks and the Communists talked about social studies and human nature. I prefer to base public policy on freedom and what gives the individual maximum freedom. I actually detest the idea that you need to study humanity and formulate a social-economic policy on that. It's just seems very anti-life and anti-liberty to me. Sorry.

BobH wrote on Jul 30^th, 2010 at 12:00am:

Well I am active on a few forums around the place so maybe we have discussed this before. But it's very apparent to me that you are on such a difference wavelength to me. I'm not in the business of basing public policy on human nature and social theories. I don't believe that's the way to set public policy. I'm sorry but the early 20th century progressives you became the Bolsheviks and the Communists talked about social studies and human nature. I prefer to base public policy on freedom and what gives the individual maximum freedom. I actually detest the idea that you need to study humanity and formulate a social-economic policy on that. It's just seems very anti-life and anti-liberty to me. Sorry.

So, why the pretense of being concerned about society at all, when clearly you believe in individualism, money, property, markets and competition above all else!?

Like I said, those of your egocentric ilk are unwittingly aiming for a Darwin Award - and the sooner the better as far as I am concerned!

Meantime, I suggest that you set up your gun-filled gated 'community' on some isolated island, where you can enact 'public (i.e. not social) policy' to suit dehumanised units of economic production...

Where economic units can fight for life and compete for money, land and supremacy - and be free to enslave each other and trade your moral vacuums amongst yourselves - before wantonly-consuming your individual selves into cannibalism, decay and oblivion...

Adios!

Jeimi; do you think it is the governments job to hand out tax-free super to the over sixties, which often exceeds %100,000 per annum

Equitist wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 9:11pm:

BobH wrote on Jul 29th, 2010 at 4:39pm: Have you heard the Liberal Democratic Party's tax reform policy? It's called 30/30. It's basically a negative income tax (flat tax supplemented by a sliding-scale of government payments). So in essence it is still a progressive tax. There's a tax-free threshold of $30,000. You pay a flat rate of 30% on your income above $30,000. If you earn under $30,000, you receive a payment from the government depending on how much under $30,000 you earn. If you earn nothing, you receive 30% of $30,000, which is $9000. But if you earn $10,000 for example, you would receive 30% of $20,000 (because you earn $20,000 less than the threshold), which is $6000. So that's $16,000 at year's end, as you aren't taxed at all on your actual income because it's under the threshold. I think it's a great tax system because there's no disincentive for earning more. You're tax rate doesn't go up even if you earn a million dollars a year. But that doesn't shift the burden of taxation onto low-income earners because there's a tax-free threshold of $30,000. And if you earn under $30,000 you'll get at least some government assistance. The worse off you are, the more government assistance you will receive. Yes Bill, I have heard of it (amongst other bizarre things that the LDP euphemistically call 'Competitive Federalism' policies)... IM(not-so)HO, your agenda amounts to thinly-veiled fascism-cum-anarchy - which would result in even more extreme polarisation of income, wealth, opportunity and power than traditional unbridled corporativism! It is founded in inherently short-sighted monetary-cum-egocentric and anti-social dogma - and my gut feeling is that it would destroy all socio-economic order and promote mass environmental destruction - and ultimately result in premature Darwin Awards all round! Kindly go back to your gated 'community', where self-selected individuals of your ilk belong - and continue to self-flagellate ad nauseum over your infinite self-importance - to decay in amoral isolation... Oh, and enjoy your Darwin Award - but I'll pass, ta! Cheers Nem

It's just a tax reform. Why the drama?

freediver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2010 at 7:16pm:

It's just a tax reform. Why the drama?

LOL...if only the LDP were only about tax reform - the tentacles of their insidious socio-economic and environmental agendas spread far above, below and beyond taxation...

Equitist wrote on Jul 30^th, 2010 at 12:18am:

So, why the pretense of being concerned about society at all

because it is my opinion that clearly

Equitist wrote on Jul 30^th, 2010 at 12:18am:

individualism, money, property, markets and competition

have a positive effect on society.

Successful societies always rely on individuals cooperating together voluntarily (trade) rather than as a forced collective, governments respecting and enforcing private property rights, and a free and competitive market.

Freedom has been the greatest benefit to society and to the people of that society.

By the way, our only agenda is to promote freedom. And we want to protect the environment. Read our environmental policies.

What's your beef with the Liberal Democrats? We are just a relatively new, small party. How could you possibly hate us that much when we don't yet have any influence in government? We are still just trying to get our name out. The media doesn't even recognise us much. I don't understand how we could pose such a threat that you feel the need to be so dramatic.

