It's called negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts !!

Now repeat after me Mr Morrison.

"Negative Gearing"

And say it one more time:-

"Negative Gearing"

I can see some argument for negative gearing in a viable business... but at the same time there is absolutely zero argument for any reduced capital gains from the same business.

That is a rort pure and simple.  It is completely non-viable for a government to subsidise making of profit and then even suggest that the rewards of the subsidised profit should then evade tax.  Only a government with a vested self-interest would impose such a ridiculous regime on this 'industry'.

But I suppose that kind of discussion is just 'the politics of envy'.. what utter nonsense.

Side note:-  I still love meeting the 'property millionaires' who need a job to sustain their 'portfolio'.  The question then arises:-  why should a person gain subsidy on that demanded job, when that subsidy is only there to sustain a profit-making venture by the same person, when that profit-making venture is obviously a failure without all the subsidy?

Why negative gearing on property sucks

Opponents of negative gearing argue that:


Quote:

It encourages over-investment in residential property, an essentially "unproductive" asset, which is an economic distortion. Investors inflate the residential property market, making it less affordable for first home buyers or other owner-occupiers. In Australia in 2007, nine out of ten negatively geared properties were existing dwellings, so the creation of rental supply comes almost entirely at the expense of displacing potential owner-occupiers. Thus, if negative gearing is to exist, it should only be applied to newly constructed properties. It encourages speculators into the property market, inflating for instance the Australian property bubble that began in the mid-1990s, partly the result of increased availability of credit that occurred following the entry of non-bank lenders into the Australian mortgage market. Tax deductions and overall benefits accrue to those who already have high incomes. This will make the rich investors even richer and the poorer population even poorer, possibly creating and prolonging a social divide between socioeconomic classes. Tax deductions reduce government revenue by a significant amount each year, which either represents non-investors subsidising investors, or makes the government less able to provide other programs. A negatively geared property never generates net income, so losses should not be deductible. Deductibility of business losses when there is a reasonable expectation of gaining income is a well-accepted principle, but the argument against negative gearing is that it will never generate income. Opponents of full deductibility would presumably at least allow losses to be capitalised into the investor's cost base.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 8:29am:

It's called negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts !! Now repeat after me Mr Morrison. "Negative Gearing" And say it one more time:- "Negative Gearing"

You have only one string in your bow.

And you are boring and your opinions worthless because of it.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 8:37am:

I can see some argument for negative gearing in a viable business... but at the same time there is absolutely zero argument for any reduced capital gains from the same business. That is a rort pure and simple.  It is completely non-viable for a government to subsidise making of profit and then even suggest that the rewards of the subsidised profit should then evade tax.  Only a government with a vested self-interest would impose such a ridiculous regime on this 'industry'. But I suppose that kind of discussion is just 'the politics of envy'.. what utter nonsense. Side note:-  I still love meeting the 'property millionaires' who need a job to sustain their 'portfolio'.  The question then arises:-  why should a person gain subsidy on that demanded job, when that subsidy is only there to sustain a profit-making venture by the same person, when that profit-making venture is obviously a failure without all the subsidy?

Because they are trying hard to prepare for retirement while bozos like Nail just rent endlessly and then suck welfare for the rest of their unproductive lives.

No, it is a tax dodge.

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 8:43am:

Why negative gearing on property sucks Opponents of negative gearing argue that: Quote: It encourages over-investment in residential property, an essentially "unproductive" asset, which is an economic distortion. Investors inflate the residential property market, making it less affordable for first home buyers or other owner-occupiers. In Australia in 2007, nine out of ten negatively geared properties were existing dwellings, so the creation of rental supply comes almost entirely at the expense of displacing potential owner-occupiers. Thus, if negative gearing is to exist, it should only be applied to newly constructed properties. It encourages speculators into the property market, inflating for instance the Australian property bubble that began in the mid-1990s, partly the result of increased availability of credit that occurred following the entry of non-bank lenders into the Australian mortgage market. Tax deductions and overall benefits accrue to those who already have high incomes. This will make the rich investors even richer and the poorer population even poorer, possibly creating and prolonging a social divide between socioeconomic classes. Tax deductions reduce government revenue by a significant amount each year, which either represents non-investors subsidising investors, or makes the government less able to provide other programs. A negatively geared property never generates net income, so losses should not be deductible. Deductibility of business losses when there is a reasonable expectation of gaining income is a well-accepted principle, but the argument against negative gearing is that it will never generate income. Opponents of full deductibility would presumably at least allow losses to be capitalised into the investor's cost base. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing

Sorry Naily, you'll have to do better than pluck a wiki excerpt. There are a number of errors in their assumptions.

The taxation revenue angle has already been fully explained to you in another thread. Ignore it if you wish but it doesn't make it so. Attempting to deflect the argument with the preposterous claim that the CGT is absent if the property is not sold ignores the obvious situation that the absence of capital gain and an absence of rental income is not a viable investment in the first place.

The excerpt gives no consideration to the excess burden created by withdrawal of the tax benefit in that the income stream of the lender is also extinguished and therefore their taxable component vanishes as well. Net result is precisely zero. Swings and roundabouts indeed.

One day Naily will get it.

crocodile wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 12:04pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 8:43am: Why negative gearing on property sucks Opponents of negative gearing argue that: Quote: It encourages over-investment in residential property, an essentially "unproductive" asset, which is an economic distortion. Investors inflate the residential property market, making it less affordable for first home buyers or other owner-occupiers. In Australia in 2007, nine out of ten negatively geared properties were existing dwellings, so the creation of rental supply comes almost entirely at the expense of displacing potential owner-occupiers. Thus, if negative gearing is to exist, it should only be applied to newly constructed properties. It encourages speculators into the property market, inflating for instance the Australian property bubble that began in the mid-1990s, partly the result of increased availability of credit that occurred following the entry of non-bank lenders into the Australian mortgage market. Tax deductions and overall benefits accrue to those who already have high incomes. This will make the rich investors even richer and the poorer population even poorer, possibly creating and prolonging a social divide between socioeconomic classes. Tax deductions reduce government revenue by a significant amount each year, which either represents non-investors subsidising investors, or makes the government less able to provide other programs. A negatively geared property never generates net income, so losses should not be deductible. Deductibility of business losses when there is a reasonable expectation of gaining income is a well-accepted principle, but the argument against negative gearing is that it will never generate income. Opponents of full deductibility would presumably at least allow losses to be capitalised into the investor's cost base. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing Sorry Naily, you'll have to do better than pluck a wiki excerpt. There are a number of errors in their assumptions. The taxation revenue angle has already been fully explained to you in another thread. Ignore it if you wish but it doesn't make it so. Attempting to deflect the argument with the preposterous claim that the CGT is absent if the property is not sold ignores the obvious situation that the absence of capital gain and an absence of rental income is not a viable investment in the first place. The excerpt gives no consideration to the excess burden created by withdrawal of the tax benefit in that the income stream of the lender is also extinguished and therefore their taxable component vanishes as well. Net result is precisely zero. Swings and roundabouts indeed. One day Naily will get it.

Then offset the interest payments from the rental income and then carry forward the net losses when the property is sold and not before hand !! The losses should be quarantined from any other source of income !!

Maybe one day you will get it if you take off your rose colored glasses ;)

mariacostel wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 11:56am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 8:29am: It's called negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts !! Now repeat after me Mr Morrison. "Negative Gearing" And say it one more time:- "Negative Gearing" You have only one string in your bow. And you are boring and your opinions worthless because of it.

That particular string annoys you of course. What must be even more annoying is that the greens also agree on this subject but hey lets start nobbling the punters blood tests instead because that is less important than peoples retirement stash :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 12:34pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 12:04pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 8:43am: Why negative gearing on property sucks Opponents of negative gearing argue that: Quote: It encourages over-investment in residential property, an essentially "unproductive" asset, which is an economic distortion. Investors inflate the residential property market, making it less affordable for first home buyers or other owner-occupiers. In Australia in 2007, nine out of ten negatively geared properties were existing dwellings, so the creation of rental supply comes almost entirely at the expense of displacing potential owner-occupiers. Thus, if negative gearing is to exist, it should only be applied to newly constructed properties. It encourages speculators into the property market, inflating for instance the Australian property bubble that began in the mid-1990s, partly the result of increased availability of credit that occurred following the entry of non-bank lenders into the Australian mortgage market. Tax deductions and overall benefits accrue to those who already have high incomes. This will make the rich investors even richer and the poorer population even poorer, possibly creating and prolonging a social divide between socioeconomic classes. Tax deductions reduce government revenue by a significant amount each year, which either represents non-investors subsidising investors, or makes the government less able to provide other programs. A negatively geared property never generates net income, so losses should not be deductible. Deductibility of business losses when there is a reasonable expectation of gaining income is a well-accepted principle, but the argument against negative gearing is that it will never generate income. Opponents of full deductibility would presumably at least allow losses to be capitalised into the investor's cost base. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing Sorry Naily, you'll have to do better than pluck a wiki excerpt. There are a number of errors in their assumptions. The taxation revenue angle has already been fully explained to you in another thread. Ignore it if you wish but it doesn't make it so. Attempting to deflect the argument with the preposterous claim that the CGT is absent if the property is not sold ignores the obvious situation that the absence of capital gain and an absence of rental income is not a viable investment in the first place. The excerpt gives no consideration to the excess burden created by withdrawal of the tax benefit in that the income stream of the lender is also extinguished and therefore their taxable component vanishes as well. Net result is precisely zero. Swings and roundabouts indeed. One day Naily will get it. Then offset the interest payments from the rental income and then carry forward the net losses when the property is sold and not before hand !! The losses should be quarantined from any other source of income !! Maybe one day you will get it if you take off your rose colored glasses ;)

If they were incorporated that would indeed be the rule. It has never been the case for unincorporated entities and sole traders.

No coloured glasses here. I already get it. You simply have no clue regarding public finance.

Well, the bottom line is, it is Mr Morrison and Co's job to show us the alternatives....

Hence the big bucks and exploitable benefits.





Edit: typo fix.

crocodile wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 1:59pm:

If they were incorporated that would indeed be the rule. It has never been the case for unincorporated entities and sole traders. No coloured glasses here. I already get it. You simply have no clue regarding public finance.

Are you advocating that all businesses be brought under the same umbrella for taxation etc?  Not such a bad idea.  What we are discussing here is people who are dealing with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of assets and cashflows and potential profits every year.... why are they NOT incorporated or held to the same business standard?

What is so special about serial house ownership that it should have beneficial capital gains, when the entire purpose of it is to generate profit?

Just HOW many times does this incompetent and heartless fir-kwit
need to have the alternatives pointed out to him?

