Australian Politics Forum - Prepare to be educated righties

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Prepare to be educated righties
Reply #165 - Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:11am

Big Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

You’ve already acknowledged your mistake, Swagman: you categorised high incomes at 1996 levels.

Today, $74,000 is the national average. Many households would be earning $180,000. The three tax scales you’ve referenced support this.

Tax is not a mistake. The ATO has very deliberately spread the tax burden across the income scale. The top end (over $180,000) contribute about 5% less than low and middle income earners, but this is just quibbling. Each population contributes almost a third of the pie.

There is no way anyone could surmise from your ATO figures that the rich support the tax system.

hey stratos.... here is a stellar example of what I was just saying. Karnal is either ignorant of basic maths or a fool. IM not sure that that makes any real difference.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Big Donger

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 101711

Re: Prepare to be educated righties
Reply #166 - Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:17am

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:11am:

Big Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

You’ve already acknowledged your mistake, Swagman: you categorised high incomes at 1996 levels.

Today, $74,000 is the national average. Many households would be earning $180,000. The three tax scales you’ve referenced support this.

Tax is not a mistake. The ATO has very deliberately spread the tax burden across the income scale. The top end (over $180,000) contribute about 5% less than low and middle income earners, but this is just quibbling. Each population contributes almost a third of the pie.

There is no way anyone could surmise from your ATO figures that the rich support the tax system.

hey stratos.... here is a stellar example of what I was just saying. Karnal is either ignorant of basic maths or a fool. IM not sure that that makes any real difference.

It’s not just me, Longy. No one here can understand how a figure of 26% can be calculated to become 63%. Could you fill us in on the formula?

Cheers.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Prepare to be educated righties
Reply #167 - Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:25am

Big Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:17am:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:11am:

Big Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

You’ve already acknowledged your mistake, Swagman: you categorised high incomes at 1996 levels.

Today, $74,000 is the national average. Many households would be earning $180,000. The three tax scales you’ve referenced support this.

Tax is not a mistake. The ATO has very deliberately spread the tax burden across the income scale. The top end (over $180,000) contribute about 5% less than low and middle income earners, but this is just quibbling. Each population contributes almost a third of the pie.

There is no way anyone could surmise from your ATO figures that the rich support the tax system.

hey stratos.... here is a stellar example of what I was just saying. Karnal is either ignorant of basic maths or a fool. IM not sure that that makes any real difference.

It’s not just me, Longy. No one here can understand how a figure of 26% can be calculated to become 63%. Could you fill us in on the formula?

Cheers.

longies formulae is easy

x = whateveryouwantittobe

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Swagman

Gold Member

Offline

Beware of cheap imitations......

Posts: 15095
Illawarra NSW
Gender: male

Re: Prepare to be educated righties
Reply #168 - Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:44am

Big Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

You’ve already acknowledged your mistake, Swagman: you categorised high incomes at 1996 levels.

Today, $74,000 is the national average. Many households would be earning $180,000. The three tax scales you’ve referenced support this.

Tax is not a mistake. The ATO has very deliberately spread the tax burden across the income scale. The top end (over $180,000) contribute about 5% less than low and middle income earners, but this is just quibbling. Each population contributes almost a third of the pie.

There is no way anyone could surmise from your ATO figures that the rich support the tax system.

It's RMIT professor of institutional economics Sinclair Davidson's BCom, BCom(Hons), MCom (Wits), PhD, Grad Cert T&L (RMIT) data (not mine). He wrote a paper on the subject 10 or so years ago and regularly updates his data on his blog.

He's one of those rare commodities.....a non lefty academic.. Grin

The date is largely irrelevant. One could use 1996 or 2014 data and the result is still the same even with GST.

Now you can dodge around and try and deny the figures as much as you want but it won't alter the fact that a small percentage of taxpayers pay the vast majority of tax.

Big Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

There is no way anyone could surmise from your ATO figures that the rich support the tax system.