Bob could you please start a new thread about the LDP? I am interested in hearing more about them.

^ Would that go in this forum or 'Politicians Suck'?

BobH wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 11:36am:

^ Would that go in this forum or 'Politicians Suck'?

IM(not-so)HO: definitely the latter - but the Mods ultimately decide about the most apt forum for all threads and move them as and when they deem fit...

Yes, the politicians suck board would be the appropriate one.

Meantime, back in the campaign circus...the LibLabs are accusing each other of an agenda to increase the rate of GST...

http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2010/08/11/Swan-has-the-form-to-increase-GST.aspx


Quote:

Swan has the form to increase GST 11/08/10 In making false accusations regarding GST increases today, Wayne Swan is again trying to muddy the waters to deflect attention away from his own appalling track record on increasing taxes. The Coalition absolutely and categorically rules out any increase whatsoever in the GST By suggesting otherwise, Wayne Swan has again demonstrated his increasing desperation. Labor is truly the party of increased taxes as confirmed by its great big mining tax, plans to introduce a carbon tax and tax slugs on cigarettes, alcohol, tobacco, passports and the list goes on. Wayne Swan is always on the lookout for new ways of taxing Australians in order to help fund Labor’s out-of-control spending, which has produced a $57 billion deficit and a $90 billion debt. These are numbers that Wayne Swan refuses to discuss because they represent his appalling track record. If anyone is likely to increase the GST it is the Gillard government.

I hereby wager that it will be the Libs who increase this inherently-regressive tax - in order to cut high-end taxes for the elite and incorporated!

They will do so at the first opportunity - either when the majority of States are Lib and/or the Federal Libs can confect an excuse under false economic pretenses...

The most obvious pretenses being: GFC and imaginary high Federal Deficits and Debt...

The Labs have recently demonstrated their propensity towards progressive taxation and welfare measures (ergo proposed Resources Tax Superannuation increases and ETS) - unlike the libs, who dogmatically favour recklessly counter-productive elite and corporate tax cuts and reverse-means-tested WEALTHfare measures!

Equitist wrote on Aug 12^th, 2010 at 12:08pm:

Meantime, back in the campaign circus...the LibLabs are accusing each other of an agenda to increase the rate of GST... http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2010/08/11/Swan-has-the-form-to-increase-GST.aspx Quote: Swan has the form to increase GST 11/08/10 In making false accusations regarding GST increases today, Wayne Swan is again trying to muddy the waters to deflect attention away from his own appalling track record on increasing taxes. The Coalition absolutely and categorically rules out any increase whatsoever in the GST By suggesting otherwise, Wayne Swan has again demonstrated his increasing desperation. Labor is truly the party of increased taxes as confirmed by its great big mining tax, plans to introduce a carbon tax and tax slugs on cigarettes, alcohol, tobacco, passports and the list goes on. Wayne Swan is always on the lookout for new ways of taxing Australians in order to help fund Labor’s out-of-control spending, which has produced a $57 billion deficit and a $90 billion debt. These are numbers that Wayne Swan refuses to discuss because they represent his appalling track record. If anyone is likely to increase the GST it is the Gillard government. I hereby wager that it will be the Libs who increase this inherently-regressive tax - in order to cut high-end taxes for the elite and incorporated! They will do so at the first opportunity - either when the majority of States are Lib and/or the Federal Libs can confect an excuse under false economic pretenses... The most obvious pretenses being: GFC and imaginary high Federal Deficits and Debt... The Labs have recently demonstrated their propensity towards progressive taxation and welfare measures (ergo proposed Resources Tax Superannuation increases and ETS) - unlike the libs, who dogmatically favour recklessly counter-productive elite and corporate tax cuts and reverse-means-tested WEALTHfare measures!

Whilst I think you are correct that the Liberals would introduce measures that would favour those who they see as their constituents, similar could be said for Labor.

That said, the Libs would most likely go into regressive tax measures that would reduce the Publics Disposable income, and that would have the effect of drastically reducing Consumer Demand, at absolutely the wrong time.

The UK Conservatives have already started down that line and it would be "in the Liberal genes" for them to do something similar here!  

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 12^th, 2010 at 12:31pm:

That said, the Libs would most likely go into regressive tax measures that would reduce the Publics Disposable income, and that would have the effect of drastically reducing Consumer Demand, at absolutely the wrong time. The UK Conservatives have already started down that line and it would be "in the Liberal genes" for them to do something similar here!