Is he THAT incompetent - or is he just plain firkin evil?

Both.

Show us the alternatives says Morrison

gee ... where to start :D :D :D

- cut corporate subsidies
- cut / change the capital gains tax and negative gearing rules (not abolish)
- abolish superannuation subsidies
- cut subsidies to private health
- cut subsidies to private education

that'll do for a start .... plenty more where they come from

mariacostel wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 11:56am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 8:29am: It's called negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts !! Now repeat after me Mr Morrison. "Negative Gearing" And say it one more time:- "Negative Gearing" You have only one string in your bow. And you are boring and your opinions worthless because of it.

He doesn't, he's not, and they aren't.

Whereas YOU... well, to put a fine point on it, I've heard exactly the same
crap non-rebuttal from a certain other poster.

And no, he didn't have a clue, either.

crocodile wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 1:59pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 12:34pm: crocodile wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 12:04pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 8:43am: Why negative gearing on property sucks Opponents of negative gearing argue that: Quote: It encourages over-investment in residential property, an essentially "unproductive" asset, which is an economic distortion. Investors inflate the residential property market, making it less affordable for first home buyers or other owner-occupiers. In Australia in 2007, nine out of ten negatively geared properties were existing dwellings, so the creation of rental supply comes almost entirely at the expense of displacing potential owner-occupiers. Thus, if negative gearing is to exist, it should only be applied to newly constructed properties. It encourages speculators into the property market, inflating for instance the Australian property bubble that began in the mid-1990s, partly the result of increased availability of credit that occurred following the entry of non-bank lenders into the Australian mortgage market. Tax deductions and overall benefits accrue to those who already have high incomes. This will make the rich investors even richer and the poorer population even poorer, possibly creating and prolonging a social divide between socioeconomic classes. Tax deductions reduce government revenue by a significant amount each year, which either represents non-investors subsidising investors, or makes the government less able to provide other programs. A negatively geared property never generates net income, so losses should not be deductible. Deductibility of business losses when there is a reasonable expectation of gaining income is a well-accepted principle, but the argument against negative gearing is that it will never generate income. Opponents of full deductibility would presumably at least allow losses to be capitalised into the investor's cost base. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing Sorry Naily, you'll have to do better than pluck a wiki excerpt. There are a number of errors in their assumptions. The taxation revenue angle has already been fully explained to you in another thread. Ignore it if you wish but it doesn't make it so. Attempting to deflect the argument with the preposterous claim that the CGT is absent if the property is not sold ignores the obvious situation that the absence of capital gain and an absence of rental income is not a viable investment in the first place. The excerpt gives no consideration to the excess burden created by withdrawal of the tax benefit in that the income stream of the lender is also extinguished and therefore their taxable component vanishes as well. Net result is precisely zero. Swings and roundabouts indeed. One day Naily will get it. Then offset the interest payments from the rental income and then carry forward the net losses when the property is sold and not before hand !! The losses should be quarantined from any other source of income !! Maybe one day you will get it if you take off your rose colored glasses ;) If they were incorporated that would indeed be the rule. It has never been the case for unincorporated entities and sole traders. No coloured glasses here. I already get it. You simply have no clue regarding public finance.

So you agree that losses on an investment property should be carried forward and not written off against the unrelated income from a day job ? I knew you would see my point ;)

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 2:10pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 1:59pm: If they were incorporated that would indeed be the rule. It has never been the case for unincorporated entities and sole traders. No coloured glasses here. I already get it. You simply have no clue regarding public finance. Are you advocating that all businesses be brought under the same umbrella for taxation etc?  Not such a bad idea.  What we are discussing here is people who are dealing with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of assets and cashflows and potential profits every year.... why are they NOT incorporated or held to the same business standard? What is so special about serial house ownership that it should have beneficial capital gains, when the entire purpose of it is to generate profit?

No, I don't advocate incorporation for all business. Just pointing out the folly of Nail's proposition. There are pros and cons to both and the owner will adopt the most suitable.

Nail's proposal changes nothing in terms of tax revenue. The carried forward losses being subtracted from income long after a profit is turned until one cancels the other. Only the timing of the tax collection changes. Try again.

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 2:20pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 1:59pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 12:34pm: crocodile wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 12:04pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 8:43am: Why negative gearing on property sucks Opponents of negative gearing argue that: Quote: It encourages over-investment in residential property, an essentially "unproductive" asset, which is an economic distortion. Investors inflate the residential property market, making it less affordable for first home buyers or other owner-occupiers. In Australia in 2007, nine out of ten negatively geared properties were existing dwellings, so the creation of rental supply comes almost entirely at the expense of displacing potential owner-occupiers. Thus, if negative gearing is to exist, it should only be applied to newly constructed properties. It encourages speculators into the property market, inflating for instance the Australian property bubble that began in the mid-1990s, partly the result of increased availability of credit that occurred following the entry of non-bank lenders into the Australian mortgage market. Tax deductions and overall benefits accrue to those who already have high incomes. This will make the rich investors even richer and the poorer population even poorer, possibly creating and prolonging a social divide between socioeconomic classes. Tax deductions reduce government revenue by a significant amount each year, which either represents non-investors subsidising investors, or makes the government less able to provide other programs. A negatively geared property never generates net income, so losses should not be deductible. Deductibility of business losses when there is a reasonable expectation of gaining income is a well-accepted principle, but the argument against negative gearing is that it will never generate income. Opponents of full deductibility would presumably at least allow losses to be capitalised into the investor's cost base. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing Sorry Naily, you'll have to do better than pluck a wiki excerpt. There are a number of errors in their assumptions. The taxation revenue angle has already been fully explained to you in another thread. Ignore it if you wish but it doesn't make it so. Attempting to deflect the argument with the preposterous claim that the CGT is absent if the property is not sold ignores the obvious situation that the absence of capital gain and an absence of rental income is not a viable investment in the first place. The excerpt gives no consideration to the excess burden created by withdrawal of the tax benefit in that the income stream of the lender is also extinguished and therefore their taxable component vanishes as well. Net result is precisely zero. Swings and roundabouts indeed. One day Naily will get it. Then offset the interest payments from the rental income and then carry forward the net losses when the property is sold and not before hand !! The losses should be quarantined from any other source of income !! Maybe one day you will get it if you take off your rose colored glasses ;) If they were incorporated that would indeed be the rule. It has never been the case for unincorporated entities and sole traders. No coloured glasses here. I already get it. You simply have no clue regarding public finance. So you agree that losses on an investment property should be carried forward and not written off against the unrelated income from a day job ? I knew you would see my point ;)

Only if they choose to conduct their operations as a corporation. It's like that anyway right now and always was. Sole traders have always had their incomes assessed on total revenues regardless of the source. The leveraging rules were only changed when CGT was first introduced.

crocodile wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 2:26pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 2:10pm: crocodile wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 1:59pm: If they were incorporated that would indeed be the rule. It has never been the case for unincorporated entities and sole traders. No coloured glasses here. I already get it. You simply have no clue regarding public finance. Are you advocating that all businesses be brought under the same umbrella for taxation etc?  Not such a bad idea.  What we are discussing here is people who are dealing with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of assets and cashflows and potential profits every year.... why are they NOT incorporated or held to the same business standard? What is so special about serial house ownership that it should have beneficial capital gains, when the entire purpose of it is to generate profit? No, I don't advocate incorporation for all business. Just pointing out the folly of Nail's proposition. There are pros and cons to both and the owner will adopt the most suitable. Nail's proposal changes nothing in terms of tax revenue. The carried forward losses being subtracted from income long after a profit is turned until one cancels the other. Only the timing of the tax collection changes. Try again.

So - timing of tax collection - which is the most important?  Laying off until sale time for collection (and then taking a reduced tax cut, BTW) or garnering tax revenue now at a time when it is most needed... and taking it in full?

I humbly submit that these are alternatives that Morrison should be discussing in public so we can all get a glimpse of what may be - thing is - these are never discussed because they are simply not on the table, for the simple reason that politicians are getting too much benefit out of it right now AND at future sale time.

It would seem that we the voters, regardless of our affiliations political, are all able to identify at least some alternatives Mr Morrison.

Perhaps then, the first best one would be a pay cut for you, given your failure to identify them effectively, which is after all YOUR FREAKIN JOB.

Clear proof, we do not get what we pay for.

Negative Gearing, Super Tax Concessions, Diesel Rebate, Private Health Insurance Rebates to name a few.

Phemanderac wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 3:41pm:

It would seem that we the voters, regardless of our affiliations political, are all able to identify at least some alternatives Mr Morrison. Perhaps then, the first best one would be a pay cut for you, given your failure to identify them effectively, which is after all YOUR FREAKIN JOB. Clear proof, we do not get what we pay for.

Morrison is a c.nt. He thinks that hoarding property is more important than an individual's health :(

I'll definitely be voting greens because they are willing to actually do something about the negative gearing tax rorts.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 3:10pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 2:26pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 2:10pm: crocodile wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 1:59pm: If they were incorporated that would indeed be the rule. It has never been the case for unincorporated entities and sole traders. No coloured glasses here. I already get it. You simply have no clue regarding public finance. Are you advocating that all businesses be brought under the same umbrella for taxation etc?  Not such a bad idea.  What we are discussing here is people who are dealing with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of assets and cashflows and potential profits every year.... why are they NOT incorporated or held to the same business standard? What is so special about serial house ownership that it should have beneficial capital gains, when the entire purpose of it is to generate profit? No, I don't advocate incorporation for all business. Just pointing out the folly of Nail's proposition. There are pros and cons to both and the owner will adopt the most suitable. Nail's proposal changes nothing in terms of tax revenue. The carried forward losses being subtracted from income long after a profit is turned until one cancels the other. Only the timing of the tax collection changes. Try again. So - timing of tax collection - which is the most important?  Laying off until sale time for collection (and then taking a reduced tax cut, BTW) or garnering tax revenue now at a time when it is most needed... and taking it in full? I humbly submit that these are alternatives that Morrison should be discussing in public so we can all get a glimpse of what may be - thing is - these are never discussed because they are simply not on the table, for the simple reason that politicians are getting too much benefit out of it right now AND at future sale time.

