Swagman wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2014 at 8:51pm:

And another thing ... you are basing your whole "net tax" argument on a lie.

Your argument appears to be sourced from a few opinion pieces published in The Australian recently, authored by David Uren and Adam Creighton. These articles lied by omission. They based their theses only on income taxes but ignored a raft of indirect taxes like GST, fuel excise, alcohol excise and numerous other taxes that everyone pays.

Uren's piece, for example, has glaring errors that don't stand up to scrutiny.

From the linked piece:
Quote:


Here is why the omission of indirect taxes is untruthful, and why Swag has been duped:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2014 at 9:16pm:


took awhile but I knew one would take the bait 

Bam wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2014 at 9:27pm:


Why didn't you answer my question? 

Swagman wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2014 at 8:51pm:


In 2013 the Govt budget received 45% of it's revenue in personal income taxes.  $175 Billion dollars.

Source

The top 25% paid 67% of this. 

$117 Billion dollars.

Take $117 billion out of the budget and try and fund all the welfare and public services with what's left.

Then tell me there is no trickle down....



Your pic is a dud.  So someone on $20K that pays

zero

income tax pays around 19% of their income (< $4k) in indirect taxes? $4K 

Someone on $180K pays $87K income tax & $45k (25%) indirectly.

Dud argument Bam.

Swagman wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2014 at 8:51pm:


Do you know that trickle down is a political theory which is not supported by any economist ?

Dnarever wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2014 at 6:23am:


Oh here we go another theory supposedly not supported by 100% of 'experts'...

Trickle down is an 'Americanism'.  Some smart arsed comedian named it.  Comedians want to appeal to their audience so comedians pick on minorities, and guess what; the majority of people aren't rich.  Bagging the rich is a winner, in the good old politically incorrect past they told Irish jokes etc.

I used the 'term' because I thought it 'apt', so if you don't like that term, then call it Swaggy's theory viewpoint or whatever......matters not.

I know that of all the Australian electorate, it's the 'poor' that benefit the most from the income earning capacity of the top 25% of tax payers.

The more income they (the top 25% or the top 10% or 5% or 40%) make, the more tax they pay, (directly and indirectly), and the more tax they pay, the more Govt benefits and services the poor receive.  It's bleedin obvious. 

You are trying to argue that my viewpoint is somehow wrong just because you ideologically believe that people on high incomes are inherently evil and are constantly trying to rip off poor people to their own benefit (the lefty's battle cry)........I envy the rich too, but I don't hate them for I can see the benefits they provide.  Those benefits actually do 'trickle down' you just have to open both eyes and not just your left one...

To make it easier condense it down and look at a family household situation.

Assume the parents are the high income earners and the kids are the poor.

The more money dad (or mum) makes the better the standard of living that their kids have.  Agree or disagree?

From my vantage point our economy is essentially no different to this analogy.  The high income earners on mass are figuratively the parents and the poor are the kids.  Simple.

The richer the parents the better off the kids.   

So I'll say it yet again......If you don't agree, then deduct the 67% of personal income tax the top 25% pay and see what that does to welfare and the public service.....

swag won't be happy until he pays no tax .....  anything else is just unfair 


don't worry Swag, with Abbott running the country into recession, your chance may come sooner than you think. 

I’d like to see an actual source for the top 25% paying 67% of tax. Actual tax.

Can anyone reference this?