It is truly scary, that most born-to-rule Conservative types arrogantly claim to be superior economic managers, yet they are inherently lacking in the capacity for lateral and creative thought...

They tend to be dogmatic elitists, who worship the almighty Mickey Mouse Monopoly dollar and the Growth Fairy at all costs - and ignore complex psycho-social and environmental limitations and multiplier effects - and therefore their counter-intuitive policies are dangerously linear, draconian, divisive and counter-productive...

They tend to be dogmatic elitists, who worship the almighty Mickey Mouse Monopoly dollar and the Growth Fairy at all costs - and ignore complex psycho-social and environmental limitations and multiplier effects - and therefore their counter-intuitive policies are dangerously linear, draconian, divisive and counter-productive...
[/quote]


oh my god what a load WANK

THY    do you really believe anyone takes any notice of that crap if anyone does. they would be in a minority


: :D :D :DD

bwood1946 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2010 at 1:05pm:

Quote: They tend to be dogmatic elitists, who worship the almighty Mickey Mouse Monopoly dollar and the Growth Fairy at all costs - and ignore complex psycho-social and environmental limitations and multiplier effects - and therefore their counter-intuitive policies are dangerously linear, draconian, divisive and counter-productive... oh my god what a load WANK THY    do you really believe anyone takes any notice of that crap if anyone does. they would be in a minority : :D :D :DD

Well...actually...all criticisms of my writing style aside...

I am concerned that far too few people are seriously looking at the crucial underlying big picture issues that face humanity into the medium and longer term - and I maintain that time will validate my concerns!

I also hope that you live long enough to admit (to yourself) your own folly in underestimating such important matters...

Crikey, check this out: -

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business-sa-calls-for-tough-action/story-e6frea6u-1225902253119


Quote:

Business SA calls for tough action    * Christopher Russell, Businnes Editor    * From: The Advertiser    * August 06, 2010 6:09PM THE incoming Federal Government should starve the states of GST revenue until they scrap irritating and inefficient fees and taxes which discourage investment and employment, the state's peak employer group says. Issuing a landmark report today making 40 policy recommendations to federal politicians, Business SA chief executive Peter Vaughan called for bold leadership. "One of the problems with the election campaign is nobody is talking about a vision," he said. "Everybody's trying to shrink us into the smallest ball possible. "Good decisions and leadership are not made out of being frightened. "There's nothing to be frightened about. "We should be joyful and glad that we're in Australia and what we in Business SA are proposing though our Top 40 would make Australia the envy of the world." Both major parties intended to increase the burden on business, a move than would crush employment growth, he said. The Business SA recommendations cover a range of issues from taxation through water and energy to workplace relations. These include calls to:    * REVERSE the plan to force employers to pay for an increase in superannuation.    * SCRAP the idea of making employers pay a parental leave levy and either have the Commonwealth fund it as a public good or introduce a HECS-style loan system for workers to pay for it themselves.    * BE decisive about carbon pricing because delaying the debate will drive up electricity prices.    * EMBRACE nuclear energy as a fuel to mitigate against climate-change with gas-fired power stations encouraged in the medium term while nuclear and renewables are built up.    * SEIZE control of the entire Murray Darling Basin from the states and increase the powers of the basin authority but force it to be accountable and transparent.    * REFORM workplace relations to be attuned to the modern world including flexibility to negotiate on conditions such as time for family, study or other outside interests. "The reason this document is being put forward representing the views of thousands and thousands of businesses is because throughout this whole campaign, irrespective of which political party you turn to, there has been a substantial lack of vision and leadership about the future of this country," Mr Vaughan said. While the Business SA document originated from a state-based organisation, the recommendations were based on national research and themes. Business SA felt compelled to act because so much of the campaign had been about personalities instead of policies. "No one is standing up saying here is the vision, this is what needs to happen, yes, we're a good nation but we can be a great one if we attend to these issues," Mr Vaughan said. "This is far more important than personalities; this is the future of our country." The Business SA document will be sent to all major political parties to seek their response to the 40 recommendations. One of the issues needing vision was population, with Mr Vaughan concerned debate had been hijacked by fear-mongering over asylum seekers. "We are a rich, First World country and we can be the jewel in the Pacific," he said. "This is the era for Australia because we're perfectly positioned in the Pacific Basin between India and China. "This country could have substantially more people as long as we create the nation-building things that go with it." Business SA supports a population target of at least two million for the state, with a continued strong intake of skilled migrants. In Business SA's view, migrants such as wine marketer Ava Huang benefit the state. A Chinese national, Ms Huang studied business administration at Guangdong University of Technology before enrolling at the University of Adelaide where she graduated with masters in wine business and in commerce as well as obtaining a professional certificate in international trade. She now works for Setanta Wines in the Adelaide Hills. "Due to cultural and language barriers, there is a huge gap between Australian wineries and Chinese wine buyers," she said. "The two parties need someone who can understand both the market and language to help them find a perfect match." While US and European wine markets have slumped, Australian wine exports to China have grown from $21 million in 2005-06 to $140 million in 2009-10.