NG is a forbidden topic among most reporters. Even Leigh Sales wouldn't talk about it on the 7:30 report last night when it is such an obvious question to ask in this debate.

crocodile wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 2:30pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 2:20pm: crocodile wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 1:59pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 12:34pm: crocodile wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 12:04pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 8:43am: Why negative gearing on property sucks Opponents of negative gearing argue that: Quote: It encourages over-investment in residential property, an essentially "unproductive" asset, which is an economic distortion. Investors inflate the residential property market, making it less affordable for first home buyers or other owner-occupiers. In Australia in 2007, nine out of ten negatively geared properties were existing dwellings, so the creation of rental supply comes almost entirely at the expense of displacing potential owner-occupiers. Thus, if negative gearing is to exist, it should only be applied to newly constructed properties. It encourages speculators into the property market, inflating for instance the Australian property bubble that began in the mid-1990s, partly the result of increased availability of credit that occurred following the entry of non-bank lenders into the Australian mortgage market. Tax deductions and overall benefits accrue to those who already have high incomes. This will make the rich investors even richer and the poorer population even poorer, possibly creating and prolonging a social divide between socioeconomic classes. Tax deductions reduce government revenue by a significant amount each year, which either represents non-investors subsidising investors, or makes the government less able to provide other programs. A negatively geared property never generates net income, so losses should not be deductible. Deductibility of business losses when there is a reasonable expectation of gaining income is a well-accepted principle, but the argument against negative gearing is that it will never generate income. Opponents of full deductibility would presumably at least allow losses to be capitalised into the investor's cost base. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing Sorry Naily, you'll have to do better than pluck a wiki excerpt. There are a number of errors in their assumptions. The taxation revenue angle has already been fully explained to you in another thread. Ignore it if you wish but it doesn't make it so. Attempting to deflect the argument with the preposterous claim that the CGT is absent if the property is not sold ignores the obvious situation that the absence of capital gain and an absence of rental income is not a viable investment in the first place. The excerpt gives no consideration to the excess burden created by withdrawal of the tax benefit in that the income stream of the lender is also extinguished and therefore their taxable component vanishes as well. Net result is precisely zero. Swings and roundabouts indeed. One day Naily will get it. Then offset the interest payments from the rental income and then carry forward the net losses when the property is sold and not before hand !! The losses should be quarantined from any other source of income !! Maybe one day you will get it if you take off your rose colored glasses ;) If they were incorporated that would indeed be the rule. It has never been the case for unincorporated entities and sole traders. No coloured glasses here. I already get it. You simply have no clue regarding public finance. So you agree that losses on an investment property should be carried forward and not written off against the unrelated income from a day job ? I knew you would see my point ;) Only if they choose to conduct their operations as a corporation. It's like that anyway right now and always was. Sole traders have always had their incomes assessed on total revenues regardless of the source. The leveraging rules were only changed when CGT was first introduced.

You're just trying to obfuscate the issue. Everyone knows it's a scam except the people who take advantage of it which is probably yourself and most of the polies.

CGT applies to shares as well but no-one in their right mind would negatively gear a share on margin because there is a huge likely hood that losses could mount up very quickly. Not only that the underlying company usually aims to be productive as a business whereas property is a totally unproductive asset with an almost guaranteed capital gain.

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 4:00pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 2:30pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 2:20pm: crocodile wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 1:59pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 12:34pm: crocodile wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 12:04pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 8:43am: Why negative gearing on property sucks Opponents of negative gearing argue that: Quote: It encourages over-investment in residential property, an essentially "unproductive" asset, which is an economic distortion. Investors inflate the residential property market, making it less affordable for first home buyers or other owner-occupiers. In Australia in 2007, nine out of ten negatively geared properties were existing dwellings, so the creation of rental supply comes almost entirely at the expense of displacing potential owner-occupiers. Thus, if negative gearing is to exist, it should only be applied to newly constructed properties. It encourages speculators into the property market, inflating for instance the Australian property bubble that began in the mid-1990s, partly the result of increased availability of credit that occurred following the entry of non-bank lenders into the Australian mortgage market. Tax deductions and overall benefits accrue to those who already have high incomes. This will make the rich investors even richer and the poorer population even poorer, possibly creating and prolonging a social divide between socioeconomic classes. Tax deductions reduce government revenue by a significant amount each year, which either represents non-investors subsidising investors, or makes the government less able to provide other programs. A negatively geared property never generates net income, so losses should not be deductible. Deductibility of business losses when there is a reasonable expectation of gaining income is a well-accepted principle, but the argument against negative gearing is that it will never generate income. Opponents of full deductibility would presumably at least allow losses to be capitalised into the investor's cost base. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing Sorry Naily, you'll have to do better than pluck a wiki excerpt. There are a number of errors in their assumptions. The taxation revenue angle has already been fully explained to you in another thread. Ignore it if you wish but it doesn't make it so. Attempting to deflect the argument with the preposterous claim that the CGT is absent if the property is not sold ignores the obvious situation that the absence of capital gain and an absence of rental income is not a viable investment in the first place. The excerpt gives no consideration to the excess burden created by withdrawal of the tax benefit in that the income stream of the lender is also extinguished and therefore their taxable component vanishes as well. Net result is precisely zero. Swings and roundabouts indeed. One day Naily will get it. Then offset the interest payments from the rental income and then carry forward the net losses when the property is sold and not before hand !! The losses should be quarantined from any other source of income !! Maybe one day you will get it if you take off your rose colored glasses ;) If they were incorporated that would indeed be the rule. It has never been the case for unincorporated entities and sole traders. No coloured glasses here. I already get it. You simply have no clue regarding public finance. So you agree that losses on an investment property should be carried forward and not written off against the unrelated income from a day job ? I knew you would see my point ;) Only if they choose to conduct their operations as a corporation. It's like that anyway right now and always was. Sole traders have always had their incomes assessed on total revenues regardless of the source. The leveraging rules were only changed when CGT was first introduced. You're just trying to obfuscate the issue. Everyone knows it's a scam except the people who take advantage of it which is probably yourself and most of the polies. CGT applies to shares as well but no-one in their right mind would negatively gear a share on margin because there is a huge likely hood that losses could mount up very quickly. Not only that the underlying company usually aims to be productive as a business whereas property is a totally unproductive asset with an almost guaranteed capital gain.

You're the one obfuscating. You claim that there is forgone tax. Except for the CGT concession it is demonstrably untrue and you know it. The problem is the CGT concession not NG.

There will be many share portfolios that are concerned only with the capital gain without any consideration to the dividends.

John Smith wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 2:16pm:

Show us the alternatives says Morrison gee ... where to start :D :D :D - cut corporate subsidies - cut / change the capital gains tax and negative gearing rules (not abolish) - abolish superannuation subsidies - cut subsidies to private health - cut subsidies to private education that'll do for a start .... plenty more where they come from

Basically a list of benefits you dont receive.  How about we cut all child care subsidies and all Family Benefits? I bet you dont like that because... yep, you get those.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 4:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 2:16pm: Show us the alternatives says Morrison gee ... where to start :D :D :D - cut corporate subsidies - cut / change the capital gains tax and negative gearing rules (not abolish) - abolish superannuation subsidies - cut subsidies to private health - cut subsidies to private education that'll do for a start .... plenty more where they come from Basically a list of benefits you dont receive.  How about we cut all child care subsidies and all Family Benefits? I bet you dont like that because... yep, you get those.

still making crap up aren't you?  ;D ;D ;D

crocodile wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 4:31pm:

You're the one obfuscating. You claim that there is forgone tax. Except for the CGT concession it is demonstrably untrue and you know it. The problem is the CGT concession not NG. There will be many share portfolios that are concerned only with the capital gain without any consideration to the dividends.

No I'm not. Tax on any business profits are a fact of life so I don't see why CGT is the issue when CGT applies to shares as well. Nobody is complaining about CGT on shares and expect the government to change the rules.

What you are advocating is that other tax payers underwrite the risk in your investment properties whilst you benefit from the capital gains when you sell it.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 4:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 2:16pm: Show us the alternatives says Morrison gee ... where to start :D :D :D - cut corporate subsidies - cut / change the capital gains tax and negative gearing rules (not abolish) - abolish superannuation subsidies - cut subsidies to private health - cut subsidies to private education that'll do for a start .... plenty more where they come from Basically a list of benefits you dont receive.  How about we cut all child care subsidies and all Family Benefits? I bet you dont like that because... yep, you get those.

Sure, why not?  Single and paying taxes.

Put a limit on how much tax deductions can be claimed - say 40%

i.e. you have to actually pay 60% of the tax you should be paying of every dollar earned in Australia - no exceptions.

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 7:25pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 4:31pm: You're the one obfuscating. You claim that there is forgone tax. Except for the CGT concession it is demonstrably untrue and you know it. The problem is the CGT concession not NG. There will be many share portfolios that are concerned only with the capital gain without any consideration to the dividends. No I'm not. Tax on any business profits are a fact of life so I don't see why CGT is the issue when CGT applies to shares as well. Nobody is complaining about CGT on shares and expect the government to change the rules. What you are advocating is that other tax payers underwrite the risk in your investment properties whilst you benefit from the capital gains when you sell it.

Who complained about CGT on shares.

Collect some tax from the multi nationals ?

crocodile wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 8:00pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 7:25pm: crocodile wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 4:31pm: You're the one obfuscating. You claim that there is forgone tax. Except for the CGT concession it is demonstrably untrue and you know it. The problem is the CGT concession not NG. There will be many share portfolios that are concerned only with the capital gain without any consideration to the dividends. No I'm not. Tax on any business profits are a fact of life so I don't see why CGT is the issue when CGT applies to shares as well. Nobody is complaining about CGT on shares and expect the government to change the rules. What you are advocating is that other tax payers underwrite the risk in your investment properties whilst you benefit from the capital gains when you sell it. Who complained about CGT on shares.

Nobody and that's my point. It's only you bitching about CGT on property investments.

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 8:46pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 8:00pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 7:25pm: crocodile wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 4:31pm: You're the one obfuscating. You claim that there is forgone tax. Except for the CGT concession it is demonstrably untrue and you know it. The problem is the CGT concession not NG. There will be many share portfolios that are concerned only with the capital gain without any consideration to the dividends. No I'm not. Tax on any business profits are a fact of life so I don't see why CGT is the issue when CGT applies to shares as well. Nobody is complaining about CGT on shares and expect the government to change the rules. What you are advocating is that other tax payers underwrite the risk in your investment properties whilst you benefit from the capital gains when you sell it. Who complained about CGT on shares. Nobody and that's my point. It's only you bitching about CGT on property investments.

You've been smoking something. I never bitched about CGT on property or any other asset. I simply made the point that the concession is what distorts the applicable tax, not the NG itself.

If Morrison wants suggestions, here are some.

• Increase funding to the ATO for tax compliance, particularly corporate taxation.
  
• Abolish negative gearing.
  
• Abolish dividend imputation.
  
• Abolish tax concessions on superannuation contributions.
  
• Abolish tax concessions for self-funded retirees and pay everyone the full pension once they reach 70 years of age.
  
• Abolish CGT concession (tax capitals gains at the full rate).
  