Really? After all the evidence and data provided..... that is your conclusion? Huh

Here's I thinking you were having a 'serious' debate here? Sad

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Prepare to be educated righties
Reply #169 - Dec 24^th, 2014 at 10:26am

Swagman wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:44am:

Big Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

You’ve already acknowledged your mistake, Swagman: you categorised high incomes at 1996 levels.

Today, $74,000 is the national average. Many households would be earning $180,000. The three tax scales you’ve referenced support this.

Tax is not a mistake. The ATO has very deliberately spread the tax burden across the income scale. The top end (over $180,000) contribute about 5% less than low and middle income earners, but this is just quibbling. Each population contributes almost a third of the pie.

There is no way anyone could surmise from your ATO figures that the rich support the tax system.

It's RMIT professor of institutional economics Sinclair Davidson's BCom, BCom(Hons), MCom (Wits), PhD, Grad Cert T&L (RMIT) data (not mine). He wrote a paper on the subject 10 or so years ago and regularly updates his data on his blog.

He's one of those rare commodities.....a non lefty academic.. Grin

The date is largely irrelevant. One could use 1996 or 2014 data and the result is still the same even with GST.

Now you can dodge around and try and deny the figures as much as you want but it won't alter the fact that a small percentage of taxpayers pay the vast majority of tax.

Big Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

There is no way anyone could surmise from your ATO figures that the rich support the tax system.

Really? After all the evidence and data provided..... that is your conclusion? Huh

Here's I thinking you were having a 'serious' debate here? Sad

karnal is never serious and we now know why. he is dumber tan snot so failed attempts at humour is all he can do. when asked to simply count... he cant.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Big Donger

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 101711

Re: Prepare to be educated righties
Reply #170 - Dec 24^th, 2014 at 12:12pm

Swagman wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:44am:

Big Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

You’ve already acknowledged your mistake, Swagman: you categorised high incomes at 1996 levels.

Today, $74,000 is the national average. Many households would be earning $180,000. The three tax scales you’ve referenced support this.

Tax is not a mistake. The ATO has very deliberately spread the tax burden across the income scale. The top end (over $180,000) contribute about 5% less than low and middle income earners, but this is just quibbling. Each population contributes almost a third of the pie.

There is no way anyone could surmise from your ATO figures that the rich support the tax system.

It's RMIT professor of institutional economics Sinclair Davidson's BCom, BCom(Hons), MCom (Wits), PhD, Grad Cert T&L (RMIT) data (not mine). He wrote a paper on the subject 10 or so years ago and regularly updates his data on his blog.

He's one of those rare commodities.....a non lefty academic.. Grin

The date is largely irrelevant. One could use 1996 or 2014 data and the result is still the same even with GST.

Now you can dodge around and try and deny the figures as much as you want but it won't alter the fact that a small percentage of taxpayers pay the vast majority of tax.

Big Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

There is no way anyone could surmise from your ATO figures that the rich support the tax system.

Really? After all the evidence and data provided..... that is your conclusion? Huh

Here's I thinking you were having a 'serious' debate here? Sad

Swagman, I've explained why average incomes count. In 1996, $75,000 was a fairly high income. Today, it's the average. At the risk of endlessly repeating myself, your ATO figures show that 70.2% of income tax is paid by middle income earners. High income earners contribute 26%. These tax thresholds are the ATO's, not mine.

The data I've been shown has been made up. Longy refuses to say how he comes up with completely different figures to the ATO, based on their own data.

This is a most serious debate, and I'm glad you're discussing it. Initially, I congratulated you for proving your point. After reading more closely, however, I realized you were basing your point on 1996 incomes, or so you said.

I'm happy to accept the facts here. I have no agenda to push. All I have is a belief that tax is deliberately spread across the board, and - again - your own ATO figures show this.

Unfortunately, you can't take this back. The ATO data is current and correct. It can't be spin any other way than what it is.