It is truly scary to read, that this is the mentality of the powerful Big Business Union puppeteers of the Liberal Party...

Equitist wrote on Aug 12^th, 2010 at 1:25pm:

Crikey, check this out: - http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business-sa-calls-for-tough-action/story-e6frea6u-1225902253119 Quote: Business SA calls for tough action    * Christopher Russell, Businnes Editor    * From: The Advertiser    * August 06, 2010 6:09PM THE incoming Federal Government should starve the states of GST revenue until they scrap irritating and inefficient fees and taxes which discourage investment and employment, the state's peak employer group says. Issuing a landmark report today making 40 policy recommendations to federal politicians, Business SA chief executive Peter Vaughan called for bold leadership. "One of the problems with the election campaign is nobody is talking about a vision," he said. "Everybody's trying to shrink us into the smallest ball possible. "Good decisions and leadership are not made out of being frightened. "There's nothing to be frightened about. "We should be joyful and glad that we're in Australia and what we in Business SA are proposing though our Top 40 would make Australia the envy of the world." Both major parties intended to increase the burden on business, a move than would crush employment growth, he said. The Business SA recommendations cover a range of issues from taxation through water and energy to workplace relations. These include calls to:    * REVERSE the plan to force employers to pay for an increase in superannuation.    * SCRAP the idea of making employers pay a parental leave levy and either have the Commonwealth fund it as a public good or introduce a HECS-style loan system for workers to pay for it themselves.    * BE decisive about carbon pricing because delaying the debate will drive up electricity prices.    * EMBRACE nuclear energy as a fuel to mitigate against climate-change with gas-fired power stations encouraged in the medium term while nuclear and renewables are built up.    * SEIZE control of the entire Murray Darling Basin from the states and increase the powers of the basin authority but force it to be accountable and transparent.    * REFORM workplace relations to be attuned to the modern world including flexibility to negotiate on conditions such as time for family, study or other outside interests. "The reason this document is being put forward representing the views of thousands and thousands of businesses is because throughout this whole campaign, irrespective of which political party you turn to, there has been a substantial lack of vision and leadership about the future of this country," Mr Vaughan said. While the Business SA document originated from a state-based organisation, the recommendations were based on national research and themes. Business SA felt compelled to act because so much of the campaign had been about personalities instead of policies. "No one is standing up saying here is the vision, this is what needs to happen, yes, we're a good nation but we can be a great one if we attend to these issues," Mr Vaughan said. "This is far more important than personalities; this is the future of our country." The Business SA document will be sent to all major political parties to seek their response to the 40 recommendations. One of the issues needing vision was population, with Mr Vaughan concerned debate had been hijacked by fear-mongering over asylum seekers. "We are a rich, First World country and we can be the jewel in the Pacific," he said. "This is the era for Australia because we're perfectly positioned in the Pacific Basin between India and China. "This country could have substantially more people as long as we create the nation-building things that go with it." Business SA supports a population target of at least two million for the state, with a continued strong intake of skilled migrants. In Business SA's view, migrants such as wine marketer Ava Huang benefit the state. A Chinese national, Ms Huang studied business administration at Guangdong University of Technology before enrolling at the University of Adelaide where she graduated with masters in wine business and in commerce as well as obtaining a professional certificate in international trade. She now works for Setanta Wines in the Adelaide Hills. "Due to cultural and language barriers, there is a huge gap between Australian wineries and Chinese wine buyers," she said. "The two parties need someone who can understand both the market and language to help them find a perfect match." While US and European wine markets have slumped, Australian wine exports to China have grown from $21 million in 2005-06 to $140 million in 2009-10. It is truly scary to read, that this is the mentality of the powerful Big Business Union puppeteers of the Liberal Party...

THY quite think your friend Christopher Russell has gone too far    ;D

See also: -


Quote:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1288330638/0#10 Re: No Case For More Tax Cuts For High Income Earners