• Abolish fossil fuel subsidies. Make renewable fuels free of excise for 10 years.
  
• Replace cash grants for drought assistance with HECS-style loans that must be repaid out of future farm earnings.
  
• Abolish the rebate for private health insurance.
  
• Crack down on tax avoidance by corporations by systematically and methodically closing all of the corporate tax loopholes that they currently exploit.
  
  
  • For example: Require all companies that claim interest on debts to borrow that money from an Australian bank. If they do not, the interest rate on non-standard debts is deemed to be equal to the RBA cash rate (currently 2%).
  
  
• Crack down on employers rorting subsidies for employing long-term unemployed people.
  
• Introduce a company turnover tax equal to 2% of revenue.

That will do for a start ... it's about time we went after the top end of town for a change.

Bam wrote on Dec 17^th, 2015 at 9:35am:

If Morrison wants suggestions, here are some. Increase funding to the ATO for tax compliance, particularly corporate taxation. Abolish negative gearing. Abolish dividend imputation. Abolish tax concessions on superannuation contributions. Abolish tax concessions for self-funded retirees and pay everyone the full pension once they reach 70 years of age. Abolish CGT concession (tax capitals gains at the full rate). Abolish fossil fuel subsidies. Make renewable fuels free of excise for 10 years. Replace cash grants for drought assistance with HECS-style loans that must be repaid out of future farm earnings. Abolish the rebate for private health insurance. Crack down on tax avoidance by corporations by systematically and methodically closing all of the corporate tax loopholes that they currently exploit. For example: Require all companies that claim interest on debts to borrow that money from an Australian bank. If they do not, the interest rate on non-standard debts is deemed to be equal to the RBA cash rate (currently 2%). Crack down on employers rorting subsidies for employing long-term unemployed people. Introduce a company turnover tax equal to 2% of revenue. That will do for a start ... it's about time we went after the top end of town for a change.

Why not get rid of child care rebates, family tax benefits, single parent payments for kids over 5.  What about getting rid of the dole until out of work for 6 months?


As for your 'turnover tax', that is inequitable and ludicrous. The reason we have a profit tax is because turnover is unworkable. Supermarkets and discount stores work on low margin, high turnover and sometimes the margins are under 5%.  Other companies sell low volume, high margin.  It destroys the former group.

There is a reason no one does it.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 17^th, 2015 at 11:39am:

Why not get rid of child care rebates, family tax benefits, single parent payments for kids over 5.  What about getting rid of the dole until out of work for 6 months?

Why don't we just kill the poor?
Anyones who's income stream falls below 90K, off to the gas chambers you go.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 17^th, 2015 at 11:39am:

Bam wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 9:35am: If Morrison wants suggestions, here are some. Increase funding to the ATO for tax compliance, particularly corporate taxation. Abolish negative gearing. Abolish dividend imputation. Abolish tax concessions on superannuation contributions. Abolish tax concessions for self-funded retirees and pay everyone the full pension once they reach 70 years of age. Abolish CGT concession (tax capitals gains at the full rate). Abolish fossil fuel subsidies. Make renewable fuels free of excise for 10 years. Replace cash grants for drought assistance with HECS-style loans that must be repaid out of future farm earnings. Abolish the rebate for private health insurance. Crack down on tax avoidance by corporations by systematically and methodically closing all of the corporate tax loopholes that they currently exploit. For example: Require all companies that claim interest on debts to borrow that money from an Australian bank. If they do not, the interest rate on non-standard debts is deemed to be equal to the RBA cash rate (currently 2%). Crack down on employers rorting subsidies for employing long-term unemployed people. Introduce a company turnover tax equal to 2% of revenue. That will do for a start ... it's about time we went after the top end of town for a change. Why not get rid of child care rebates, family tax benefits, single parent payments for kids over 5.  What about getting rid of the dole until out of work for 6 months?

That's not the top end of town, doofus. The wealthy have hardly felt any pain at Budget time for a generation. Why should the wealthy be spared the pain of fiscal restraint?


mariacostel wrote on Dec 17^th, 2015 at 11:39am:

As for your 'turnover tax', that is inequitable and ludicrous. The reason we have a profit tax is because turnover is unworkable. Supermarkets and discount stores work on low margin, high turnover and sometimes the margins are under 5%.  Other companies sell low volume, high margin.  It destroys the former group.

Yet they make large profits and somehow have a bare cupboard to show the taxman at tax time. It's not convincing.


mariacostel wrote on Dec 17^th, 2015 at 11:39am:

There is a reason no one does it.

We already have a tax on company turnover that is implemented as payroll tax in every state and territory. If we taxed turnover, we could axe payroll tax. A turnover tax is hardly inequitable if every company pays the same percentage. Payroll tax does not do this, it varies by state and territory and this adds to the compliance burden for companies.

The real inequity is a tax system that allows about one-third of our largest companies to pay no tax at all. Where's the equity there?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2015 at 11:48am:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 11:39am: Why not get rid of child care rebates, family tax benefits, single parent payments for kids over 5.  What about getting rid of the dole until out of work for 6 months? Why don't we just kill the poor? Anyones who's income stream falls below 90K, off to the gas chambers you go.

WOW... another who doesnt get satire.  Rather clearly, I was criticising Bams thoroughly one-side post with one of my own.

I do sometimes forget that when writing you need to write to the intellectual level of your readership. Obviously, it exceeded yours.

Bam wrote on Dec 17^th, 2015 at 12:51pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 11:39am: Bam wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 9:35am: If Morrison wants suggestions, here are some. Increase funding to the ATO for tax compliance, particularly corporate taxation. Abolish negative gearing. Abolish dividend imputation. Abolish tax concessions on superannuation contributions. Abolish tax concessions for self-funded retirees and pay everyone the full pension once they reach 70 years of age. Abolish CGT concession (tax capitals gains at the full rate). Abolish fossil fuel subsidies. Make renewable fuels free of excise for 10 years. Replace cash grants for drought assistance with HECS-style loans that must be repaid out of future farm earnings. Abolish the rebate for private health insurance. Crack down on tax avoidance by corporations by systematically and methodically closing all of the corporate tax loopholes that they currently exploit. For example: Require all companies that claim interest on debts to borrow that money from an Australian bank. If they do not, the interest rate on non-standard debts is deemed to be equal to the RBA cash rate (currently 2%). Crack down on employers rorting subsidies for employing long-term unemployed people. Introduce a company turnover tax equal to 2% of revenue. That will do for a start ... it's about time we went after the top end of town for a change. Why not get rid of child care rebates, family tax benefits, single parent payments for kids over 5.  What about getting rid of the dole until out of work for 6 months? That's not the top end of town, doofus. The wealthy have hardly felt any pain at Budget time for a generation. Why should the wealthy be spared the pain of fiscal restraint? mariacostel wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 11:39am: As for your 'turnover tax', that is inequitable and ludicrous. The reason we have a profit tax is because turnover is unworkable. Supermarkets and discount stores work on low margin, high turnover and sometimes the margins are under 5%.  Other companies sell low volume, high margin.  It destroys the former group. Yet they make large profits and somehow have a bare cupboard to show the taxman at tax time. It's not convincing. mariacostel wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 11:39am: There is a reason no one does it. We already have a tax on company turnover that is implemented as payroll tax in every state and territory. If we taxed turnover, we could axe payroll tax. A turnover tax is hardly inequitable if every company pays the same percentage. Payroll tax does not do this, it varies by state and territory and this adds to the compliance burden for companies. The real inequity is a tax system that allows about one-third of our largest companies to pay no tax at all. Where's the equity there?

Find me a regime that implements turnover tax.  Up until then, your stupidity stands all on its own.  as if payroll tax is turnover tax!!  I used to think you were moderately bright. Obviously, I overstated your IQ.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 17^th, 2015 at 11:39am:

Why not get rid of child care rebates, family tax benefits, single parent payments for kids over 5.  What about getting rid of the dole until out of work for 6 months?

Don't know if you are attempting to be funny but what you propose looks a lot like a Liberals budget of the last 15 years.

Childcare, families the unemployed you only left out cuts to health care pensions disability and education to have a full Liberal budget.

Show us the alternatives says Morrison

The words of someone who should not be in government.

These guys came into power claiming that they had all the answers. Now we find that they never had a clue.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

Show us the alternatives says Morrison The words of someone who should not be in government. These guys came into power claiming that they had all the answers. Now we find that they never had a clue.

We've given them plenty of hints how to fix things.... OzPol Party Rules!!

mariacostel wrote on Dec 17^th, 2015 at 1:19pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 11:48am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 11:39am: Why not get rid of child care rebates, family tax benefits, single parent payments for kids over 5.  What about getting rid of the dole until out of work for 6 months? Why don't we just kill the poor? Anyones who's income stream falls below 90K, off to the gas chambers you go. WOW... another who doesnt get satire.  Rather clearly, I was criticising Bams thoroughly one-side post with one of my own. I do sometimes forget that when writing you need to write to the intellectual level of your readership. Obviously, it exceeded yours.

Oh it was SATIRE??????????????????

Isn't that supposed to be funny in a cutting sort of way?

Besides I was serious, reading & hearing all you LNP Pollies & supporters the only thing holding this country & it's populace back is bloody poor people, their illnesses & kids.

KILL THE PHU_CKING LOT & we'll all bath in Verve Clicquot & have private jets.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 8:37am:

I can see some argument for negative gearing in a viable business... but at the same time there is absolutely zero argument for any reduced capital gains from the same business. That is a rort pure and simple.  It is completely non-viable for a government to subsidise making of profit and then even suggest that the rewards of the subsidised profit should then evade tax.  Only a government with a vested self-interest would impose such a ridiculous regime on this 'industry'. But I suppose that kind of discussion is just 'the politics of envy'.. what utter nonsense. Side note:-  I still love meeting the 'property millionaires' who need a job to sustain their 'portfolio'.  The question then arises:-  why should a person gain subsidy on that demanded job, when that subsidy is only there to sustain a profit-making venture by the same person, when that profit-making venture is obviously a failure without all the subsidy?

NOW WE IS ALL GONNA INNOVATE AND STOP ALL THAT NONSENSE BECAUSE: well, malcolm invented a silly hop that's why!


"Well, ladies and gentle features we should all just hop to it while the skull-capped one puts his money on everything but copper internet because a silver tongue  (::) ::) ::) ::) ::)) says so...