I accept, however, that $180,000 is well above the average income, but it is not "rich". As we know, the average is $74,000. The difference between the low tax threshold of $37,000 and the average is $37,000. To place the average squarely in the middle, we would come up with a range of $37,000 and $111,000.

To me, this shows the tax rates slightly favour upper-middle income earners (or those above $111,000). However, the percentages favour this income bracket, which contributes 37% of the income tax pie, as opposed to 33% on low incomes and 26% on high incomes above $180,000.

Again, there is no way you can skew these figures if you accept the average income as $74,000. If anything, they show that upper-middle income earners above $111,000 get off slightly lightly by being included in the same tax bracket of those above $37,000 (instead of those who earn more than $180,000).

What the ATO figures clearly show, however, is that middle income earners contribute the most to the tax pie. 26% is not a majority.

I also question whether incomes slightly over $180,000 comprise"the rich". A teacher, nurse or cop on $80 or $90,000 a year with a share portfolio and an investment property could easily earn $180,000 as a sole income. Most middle managers earn this in salary alone, and no one would call them "the rich".

I'm happy to discuss the criteria in more detail if you'd like, but you seem committed to defending a position you can't possibly prove, based on the ATO data you've provided.

When you want to engage in a discussion based on your very own sources, please let me know.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 24^th, 2014 at 12:20pm by Big Donger »

IP Logged

Its time

Gold Member

Offline

Boot libs out

Posts: 25639
Gender: female

Re: Prepare to be educated righties
Reply #171 - Dec 24^th, 2014 at 12:29pm

YouBig Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Swagman wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:44am:

Big Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

You’ve already acknowledged your mistake, Swagman: you categorised high incomes at 1996 levels.

Today, $74,000 is the national average. Many households would be earning $180,000. The three tax scales you’ve referenced support this.

Tax is not a mistake. The ATO has very deliberately spread the tax burden across the income scale. The top end (over $180,000) contribute about 5% less than low and middle income earners, but this is just quibbling. Each population contributes almost a third of the pie.

There is no way anyone could surmise from your ATO figures that the rich support the tax system.

It's RMIT professor of institutional economics Sinclair Davidson's BCom, BCom(Hons), MCom (Wits), PhD, Grad Cert T&L (RMIT) data (not mine). He wrote a paper on the subject 10 or so years ago and regularly updates his data on his blog.

He's one of those rare commodities.....a non lefty academic.. Grin

The date is largely irrelevant. One could use 1996 or 2014 data and the result is still the same even with GST.

Now you can dodge around and try and deny the figures as much as you want but it won't alter the fact that a small percentage of taxpayers pay the vast majority of tax.

Big Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

There is no way anyone could surmise from your ATO figures that the rich support the tax system.

Really? After all the evidence and data provided..... that is your conclusion? Huh

Here's I thinking you were having a 'serious' debate here? Sad

Swagman, I've explained why average incomes count. In 1996, $75,000 was a fairly high income. Today, it's the average. At the risk of endlessly repeating myself, your ATO figures show that 70.2% of income tax is paid by middle income earners. High income earners contribute 26%. These tax thresholds are the ATO's, not mine.

The data I've been shown has been made up. Longy refuses to say how he comes up with completely different figures to the ATO, based on their own data.

This is a most serious debate, and I'm glad you're discussing it. Initially, I congratulated you for proving your point. After reading more closely, however, I realized you were basing your point on 1996 incomes, or so you said.

I'm happy to accept the facts here. I have no agenda to push. All I have is a belief that tax is deliberately spread across the board, and - again - your own ATO figures show this.

Unfortunately, you can't take this back. The ATO data is current and correct. It can't be spin any other way than what it is.

I accept, however, that $180,000 is well above the average income, but it is not "rich". As we know, the average is $74,000. The difference between the low tax threshold of $37,000 and the average is $37,000. To place the average squarely in the middle, we would come up with a range of $37,000 and $111,000.