Look over there: hey it's Lucy doing something  ::) ::)

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2015 at 2:49pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 1:19pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 11:48am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 11:39am: Why not get rid of child care rebates, family tax benefits, single parent payments for kids over 5.  What about getting rid of the dole until out of work for 6 months? Why don't we just kill the poor? Anyones who's income stream falls below 90K, off to the gas chambers you go. WOW... another who doesnt get satire.  Rather clearly, I was criticising Bams thoroughly one-side post with one of my own. I do sometimes forget that when writing you need to write to the intellectual level of your readership. Obviously, it exceeded yours. Oh it was SATIRE?????????????????? Isn't that supposed to be funny in a cutting sort of way? Besides I was serious, reading & hearing all you LNP Pollies & supporters the only thing holding this country & it's populace back is bloody poor people, their illnesses & kids. KILL THE PHU_CKING LOT & we'll all bath in Verve Clicquot & have private jets.

maria doesn't know her definitions: it's an inti-science thing I'm led to believe  :D :D :D :D

Sarcasm is, as opposed to satire, meant to hurt. yes, maria is a C          *                   N           T  and proud of it  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

** did i just say that out loud ?

oh, yes i did: yes i did say that out loud  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

(Hey, freediver: can we get an emoticon with a megaphone doing a jig or something?)

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17^th, 2015 at 1:25pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 11:39am: Why not get rid of child care rebates, family tax benefits, single parent payments for kids over 5.  What about getting rid of the dole until out of work for 6 months? Don't know if you are attempting to be funny but what you propose looks a lot like a Liberals budget of the last 15 years. Childcare, families the unemployed you only left out cuts to health care pensions disability and education to have a full Liberal budget.

Why must you be such a lying fool and so obviously so? Child care was brought in by the Libs. most other family welfare was likewise initiated by the Libs and that which wasnt has been increased by them.

You now sound like greens-win. You just lie.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2015 at 2:49pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 1:19pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 11:48am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 11:39am: Why not get rid of child care rebates, family tax benefits, single parent payments for kids over 5.  What about getting rid of the dole until out of work for 6 months? Why don't we just kill the poor? Anyones who's income stream falls below 90K, off to the gas chambers you go. WOW... another who doesnt get satire.  Rather clearly, I was criticising Bams thoroughly one-side post with one of my own. I do sometimes forget that when writing you need to write to the intellectual level of your readership. Obviously, it exceeded yours. Oh it was SATIRE?????????????????? Isn't that supposed to be funny in a cutting sort of way? Besides I was serious, reading & hearing all you LNP Pollies & supporters the only thing holding this country & it's populace back is bloody poor people, their illnesses & kids. KILL THE PHU_CKING LOT & we'll all bath in Verve Clicquot & have private jets.

When you are as depressed as you are, nothing cuts through.

Kat wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 2:10pm:

Just HOW many times does this incompetent and heartless fir-kwit need to have the alternatives pointed out to him? Is he THAT incompetent - or is he just plain firkin evil?

Is that an accurate "firkin" description of you?

I see Maria has been busy flapping her gums at 100 miles an hour again. Once again, she has posted nothing but abuse.

No real discussion of the issues and no real understanding of the thread.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 17^th, 2015 at 4:03pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 2:49pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 1:19pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 11:48am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 11:39am: Why not get rid of child care rebates, family tax benefits, single parent payments for kids over 5.  What about getting rid of the dole until out of work for 6 months? Why don't we just kill the poor? Anyones who's income stream falls below 90K, off to the gas chambers you go. WOW... another who doesnt get satire.  Rather clearly, I was criticising Bams thoroughly one-side post with one of my own. I do sometimes forget that when writing you need to write to the intellectual level of your readership. Obviously, it exceeded yours. Oh it was SATIRE?????????????????? Isn't that supposed to be funny in a cutting sort of way? Besides I was serious, reading & hearing all you LNP Pollies & supporters the only thing holding this country & it's populace back is bloody poor people, their illnesses & kids. KILL THE PHU_CKING LOT & we'll all bath in Verve Clicquot & have private jets. When you are as depressed as you are, nothing cuts through.

Sarcasm, as opposed to satire, is always aimed to hurt: get over yourself maria- we all know you drink metho and hate children for a reason you deliberately barren wench  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Maria's username should be changed too "Dunning Mcfallacy Kruger"

Kiron22 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2015 at 4:13pm:

Maria's username should be changed too "Dunning Mcfallacy Kruger"

And we will just call you Little Stalin... after your hero.

Kiron22 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2015 at 4:13pm:

Maria's username should be changed too "Dunning Mcfallacy Kruger"

Had to look it up but it is perfect! DMK for short.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 17^th, 2015 at 1:21pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 12:51pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 11:39am: Bam wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 9:35am: If Morrison wants suggestions, here are some. Increase funding to the ATO for tax compliance, particularly corporate taxation. Abolish negative gearing. Abolish dividend imputation. Abolish tax concessions on superannuation contributions. Abolish tax concessions for self-funded retirees and pay everyone the full pension once they reach 70 years of age. Abolish CGT concession (tax capitals gains at the full rate). Abolish fossil fuel subsidies. Make renewable fuels free of excise for 10 years. Replace cash grants for drought assistance with HECS-style loans that must be repaid out of future farm earnings. Abolish the rebate for private health insurance. Crack down on tax avoidance by corporations by systematically and methodically closing all of the corporate tax loopholes that they currently exploit. For example: Require all companies that claim interest on debts to borrow that money from an Australian bank. If they do not, the interest rate on non-standard debts is deemed to be equal to the RBA cash rate (currently 2%). Crack down on employers rorting subsidies for employing long-term unemployed people. Introduce a company turnover tax equal to 2% of revenue. That will do for a start ... it's about time we went after the top end of town for a change. Why not get rid of child care rebates, family tax benefits, single parent payments for kids over 5.  What about getting rid of the dole until out of work for 6 months? That's not the top end of town, doofus. The wealthy have hardly felt any pain at Budget time for a generation. Why should the wealthy be spared the pain of fiscal restraint? mariacostel wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 11:39am: As for your 'turnover tax', that is inequitable and ludicrous. The reason we have a profit tax is because turnover is unworkable. Supermarkets and discount stores work on low margin, high turnover and sometimes the margins are under 5%.  Other companies sell low volume, high margin.  It destroys the former group. Yet they make large profits and somehow have a bare cupboard to show the taxman at tax time. It's not convincing. mariacostel wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 11:39am: There is a reason no one does it. We already have a tax on company turnover that is implemented as payroll tax in every state and territory. If we taxed turnover, we could axe payroll tax. A turnover tax is hardly inequitable if every company pays the same percentage. Payroll tax does not do this, it varies by state and territory and this adds to the compliance burden for companies. The real inequity is a tax system that allows about one-third of our largest companies to pay no tax at all. Where's the equity there? Find me a regime that implements turnover tax.  Up until then, your stupidity stands all on its own.  as if payroll tax is turnover tax!!  I used to think you were moderately bright. Obviously, I overstated your IQ.

Bookmakers pay turnover tax, win lose or draw. The sooner payroll tax gets the arse the better.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 17^th, 2015 at 1:21pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 12:51pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 11:39am: Bam wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 9:35am: If Morrison wants suggestions, here are some. Increase funding to the ATO for tax compliance, particularly corporate taxation. Abolish negative gearing. Abolish dividend imputation. Abolish tax concessions on superannuation contributions. Abolish tax concessions for self-funded retirees and pay everyone the full pension once they reach 70 years of age. Abolish CGT concession (tax capitals gains at the full rate). Abolish fossil fuel subsidies. Make renewable fuels free of excise for 10 years. Replace cash grants for drought assistance with HECS-style loans that must be repaid out of future farm earnings. Abolish the rebate for private health insurance. Crack down on tax avoidance by corporations by systematically and methodically closing all of the corporate tax loopholes that they currently exploit. For example: Require all companies that claim interest on debts to borrow that money from an Australian bank. If they do not, the interest rate on non-standard debts is deemed to be equal to the RBA cash rate (currently 2%). Crack down on employers rorting subsidies for employing long-term unemployed people. Introduce a company turnover tax equal to 2% of revenue. That will do for a start ... it's about time we went after the top end of town for a change. Why not get rid of child care rebates, family tax benefits, single parent payments for kids over 5.  What about getting rid of the dole until out of work for 6 months? That's not the top end of town, doofus. The wealthy have hardly felt any pain at Budget time for a generation. Why should the wealthy be spared the pain of fiscal restraint? mariacostel wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 11:39am: As for your 'turnover tax', that is inequitable and ludicrous. The reason we have a profit tax is because turnover is unworkable. Supermarkets and discount stores work on low margin, high turnover and sometimes the margins are under 5%.  Other companies sell low volume, high margin.  It destroys the former group. Yet they make large profits and somehow have a bare cupboard to show the taxman at tax time. It's not convincing. mariacostel wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 11:39am: There is a reason no one does it. We already have a tax on company turnover that is implemented as payroll tax in every state and territory. If we taxed turnover, we could axe payroll tax. A turnover tax is hardly inequitable if every company pays the same percentage. Payroll tax does not do this, it varies by state and territory and this adds to the compliance burden for companies. The real inequity is a tax system that allows about one-third of our largest companies to pay no tax at all. Where's the equity there? Find me a regime that implements turnover tax.  Up until then, your stupidity stands all on its own.  as if payroll tax is turnover tax!!  I used to think you were moderately bright. Obviously, I overstated your IQ.

I see you have no real point to make, just your usual personal abuse. Personal abuse is a concession. I accept your surrender.

.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 17^th, 2015 at 4:01pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 1:25pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 11:39am: Why not get rid of child care rebates, family tax benefits, single parent payments for kids over 5.  What about getting rid of the dole until out of work for 6 months? Don't know if you are attempting to be funny but what you propose looks a lot like a Liberals budget of the last 15 years. Childcare, families the unemployed you only left out cuts to health care pensions disability and education to have a full Liberal budget. Why must you be such a lying fool and so obviously so? Child care was brought in by the Libs. most other family welfare was likewise initiated by the Libs and that which wasnt has been increased by them. You now sound like greens-win. You just lie.

Yesterday I posted the cuts from the Liberals 2015 budget, the list looked remarkably like yours only you thought yours was a joke. There's really was a joke.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17^th, 2015 at 10:51pm:

Yesterday I posted the cuts from the Liberals 2015 budget, the list looked remarkably like yours only you thought yours was a joke. There's really was a joke.

Certainly seemed like Joe and Matt were having a laugh over their cigars.

Fuzzball wrote on Dec 17^th, 2015 at 4:04pm:

Kat wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 2:10pm: Just HOW many times does this incompetent and heartless fir-kwit need to have the alternatives pointed out to him? Is he THAT incompetent - or is he just plain firkin evil? Is that an accurate "firkin" description of you?

If that's all you've got, best quit while you're not too far behind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not. Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie". You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger".  After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off?  No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that. Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.  Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair.  Businesses benefit from: - educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not) - better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers - security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force) - better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives) Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake.  Every entity benefits from these.  They all should pay.  You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough. As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.

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

New Matilda on deficits, revenue and spending:


Quote:

Or we can face up to the fact that we need to collect more revenue, and that means fewer perks and more taxes. A place to start on perks is on superannuation tax concessions, forecast to cost the budget $170 billion over the next four years. (Note to readers, that is not an error or an omitted decimal point.) Then there are the $11 billion annual subsidies for private health insurance, revenue forgone through a 50 per cent concession for short-term capital gains (while relatively penalising long-term investment), and a permissive attitude to tax avoidance through family trusts. If Turnbull is serious about putting everything on the tax table, then a carbon tax is an obvious candidate: had the carbon tax been retained it would now be raising at least another $6 billion a year.

https://newmatilda.com/2015/12/16/australian-government-revenue-slides-but-our-spending-rages-on/

Kat wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 1:23am:

Fuzzball wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 4:04pm: Kat wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 2:10pm: Just HOW many times does this incompetent and heartless fir-kwit need to have the alternatives pointed out to him? Is he THAT incompetent - or is he just plain firkin evil? Is that an accurate "firkin" description of you? If that's all you've got, best quit while you're not too far behind.

Is that all you've got whiner, go oil that chain so your little BMX can get you around.....

Fuzzball wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 3:22pm:

Kat wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 1:23am: Fuzzball wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 4:04pm: Kat wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 2:10pm: Just HOW many times does this incompetent and heartless fir-kwit need to have the alternatives pointed out to him? Is he THAT incompetent - or is he just plain firkin evil? Is that an accurate "firkin" description of you? If that's all you've got, best quit while you're not too far behind. Is that all you've got whiner, go oil that chain so your little BMX can get you around.....

Personal insult will not be tolerated or accepted.  Stick to the issues.  Non-Mod   ;)

Fuzzball wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 3:22pm:

Kat wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 1:23am: Fuzzball wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 4:04pm: Kat wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 2:10pm: Just HOW many times does this incompetent and heartless fir-kwit need to have the alternatives pointed out to him? Is he THAT incompetent - or is he just plain firkin evil? Is that an accurate "firkin" description of you? If that's all you've got, best quit while you're not too far behind. Is that all you've got whiner, go oil that chain so your little BMX can get you around.....

A BMX would be more your style, I'd reckon.

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

stunspore wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 2:19am: Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not. Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie". You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger".  After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off?  No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that. Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.  Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair.  Businesses benefit from: - educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not) - better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers - security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force) - better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives) Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake.  Every entity benefits from these.  They all should pay.  You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough. As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.  Well said.  And it is fair to have those who can to pay more.  We should base tax on share wealth not share of oxygen breathing.

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

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

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 3:49am: stunspore wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 2:19am: Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not. Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie". You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger".  After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off?  No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that. Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.  Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair.  Businesses benefit from: - educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not) - better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers - security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force) - better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives) Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake.  Every entity benefits from these.  They all should pay.  You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough. As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.  Well said.  And it is fair to have those who can to pay more.  We should base tax on share wealth not share of oxygen breathing. And you dont think we have that already with a tax system spectacularly weighted against high-income earners? A person on $160K doesnt pay 4 times the tax of someone on $40K. He pays 20 times as much. And if you take welfare into account, the margin can rise as high as 100+ times.

And if you take CGT concessions, negative gearing, dividend imputation, superannuation concessions and other tax rorts into account (which you never do), some wealthy people pay no tax at all. If the tax burden on the wealthy was so onerous, why is the wealth divide growing?

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

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 3:49am: stunspore wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 2:19am: Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not. Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie". You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger".  After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off?  No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that. Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.  Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair.  Businesses benefit from: - educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not) - better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers - security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force) - better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives) Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake.  Every entity benefits from these.  They all should pay.  You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough. As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.  Well said.  And it is fair to have those who can to pay more.  We should base tax on share wealth not share of oxygen breathing. And you dont think we have that already with a tax system spectacularly weighted against high-income earners? A person on $160K doesnt pay 4 times the tax of someone on $40K. He pays 20 times as much. And if you take welfare into account, the margin can rise as high as 100+ times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 3:49am: stunspore wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 2:19am: Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not. Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie". You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger".  After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off?  No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that. Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.  Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair.  Businesses benefit from: - educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not) - better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers - security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force) - better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives) Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake.  Every entity benefits from these.  They all should pay.  You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough. As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.  Well said.  And it is fair to have those who can to pay more.  We should base tax on share wealth not share of oxygen breathing. And you dont think we have that already with a tax system spectacularly weighted against high-income earners? A person on $160K doesnt pay 4 times the tax of someone on $40K. He pays 20 times as much. And if you take welfare into account, the margin can rise as high as 100+ times.

Quote:

0 – $18,200 Nil $18,201 – $37,000 19c for each $1 over $18,200 $37,001 – $80,000 $3,572 plus 32.5c for each $1 over $37,000 $80,001 – $180,000 $17,547 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000 $180,001 and over $54,547 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

He pays 20 times as much.


Its a bit under 10 X.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 3:26pm:

Fuzzball wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 3:22pm: Kat wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 1:23am: Fuzzball wrote on Dec 17th, 2015 at 4:04pm: Kat wrote on Dec 16th, 2015 at 2:10pm: Just HOW many times does this incompetent and heartless fir-kwit need to have the alternatives pointed out to him? Is he THAT incompetent - or is he just plain firkin evil? Is that an accurate "firkin" description of you? If that's all you've got, best quit while you're not too far behind. Is that all you've got whiner, go oil that chain so your little BMX can get you around..... Personal insult will not be tolerated or accepted.  Stick to the issues.  Non-Mod   ;)

Give the monkey some peanuts......

Bam wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 6:27pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 6:05pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 3:49am: stunspore wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 2:19am: Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not. Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie". You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger".  After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off?  No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that. Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.  Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair.  Businesses benefit from: - educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not) - better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers - security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force) - better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives) Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake.  Every entity benefits from these.  They all should pay.  You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough. As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.  Well said.  And it is fair to have those who can to pay more.  We should base tax on share wealth not share of oxygen breathing. And you dont think we have that already with a tax system spectacularly weighted against high-income earners? A person on $160K doesnt pay 4 times the tax of someone on $40K. He pays 20 times as much. And if you take welfare into account, the margin can rise as high as 100+ times. And if you take CGT concessions, negative gearing, dividend imputation, superannuation concessions and other tax rorts into account (which you never do), some wealthy people pay no tax at all. If the tax burden on the wealthy was so onerous, why is the wealth divide growing?

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

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

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

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

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

THE POLITICS OF ENVY.

we should remove anything that could be seen as politics of envy and simply let the poor starve.  :D :D :D :D :D

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

mariacostel wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 6:05pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 3:49am: stunspore wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 2:19am: Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not. Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie". You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger".  After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off?  No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that. Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.  Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair.  Businesses benefit from: - educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not) - better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers - security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force) - better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives) Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake.  Every entity benefits from these.  They all should pay.  You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough. As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.  Well said.  And it is fair to have those who can to pay more.  We should base tax on share wealth not share of oxygen breathing. And you dont think we have that already with a tax system spectacularly weighted against high-income earners? A person on $160K doesnt pay 4 times the tax of someone on $40K. He pays 20 times as much. And if you take welfare into account, the margin can rise as high as 100+ times. A person on 160k can afford to apply tax deductions that a 40k wouldn't have.  And in any case, does this result in a person on 40k with enough for basic cost of living? I won't argue is the appropriateness of progressive taxation.  There is a whole series of fors and against on many a website.  http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Progressive_tax_vs._flat_tax as an example. It would be up to each individual to weigh the merits of each argument/reason based on their values.  Having dealth with this topic before, it seems pointless to rehash the same arguments and expect people to change sides.  The best I can do is to ensure people have a relook at the debate and reconsider their values. To me it isn't the 160k paying more based on percentage fairness argument.  Though not religious but there is a parable from Jesus that said that a poor woman who donated 1 coin from a purse that became empty did more than a rich man who donated a many a coins - because the woman paid more based on percentage of wealth. To me it is about does a person on 40k able to have access to quality education, water, electricity, food and shelter, and social mobility without severe disadvantage?  If that isn't possible then that's a problem that can be solved through money/taxation.

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

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

mariacostel wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 6:05pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 3:49am: stunspore wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 2:19am: Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not. Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie". You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger".  After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off?  No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that. Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.  Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair.  Businesses benefit from: - educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not) - better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers - security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force) - better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives) Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake.  Every entity benefits from these.  They all should pay.  You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough. As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.  Well said.  And it is fair to have those who can to pay more.  We should base tax on share wealth not share of oxygen breathing. And you dont think we have that already with a tax system spectacularly weighted against high-income earners? A person on $160K doesnt pay 4 times the tax of someone on $40K. He pays 20 times as much. And if you take welfare into account, the margin can rise as high as 100+ times. A person on 160k can afford to apply tax deductions that a 40k wouldn't have.  And in any case, does this result in a person on 40k with enough for basic cost of living? I won't argue is the appropriateness of progressive taxation.  There is a whole series of fors and against on many a website.  http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Progressive_tax_vs._flat_tax as an example. It would be up to each individual to weigh the merits of each argument/reason based on their values.  Having dealth with this topic before, it seems pointless to rehash the same arguments and expect people to change sides.  The best I can do is to ensure people have a relook at the debate and reconsider their values. To me it isn't the 160k paying more based on percentage fairness argument.  Though not religious but there is a parable from Jesus that said that a poor woman who donated 1 coin from a purse that became empty did more than a rich man who donated a many a coins - because the woman paid more based on percentage of wealth. To me it is about does a person on 40k able to have access to quality education, water, electricity, food and shelter, and social mobility without severe disadvantage?  If that isn't possible then that's a problem that can be solved through money/taxation.

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

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

mariacostel wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 6:05pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 3:49am: stunspore wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 2:19am: Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not. Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie". You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger".  After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off?  No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that. Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.  Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair.  Businesses benefit from: - educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not) - better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers - security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force) - better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives) Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake.  Every entity benefits from these.  They all should pay.  You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough. As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.  Well said.  And it is fair to have those who can to pay more.  We should base tax on share wealth not share of oxygen breathing. And you dont think we have that already with a tax system spectacularly weighted against high-income earners? A person on $160K doesnt pay 4 times the tax of someone on $40K. He pays 20 times as much. And if you take welfare into account, the margin can rise as high as 100+ times. Quote: 0 – $18,200 Nil $18,201 – $37,000 19c for each $1 over $18,200 $37,001 – $80,000 $3,572 plus 32.5c for each $1 over $37,000 $80,001 – $180,000 $17,547 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000 $180,001 and over $54,547 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000 He pays 20 times as much. Its a bit under 10 X.