To me, this shows the tax rates slightly favour upper-middle income earners (or those above $111,000). However, the percentages favour this income bracket, which contributes 37% of the income tax pie, as opposed to 33% on low incomes and 26% on high incomes above $180,000.

Again, there is no way you can skew these figures if you accept the average income as $74,000. If anything, they show that upper-middle income earners above $111,000 get off slightly lightly by being included in the same tax bracket of those above $37,000 (instead of those who earn more than $180,000).

What the ATO figures clearly show, however, is that middle income earners contribute the most to the tax pie. 26% is not a majority.

I also question whether incomes slightly over $180,000 comprise"the rich". A teacher, nurse or cop on $80 or $90,000 a year with a share portfolio and an investment property could easily earn $180,000 as a sole income. Most middle managers earn this in salary alone, and no one would call them "the rich".

I'm happy to discuss the criteria in more detail if you'd like, but you seem committed to defending a position you can't possibly prove, based on the ATO data you've provided.

When you want to engage in a discussion based on your very own sources, please let me know.

Good post, I am somewhat bewildered how they came to the conclusion they did with the figures provided , as for longy and insults , we can put that down to a low self esteem and not feeling to good about himself.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 78311 Gender:	Re: Prepare to be educated righties Reply #172 - Dec 24^th, 2014 at 12:34pm Its time wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 12:29pm: as for longy and insults , we can put that down to a low self esteem and not feeling to good about himself. really? I put it down to a low IQ ... how else can you claim the rich pay the majority of taxes?
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

Big Donger Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 101711	Re: Prepare to be educated righties Reply #173 - Dec 24^th, 2014 at 12:56pm But get this, we've been discussing "net" income tax figures, which includes reductions for payments like the Family Tax Benefit, etc. If we were looking at "gross" income tax, the proportion of income tax paid by lower income earners would be significantly higher.
Back to top	« Last Edit: Dec 24^th, 2014 at 2:23pm by Big Donger » IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 61400 Here Gender:	Re: Prepare to be educated righties Reply #174 - Dec 24^th, 2014 at 1:28pm Swagman wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2014 at 8:41pm: Quote: a lot for screwing it up but gee they done a good job of it, we will be paying their Liberals debt back for a decade if we are lucky ......reality check Agreed - You needed it.
Back to top	IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 61400
Here
Gender: male

Re: Prepare to be educated righties
Reply #175 - Dec 24^th, 2014 at 1:31pm

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 7:15am:

Swagman wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 6:18am:

Bam wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2014 at 10:21pm:

Swagman wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2014 at 9:01am:

Bam wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2014 at 8:52am:

Hint - it's because they earn the most

...which is irrelevant

Net tax is irrelevant.

The 'net' tax described here is taxable incomes (net of deductable expenses & tax offsets) not tax to Govt net of benefits.

Neither is irrelevant though.

are you enjoying the site of the lefties contorting themselves to try and misinterpret the rather obvious fact son who pays tax and who doesn't?

it is quite fun. I knew they were stupid and ignorant, but to flatly deny ATO and ABs statistics on actual tax collected (ie not an estimate) is astonishing.

The intellectual capacity and honesty of the left is.... negligible.

Isn't there a topic to discuss this rather meaningless babble fest without derailing discussion on the very real problems caused by the Howard governments incompetence ?

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Prepare to be educated righties
Reply #176 - Dec 24^th, 2014 at 2:30pm

Its time wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 12:29pm:

YouBig Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Swagman wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:44am:

Big Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

You’ve already acknowledged your mistake, Swagman: you categorised high incomes at 1996 levels.

Today, $74,000 is the national average. Many households would be earning $180,000. The three tax scales you’ve referenced support this.

Tax is not a mistake. The ATO has very deliberately spread the tax burden across the income scale. The top end (over $180,000) contribute about 5% less than low and middle income earners, but this is just quibbling. Each population contributes almost a third of the pie.

There is no way anyone could surmise from your ATO figures that the rich support the tax system.