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

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

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

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 8:48pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 8:15pm: THE POLITICS OF ENVY.  The only politics you are now capable of. You will never be successful while envy is the only thing you bring to the table. Perhaps you could be so kind as to explain to us fully exactly how this 'politics of envy' works, and exactly what it means.... the phrase is bandied about like a chorus of parrots trained by Maggie Thatcher - yet nobody ever explains how it is 'envy' to expect those getting more out of society to pay more proportionately... I mean ... it's not like they're being asked to fork over every cent they get over a certain amount or whatever - only a percentage.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:02am: The other issue is, the higher you go up the income ladder the declared income becomes a smaller and smaller part of the total income. In the extreme case we had 70 millionaires paying zero tax. You dont know much about tax or accounting do you? Ever wonder why none of them were prosecuted?

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

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

Ever wonder why none of them were prosecuted?

ahhh derrrr. I think that was kinda the point he was making :D :D :D :D

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

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

how many of those on $160k are just PAYG earners?

hey almost all buy shares, property etc to reduce their tax bills.

Easier to answer a point I wasn’t making than tackling the real question. Of such are the days of Longy’s life.

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

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

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

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

stunspore wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 6:39pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 6:05pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 3:49am: stunspore wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 2:19am: Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not. Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie". You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger".  After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off?  No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that. Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.  Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair.  Businesses benefit from: - educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not) - better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers - security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force) - better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives) Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake.  Every entity benefits from these.  They all should pay.  You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough. As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.  Well said.  And it is fair to have those who can to pay more.  We should base tax on share wealth not share of oxygen breathing. And you dont think we have that already with a tax system spectacularly weighted against high-income earners? A person on $160K doesnt pay 4 times the tax of someone on $40K. He pays 20 times as much. And if you take welfare into account, the margin can rise as high as 100+ times. A person on 160k can afford to apply tax deductions that a 40k wouldn't have.  And in any case, does this result in a person on 40k with enough for basic cost of living? I won't argue is the appropriateness of progressive taxation.  There is a whole series of fors and against on many a website.  http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Progressive_tax_vs._flat_tax as an example. It would be up to each individual to weigh the merits of each argument/reason based on their values.  Having dealth with this topic before, it seems pointless to rehash the same arguments and expect people to change sides.  The best I can do is to ensure people have a relook at the debate and reconsider their values. To me it isn't the 160k paying more based on percentage fairness argument.  Though not religious but there is a parable from Jesus that said that a poor woman who donated 1 coin from a purse that became empty did more than a rich man who donated a many a coins - because the woman paid more based on percentage of wealth. To me it is about does a person on 40k able to have access to quality education, water, electricity, food and shelter, and social mobility without severe disadvantage?  If that isn't possible then that's a problem that can be solved through money/taxation. Rubbish. What tax deductions do you think exist for PAYG earners?  there are very, very few and they apply to EVERYONE

High earners have the option to use some of them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dnarever wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 8:58pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 6:50am: stunspore wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 6:39pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 6:05pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 3:49am: stunspore wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 2:19am: Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not. Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie". You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger".  After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off?  No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that. Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.  Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair.  Businesses benefit from: - educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not) - better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers - security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force) - better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives) Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake.  Every entity benefits from these.  They all should pay.  You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough. As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.  Well said.  And it is fair to have those who can to pay more.  We should base tax on share wealth not share of oxygen breathing. And you dont think we have that already with a tax system spectacularly weighted against high-income earners? A person on $160K doesnt pay 4 times the tax of someone on $40K. He pays 20 times as much. And if you take welfare into account, the margin can rise as high as 100+ times. A person on 160k can afford to apply tax deductions that a 40k wouldn't have.  And in any case, does this result in a person on 40k with enough for basic cost of living? I won't argue is the appropriateness of progressive taxation.  There is a whole series of fors and against on many a website.  http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Progressive_tax_vs._flat_tax as an example. It would be up to each individual to weigh the merits of each argument/reason based on their values.  Having dealth with this topic before, it seems pointless to rehash the same arguments and expect people to change sides.  The best I can do is to ensure people have a relook at the debate and reconsider their values. To me it isn't the 160k paying more based on percentage fairness argument.  Though not religious but there is a parable from Jesus that said that a poor woman who donated 1 coin from a purse that became empty did more than a rich man who donated a many a coins - because the woman paid more based on percentage of wealth. To me it is about does a person on 40k able to have access to quality education, water, electricity, food and shelter, and social mobility without severe disadvantage?  If that isn't possible then that's a problem that can be solved through money/taxation. Rubbish. What tax deductions do you think exist for PAYG earners?  there are very, very few and they apply to EVERYONE High earners have the option to use some of them. A high earner can divert pre tax Dollars into superannuation. They can also invest and save money both tax free and non GST.  People earning $40K can do none of this type of thing. They pay all their tax and are their entire wage is subject to GST when spent. There is no salary sacrifice and no investments or negative gearing etc. Work related expenses are much more basic if at all. The guy on $160K has a tax consultant (deductable expense in itself) who will be advising on tax minimisation. The guy on $40K is probably doing his tax online with no real deductions.

Poor diddums!  Want another cry?  How horrible (not to mention damned obvious) that higher earners have more money.  How terrible they may invest some.

Maybe you should have studied more and worked harder - like they did.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/54279324.jpg

mariacostel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:53am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 6:56pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 6:05pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 3:49am: stunspore wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 2:19am: Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not. Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie". You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger".  After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off?  No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that. Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.  Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair.  Businesses benefit from: - educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not) - better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers - security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force) - better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives) Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake.  Every entity benefits from these.  They all should pay.  You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough. As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.  Well said.  And it is fair to have those who can to pay more.  We should base tax on share wealth not share of oxygen breathing. And you dont think we have that already with a tax system spectacularly weighted against high-income earners? A person on $160K doesnt pay 4 times the tax of someone on $40K. He pays 20 times as much. And if you take welfare into account, the margin can rise as high as 100+ times. Quote: 0 – $18,200 Nil $18,201 – $37,000 19c for each $1 over $18,200 $37,001 – $80,000 $3,572 plus 32.5c for each $1 over $37,000 $80,001 – $180,000 $17,547 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000 $180,001 and over $54,547 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000 He pays 20 times as much. Its a bit under 10 X. 'only' ten times?  You think this changes the tenor of the argument in any way?  And all you have to do is add just a little bit of the welfare than the lower paid receives into the figures and suddenly it becomes more like 50 times or 100 times or possibly undefined because the lower paid pays ZERO net tax.

You think this changes the tenor of the argument in any way?

It shows that you just pulled a random number that was off the mark by about 100% out of the air.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:44am:

Poor diddums!  Want another cry?  How horrible (not to mention damned obvious) that higher earners have more money.  How terrible they may invest some. Maybe you should have studied more and worked harder - like they did.

You always miss the point that you had made a statement that is clearly shown to be incorrect.



Maria:
Quote:

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

You originally said this - now you are saying that higher earners do in fact have greater options to minimise their paye tax.

Apparently they apply to everyone but not equally.

Your are making obvious contradictions to your original view.

Show us the alternatives says Morrison

I doubt that Morrison would be in the job if they had a viable alternative.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 8:41am:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 7:44am: Poor diddums!  Want another cry?  How horrible (not to mention damned obvious) that higher earners have more money.  How terrible they may invest some. Maybe you should have studied more and worked harder - like they did. You always miss the point that you had made a statement that is clearly shown to be incorrect. Maria: Quote: Rubbish. What tax deductions do you think exist for PAYG earners?  there are very, very few and they apply to EVERYONE You originally said this - now you are saying that higher earners do in fact have greater options to minimise their paye tax. Apparently they apply to everyone but not equally. Your are making obvious contradictions to your original view.

I thought mania was private school, degreed etc, business abounding around  him, but would be applying for the pension?  How does that all stack up (hint: troll)....

Just how much money does mania claim to have?  I'd say DSP in the backblocks somewhere....

You getta da profit from da society, you pay-a da society in proportion, or you a thief inna night... capisce?  Jus' business, you unnderstan'.. but da Oz Mafia don' like dat kinda thing....

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

Bam wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 6:27pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 6:05pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 3:49am: stunspore wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 2:19am: Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not. Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie". You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger".  After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off?  No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that. Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.  Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair.  Businesses benefit from: - educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not) - better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers - security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force) - better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives) Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake.  Every entity benefits from these.  They all should pay.  You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough. As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.  Well said.  And it is fair to have those who can to pay more.  We should base tax on share wealth not share of oxygen breathing. And you dont think we have that already with a tax system spectacularly weighted against high-income earners? A person on $160K doesnt pay 4 times the tax of someone on $40K. He pays 20 times as much. And if you take welfare into account, the margin can rise as high as 100+ times. And if you take CGT concessions, negative gearing, dividend imputation, superannuation concessions and other tax rorts into account (which you never do), some wealthy people pay no tax at all. If the tax burden on the wealthy was so onerous, why is the wealth divide growing? THE POLITICS OF ENVY.  The only politics you are now capable of. You will never be successful while envy is the only thing you bring to the table.

And as usual you make personal attacks when losing the discussion.

In accordance with the zero-tolerance policy, this has been reported.

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

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

They weren't 70 millionaires paying zero tax. They were 70 people on annual incomes of over a million dollars a year who paid no tax in the 2010-11 financial year. They earned $194 million between them before tax and $82 between them after tax. That is not a typo.

The 70 mega rich who don't pay tax

Quote:

The 70 income millionaires are just the top of the iceberg of perfectly legal tax avoidance ... 2320 taxpayers with declared incomes of more than $100,000 paid no tax. They earned $75 million in wages and salary, and spent the same amount on tax advice. Their total income of $652 million was cut to a combined taxable income of $604,000 - $260 each.

Bam wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 9:19am:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 8:15pm: Bam wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 6:27pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 6:05pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 3:49am: stunspore wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 2:19am: Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not. Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie". You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger".  After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off?  No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that. Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.  Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair.  Businesses benefit from: - educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not) - better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers - security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force) - better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives) Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake.  Every entity benefits from these.  They all should pay.  You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough. As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.  Well said.  And it is fair to have those who can to pay more.  We should base tax on share wealth not share of oxygen breathing. And you dont think we have that already with a tax system spectacularly weighted against high-income earners? A person on $160K doesnt pay 4 times the tax of someone on $40K. He pays 20 times as much. And if you take welfare into account, the margin can rise as high as 100+ times. And if you take CGT concessions, negative gearing, dividend imputation, superannuation concessions and other tax rorts into account (which you never do), some wealthy people pay no tax at all. If the tax burden on the wealthy was so onerous, why is the wealth divide growing? THE POLITICS OF ENVY.  The only politics you are now capable of. You will never be successful while envy is the only thing you bring to the table. And as usual you make personal attacks when losing the discussion. In accordance with the zero-tolerance policy, this has been reported.

You and greg should get married then you can whine 24/7

---

Bam wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 9:31am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:02am: The other issue is, the higher you go up the income ladder the declared income becomes a smaller and smaller part of the total income. In the extreme case we had 70 millionaires paying zero tax. They weren't 70 millionaires paying zero tax. They were 70 people on annual incomes of over a million dollars a year who paid no tax in the 2010-11 financial year. They earned $194 million between them before tax and $82 between them after tax. That is not a typo. The 70 mega rich who don't pay tax Quote: The 70 income millionaires are just the top of the iceberg of perfectly legal tax avoidance ... 2320 taxpayers with declared incomes of more than $100,000 paid no tax. They earned $75 million in wages and salary, and spent the same amount on tax advice. Their total income of $652 million was cut to a combined taxable income of $604,000 - $260 each.

Always nice to pick an extreme example to then try and make a general point. That is why you are such a discredited poster. When you want to make a general point use general examples or else you just end up sounding like this:

---

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 5:03pm:

Always nice to pick an extreme example to then try and make a general point.

Except that it's not a one off or an extreme ... that was 70, and they'll do it each and every year that they can.

John Smith wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 5:39pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 5:03pm: Always nice to pick an extreme example to then try and make a general point. Except that it's not a one off or an extreme ... that was 70, and they'll do it each and every year that they can.

out of 12 MILLION tax payers.  You could win division 2 in powerball with those odds!

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:44am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 8:58pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 6:50am: stunspore wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 6:39pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 6:05pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 3:49am: stunspore wrote on Dec 18th, 2015 at 2:19am: Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not. Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie". You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger".  After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off?  No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that. Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that.  Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair.  Businesses benefit from: - educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not) - better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers - security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force) - better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives) Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake.  Every entity benefits from these.  They all should pay.  You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough. As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not.  Well said.  And it is fair to have those who can to pay more.  We should base tax on share wealth not share of oxygen breathing. And you dont think we have that already with a tax system spectacularly weighted against high-income earners? A person on $160K doesnt pay 4 times the tax of someone on $40K. He pays 20 times as much. And if you take welfare into account, the margin can rise as high as 100+ times. A person on 160k can afford to apply tax deductions that a 40k wouldn't have.  And in any case, does this result in a person on 40k with enough for basic cost of living? I won't argue is the appropriateness of progressive taxation.  There is a whole series of fors and against on many a website.  http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Progressive_tax_vs._flat_tax as an example. It would be up to each individual to weigh the merits of each argument/reason based on their values.  Having dealth with this topic before, it seems pointless to rehash the same arguments and expect people to change sides.  The best I can do is to ensure people have a relook at the debate and reconsider their values. To me it isn't the 160k paying more based on percentage fairness argument.  Though not religious but there is a parable from Jesus that said that a poor woman who donated 1 coin from a purse that became empty did more than a rich man who donated a many a coins - because the woman paid more based on percentage of wealth. To me it is about does a person on 40k able to have access to quality education, water, electricity, food and shelter, and social mobility without severe disadvantage?  If that isn't possible then that's a problem that can be solved through money/taxation. Rubbish. What tax deductions do you think exist for PAYG earners?  there are very, very few and they apply to EVERYONE High earners have the option to use some of them. A high earner can divert pre tax Dollars into superannuation. They can also invest and save money both tax free and non GST.  People earning $40K can do none of this type of thing. They pay all their tax and are their entire wage is subject to GST when spent. There is no salary sacrifice and no investments or negative gearing etc. Work related expenses are much more basic if at all. The guy on $160K has a tax consultant (deductable expense in itself) who will be advising on tax minimisation. The guy on $40K is probably doing his tax online with no real deductions. Poor diddums!  Want another cry?  How horrible (not to mention damned obvious) that higher earners have more money.  How terrible they may invest some. Maybe you should have studied more and worked harder - like they did.

Only longloser uses that word and yet maria owns a camry and hubby drives a merc. What happened to the ford Fricken Pathetic Vehicle ? Trade it in did ya :D LOL

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 6:02pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 5:39pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 5:03pm: Always nice to pick an extreme example to then try and make a general point. Except that it's not a one off or an extreme ... that was 70, and they'll do it each and every year that they can. out of 12 MILLION tax payers.  You could win division 2 in powerball with those odds!

you could ... but it still wouldn't make you sound any more intelligent.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 5:01pm:

You and greg should get married then you can whine 24/7

Reported. Only a matter of time now before you're gone for good.

Bam wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 10:50pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 5:01pm: You and greg should get married then you can whine 24/7 Reported. Only a matter of time now before you're gone for good.

Bruce jenner will be back under a new pseudo, got no life so what else is he going to do with his time except eat potato chips whilst trolling internet forums ?

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 6:02pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 5:39pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 5:03pm: Always nice to pick an extreme example to then try and make a general point. Except that it's not a one off or an extreme ... that was 70, and they'll do it each and every year that they can. out of 12 MILLION tax payers.  You could win division 2 in powerball with those odds!

And then current affair or someone catches 5 pensioners ripping us off by $30 and you would think that the world was going to end.

I could say that I am only 1 person what difference does it make if I pay no tax, in fact we all could ?

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 6:02pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 5:39pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 5:03pm: Always nice to pick an extreme example to then try and make a general point. Except that it's not a one off or an extreme ... that was 70, and they'll do it each and every year that they can. out of 12 MILLION tax payers.  You could win division 2 in powerball with those odds!

Why do Liberal supporters always back wealthy people to pay no tax when they would happily chase an unemployed person who ended up with an extra $20 around the world twice to get it back.

Show us the alternatives says Morrison

The best alternative is probably a different government towards the last quarter of next year.

Bam wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 10:50pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 5:01pm: You and greg should get married then you can whine 24/7 Reported. Only a matter of time now before you're gone for good.

You are such a weak-willed spineless cretin. Whenever you face a better debater equipped with a better argument you do this crap.

---

mariacostel wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 9:43am:

Bam wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 10:50pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 5:01pm: You and greg should get married then you can whine 24/7 Reported. Only a matter of time now before you're gone for good. You are such a weak-willed spineless cretin. Whenever you face a better debater equipped with a better argument you do this crap.

Reported. Don't like being reported? Don't do it.

BTW, good debaters don't resort to argumentum ad hominem.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 5:43am:

Show us the alternatives says Morrison The best alternative is probably a different government towards the last quarter of next year.

And a good chance of that happening too!

Bam wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 11:01am:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 9:43am: Bam wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 10:50pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 5:01pm: You and greg should get married then you can whine 24/7 Reported. Only a matter of time now before you're gone for good. You are such a weak-willed spineless cretin. Whenever you face a better debater equipped with a better argument you do this crap. Reported. Don't like being reported? Don't do it. BTW, good debaters don't resort to argumentum ad hominem.

Good debaters don't whine incessantly like a schoolgirl. GOod debaters detail their arguments - unlike you. You hate businesses and yes, that is quite supportable. Now if you have a problem with a specific business deduction then make your case.  Just dont continually cry about it and then not support it.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 1:34pm:

Good debaters don't whine incessantly like a schoolgirl. GOod debaters detail their arguments -

sounds like you know some of the theory .... but why don't you ever put that into practice?

John Smith wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 2:28pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 1:34pm: Good debaters don't whine incessantly like a schoolgirl. GOod debaters detail their arguments - sounds like you know some of the theory .... but why don't you ever put that into practice?

http://images07.imikimi.com/image/aHJX-1eV-4.gif

mariacostel wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 1:34pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 11:01am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 9:43am: Bam wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 10:50pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 5:01pm: You and greg should get married then you can whine 24/7 Reported. Only a matter of time now before you're gone for good. You are such a weak-willed spineless cretin. Whenever you face a better debater equipped with a better argument you do this crap. Reported. Don't like being reported? Don't do it. BTW, good debaters don't resort to argumentum ad hominem. Good debaters don't whine incessantly like a schoolgirl.

That means you're not a good debater. Have you ever read your own posting history?


mariacostel wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 1:34pm:

GOod debaters detail their arguments - unlike you.

That's a lie, not surprising given you're known to be a pathological liar. I provide detail for most of my arguments, hundreds of words sometimes, and most of the time when you respond it's a one-line personal attack.


mariacostel wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 1:34pm:

You hate businesses

Another lie, one you repeat endlessly but cannot prove.


mariacostel wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 1:34pm:

and yes, that is quite supportable.

Prove it. Of course you won't ... because it's a lie.


mariacostel wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 1:34pm:

Now if you have a problem with a specific business deduction then make your case.

I have, several times. You know I have - you've responded to them with your usual personal attacks.

Bam wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 7:53pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 1:34pm: Bam wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 11:01am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 9:43am: Bam wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 10:50pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 5:01pm: You and greg should get married then you can whine 24/7 Reported. Only a matter of time now before you're gone for good. You are such a weak-willed spineless cretin. Whenever you face a better debater equipped with a better argument you do this crap. Reported. Don't like being reported? Don't do it. BTW, good debaters don't resort to argumentum ad hominem. Good debaters don't whine incessantly like a schoolgirl. That means you're not a good debater. Have you ever read your own posting history? mariacostel wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 1:34pm: GOod debaters detail their arguments - unlike you. That's a lie, not surprising given you're known to be a pathological liar. I provide detail for most of my arguments, hundreds of words sometimes, and most of the time when you respond it's a one-line personal attack. mariacostel wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 1:34pm: You hate businesses Another lie, one you repeat endlessly but cannot prove. mariacostel wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 1:34pm: and yes, that is quite supportable. Prove it. Of course you won't ... because it's a lie. mariacostel wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 1:34pm: Now if you have a problem with a specific business deduction then make your case. I have, several times. You know I have - you've responded to them with your usual personal attacks.

I can have a good debate with Kytro because he isnt an arrogant fool (like you) nor is he unable to articulate his position as you appear unable to do.

I doubt Morrison would begin to understand the alternatives......... if he did.... he'd have no need to ask........

Beam me up, Scottie......

" nor is he unable to articulate his position as you appear unable to do."

Aha!  A double negative!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vf8N6GpdM

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 8:14am:

" nor is he unable to articulate his position as you appear unable to do." Aha!  A double negative!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vf8N6GpdM

And if you were a half-decent writer you would appreciate with quality of the phrase.  Have you worked out how to write dialogue yet?