It's RMIT professor of institutional economics Sinclair Davidson's BCom, BCom(Hons), MCom (Wits), PhD, Grad Cert T&L (RMIT) data (not mine). He wrote a paper on the subject 10 or so years ago and regularly updates his data on his blog.

He's one of those rare commodities.....a non lefty academic.. Grin

The date is largely irrelevant. One could use 1996 or 2014 data and the result is still the same even with GST.

Now you can dodge around and try and deny the figures as much as you want but it won't alter the fact that a small percentage of taxpayers pay the vast majority of tax.

Big Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

There is no way anyone could surmise from your ATO figures that the rich support the tax system.

Really? After all the evidence and data provided..... that is your conclusion? Huh

Here's I thinking you were having a 'serious' debate here? Sad

Swagman, I've explained why average incomes count. In 1996, $75,000 was a fairly high income. Today, it's the average. At the risk of endlessly repeating myself, your ATO figures show that 70.2% of income tax is paid by middle income earners. High income earners contribute 26%. These tax thresholds are the ATO's, not mine.

The data I've been shown has been made up. Longy refuses to say how he comes up with completely different figures to the ATO, based on their own data.

This is a most serious debate, and I'm glad you're discussing it. Initially, I congratulated you for proving your point. After reading more closely, however, I realized you were basing your point on 1996 incomes, or so you said.

I'm happy to accept the facts here. I have no agenda to push. All I have is a belief that tax is deliberately spread across the board, and - again - your own ATO figures show this.

Unfortunately, you can't take this back. The ATO data is current and correct. It can't be spin any other way than what it is.

I accept, however, that $180,000 is well above the average income, but it is not "rich". As we know, the average is $74,000. The difference between the low tax threshold of $37,000 and the average is $37,000. To place the average squarely in the middle, we would come up with a range of $37,000 and $111,000.

To me, this shows the tax rates slightly favour upper-middle income earners (or those above $111,000). However, the percentages favour this income bracket, which contributes 37% of the income tax pie, as opposed to 33% on low incomes and 26% on high incomes above $180,000.

Again, there is no way you can skew these figures if you accept the average income as $74,000. If anything, they show that upper-middle income earners above $111,000 get off slightly lightly by being included in the same tax bracket of those above $37,000 (instead of those who earn more than $180,000).

What the ATO figures clearly show, however, is that middle income earners contribute the most to the tax pie. 26% is not a majority.

I also question whether incomes slightly over $180,000 comprise"the rich". A teacher, nurse or cop on $80 or $90,000 a year with a share portfolio and an investment property could easily earn $180,000 as a sole income. Most middle managers earn this in salary alone, and no one would call them "the rich".

I'm happy to discuss the criteria in more detail if you'd like, but you seem committed to defending a position you can't possibly prove, based on the ATO data you've provided.

When you want to engage in a discussion based on your very own sources, please let me know.

Good post, I am somewhat bewildered how they came to the conclusion they did with the figures provided , as for longy and insults , we can put that down to a low self esteem and not feeling to good about himself.

the discussion was all based on fact which most of you chose to completely ignore. then when it suits you, you come up with a 'middle income range' that is ludicrous. $37K middle income??? $180K middle income?? and therein is the basis of your appalling analysis. you start with an outcome and then redefine all the facts to suit your preferred outcome.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Big Donger

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 101711

Re: Prepare to be educated righties
Reply #177 - Dec 24^th, 2014 at 2:40pm

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 2:30pm:

Its time wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 12:29pm:

YouBig Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Swagman wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:44am:

Big Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

You’ve already acknowledged your mistake, Swagman: you categorised high incomes at 1996 levels.

Today, $74,000 is the national average. Many households would be earning $180,000. The three tax scales you’ve referenced support this.

Tax is not a mistake. The ATO has very deliberately spread the tax burden across the income scale. The top end (over $180,000) contribute about 5% less than low and middle income earners, but this is just quibbling. Each population contributes almost a third of the pie.

There is no way anyone could surmise from your ATO figures that the rich support the tax system.

It's RMIT professor of institutional economics Sinclair Davidson's BCom, BCom(Hons), MCom (Wits), PhD, Grad Cert T&L (RMIT) data (not mine). He wrote a paper on the subject 10 or so years ago and regularly updates his data on his blog.

He's one of those rare commodities.....a non lefty academic.. Grin

The date is largely irrelevant. One could use 1996 or 2014 data and the result is still the same even with GST.

Now you can dodge around and try and deny the figures as much as you want but it won't alter the fact that a small percentage of taxpayers pay the vast majority of tax.

Big Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

There is no way anyone could surmise from your ATO figures that the rich support the tax system.

Really? After all the evidence and data provided..... that is your conclusion? Huh

Here's I thinking you were having a 'serious' debate here? Sad

Swagman, I've explained why average incomes count. In 1996, $75,000 was a fairly high income. Today, it's the average. At the risk of endlessly repeating myself, your ATO figures show that 70.2% of income tax is paid by middle income earners. High income earners contribute 26%. These tax thresholds are the ATO's, not mine.

The data I've been shown has been made up. Longy refuses to say how he comes up with completely different figures to the ATO, based on their own data.

This is a most serious debate, and I'm glad you're discussing it. Initially, I congratulated you for proving your point. After reading more closely, however, I realized you were basing your point on 1996 incomes, or so you said.

I'm happy to accept the facts here. I have no agenda to push. All I have is a belief that tax is deliberately spread across the board, and - again - your own ATO figures show this.

Unfortunately, you can't take this back. The ATO data is current and correct. It can't be spin any other way than what it is.

I accept, however, that $180,000 is well above the average income, but it is not "rich". As we know, the average is $74,000. The difference between the low tax threshold of $37,000 and the average is $37,000. To place the average squarely in the middle, we would come up with a range of $37,000 and $111,000.

To me, this shows the tax rates slightly favour upper-middle income earners (or those above $111,000). However, the percentages favour this income bracket, which contributes 37% of the income tax pie, as opposed to 33% on low incomes and 26% on high incomes above $180,000.

Again, there is no way you can skew these figures if you accept the average income as $74,000. If anything, they show that upper-middle income earners above $111,000 get off slightly lightly by being included in the same tax bracket of those above $37,000 (instead of those who earn more than $180,000).

What the ATO figures clearly show, however, is that middle income earners contribute the most to the tax pie. 26% is not a majority.

I also question whether incomes slightly over $180,000 comprise"the rich". A teacher, nurse or cop on $80 or $90,000 a year with a share portfolio and an investment property could easily earn $180,000 as a sole income. Most middle managers earn this in salary alone, and no one would call them "the rich".

I'm happy to discuss the criteria in more detail if you'd like, but you seem committed to defending a position you can't possibly prove, based on the ATO data you've provided.

When you want to engage in a discussion based on your very own sources, please let me know.

Good post, I am somewhat bewildered how they came to the conclusion they did with the figures provided , as for longy and insults , we can put that down to a low self esteem and not feeling to good about himself.

the discussion was all based on fact which most of you chose to completely ignore. then when it suits you, you come up with a 'middle income range' that is ludicrous. $37K middle income??? $180K middle income?? and therein is the basis of your appalling analysis. you start with an outcome and then redefine all the facts to suit your preferred outcome.

Looks like Longy didn't read the "average" income figure: $74,000.

No one made this up, Longy, it comes from the ABS.

Feel free to tell us what you mean by "the rich" (who pay ALL of the tax).

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Prepare to be educated righties
Reply #178 - Dec 24^th, 2014 at 4:00pm

Big Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 2:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 2:30pm:

Its time wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 12:29pm:

YouBig Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Swagman wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:44am:

Big Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

You’ve already acknowledged your mistake, Swagman: you categorised high incomes at 1996 levels.

Today, $74,000 is the national average. Many households would be earning $180,000. The three tax scales you’ve referenced support this.

.

It's RMIT professor of institutional economics Sinclair Davidson's BCom, BCom(Hons), MCom (Wits), PhD, Grad Cert T&L (RMIT) data (not mine). He wrote a paper on the subject 10 or so years ago and regularly updates his data on his blog.

He's one of those rare commodities.....a non lefty academic.. Grin

The date is largely irrelevant. One could use 1996 or 2014 data and the result is still the same even with GST.

Now you can dodge around and try and deny the figures as much as you want but it won't alter the fact that a small percentage of taxpayers pay the vast majority of tax.

Big Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

There is no way anyone could surmise from your ATO figures that the rich support the tax system.

Really? After all the evidence and data provided..... that is your conclusion? Huh

Here's I thinking you were having a 'serious' debate here? Sad

This is a most serious debate, and I'm glad you're discussing it. Initially, I congratulated you for proving your point. After reading more closely, however, I realized you were basing your point on 1996 incomes, or so you said.

I'm happy to accept the facts here. I have no agenda to push. All I have is a belief that tax is deliberately spread across the board, and - again - your own ATO figures show this.

Unfortunately, you can't take this back. The ATO data is current and correct. It can't be spin any other way than what it is.

I accept, however, that $180,000 is well above the average income, but it is not "rich". As we know, the average is $74,000. The difference between the low tax threshold of $37,000 and the average is $37,000. To place the average squarely in the middle, we would come up with a range of $37,000 and $111,000.

To me, this shows the tax rates slightly favour upper-middle income earners (or those above $111,000). However, the percentages favour this income bracket, which contributes 37% of the income tax pie, as opposed to 33% on low incomes and 26% on high incomes above $180,000.

Again, there is no way you can skew these figures if you accept the average income as $74,000. If anything, they show that upper-middle income earners above $111,000 get off slightly lightly by being included in the same tax bracket of those above $37,000 (instead of those who earn more than $180,000).

What the ATO figures clearly show, however, is that middle income earners contribute the most to the tax pie. 26% is not a majority.

I also question whether incomes slightly over $180,000 comprise"the rich". A teacher, nurse or cop on $80 or $90,000 a year with a share portfolio and an investment property could easily earn $180,000 as a sole income. Most middle managers earn this in salary alone, and no one would call them "the rich".

I'm happy to discuss the criteria in more detail if you'd like, but you seem committed to defending a position you can't possibly prove, based on the ATO data you've provided.

When you want to engage in a discussion based on your very own sources, please let me know.

Good post, I am somewhat bewildered how they came to the conclusion they did with the figures provided , as for longy and insults , we can put that down to a low self esteem and not feeling to good about himself.

the discussion was all based on fact which most of you chose to completely ignore. then when it suits you, you come up with a 'middle income range' that is ludicrous. $37K middle income??? $180K middle income?? and therein is the basis of your appalling analysis. you start with an outcome and then redefine all the facts to suit your preferred outcome.

Looks like Longy didn't read the "average" income figure: $74,000.

No one made this up, Longy, it comes from the ABS.

Feel free to tell us what you mean by "the rich" (who pay ALL of the tax).

well since it took two days to even get you to read two lines on a table and understand them - or even accept them - there is zero chance of you discussing more complex issues. you are even a ignorant as to think that tax scales and rates are related to wealth. IN fact, I cant even think of a way I could say that that you could possibly understand. and the average wage didn't even come up in the OP.

but you never read the OP, did you? Probably got bored after 3 lines and leapt to your ideologically driven opinions and missed all those messy facts, figures and analyses.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Big Donger

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 101711

Re: Prepare to be educated righties
Reply #179 - Dec 24^th, 2014 at 6:07pm

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 4:00pm:

Big Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 2:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 2:30pm:

Its time wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 12:29pm:

YouBig Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 12:12pm:

Swagman wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:44am:

Big Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

You’ve already acknowledged your mistake, Swagman: you categorised high incomes at 1996 levels.

Today, $74,000 is the national average. Many households would be earning $180,000. The three tax scales you’ve referenced support this.

.

It's RMIT professor of institutional economics Sinclair Davidson's BCom, BCom(Hons), MCom (Wits), PhD, Grad Cert T&L (RMIT) data (not mine). He wrote a paper on the subject 10 or so years ago and regularly updates his data on his blog.

He's one of those rare commodities.....a non lefty academic.. Grin

The date is largely irrelevant. One could use 1996 or 2014 data and the result is still the same even with GST.

Now you can dodge around and try and deny the figures as much as you want but it won't alter the fact that a small percentage of taxpayers pay the vast majority of tax.

Big Donger wrote on Dec 24^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

There is no way anyone could surmise from your ATO figures that the rich support the tax system.

Really? After all the evidence and data provided..... that is your conclusion? Huh

Here's I thinking you were having a 'serious' debate here? Sad

This is a most serious debate, and I'm glad you're discussing it. Initially, I congratulated you for proving your point. After reading more closely, however, I realized you were basing your point on 1996 incomes, or so you said.

I'm happy to accept the facts here. I have no agenda to push. All I have is a belief that tax is deliberately spread across the board, and - again - your own ATO figures show this.

Unfortunately, you can't take this back. The ATO data is current and correct. It can't be spin any other way than what it is.

I accept, however, that $180,000 is well above the average income, but it is not "rich". As we know, the average is $74,000. The difference between the low tax threshold of $37,000 and the average is $37,000. To place the average squarely in the middle, we would come up with a range of $37,000 and $111,000.

To me, this shows the tax rates slightly favour upper-middle income earners (or those above $111,000). However, the percentages favour this income bracket, which contributes 37% of the income tax pie, as opposed to 33% on low incomes and 26% on high incomes above $180,000.

Again, there is no way you can skew these figures if you accept the average income as $74,000. If anything, they show that upper-middle income earners above $111,000 get off slightly lightly by being included in the same tax bracket of those above $37,000 (instead of those who earn more than $180,000).

What the ATO figures clearly show, however, is that middle income earners contribute the most to the tax pie. 26% is not a majority.

I also question whether incomes slightly over $180,000 comprise"the rich". A teacher, nurse or cop on $80 or $90,000 a year with a share portfolio and an investment property could easily earn $180,000 as a sole income. Most middle managers earn this in salary alone, and no one would call them "the rich".

I'm happy to discuss the criteria in more detail if you'd like, but you seem committed to defending a position you can't possibly prove, based on the ATO data you've provided.

When you want to engage in a discussion based on your very own sources, please let me know.

Good post, I am somewhat bewildered how they came to the conclusion they did with the figures provided , as for longy and insults , we can put that down to a low self esteem and not feeling to good about himself.

the discussion was all based on fact which most of you chose to completely ignore. then when it suits you, you come up with a 'middle income range' that is ludicrous. $37K middle income??? $180K middle income?? and therein is the basis of your appalling analysis. you start with an outcome and then redefine all the facts to suit your preferred outcome.

Looks like Longy didn't read the "average" income figure: $74,000.

No one made this up, Longy, it comes from the ABS.

Feel free to tell us what you mean by "the rich" (who pay ALL of the tax).

well since it took two days to even get you to read two lines on a table and understand them - or even accept them - there is zero chance of you discussing more complex issues. you are even a ignorant as to think that tax scales and rates are related to wealth. IN fact, I cant even think of a way I could say that that you could possibly understand. and the average wage didn't even come up in the OP.

but you never read the OP, did you? Probably got bored after 3 lines and leapt to your ideologically driven opinions and missed all those messy facts, figures and analyses.

So you didn’t read the bit in the OP where he talks about the difference between the average and median incomes. Have you read the article yourself, Longy?

Back to top

IP Logged