Forum

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

Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print
Negative Income Tax: would you support it? (Read 8192 times)
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Apr 19th, 2017 at 6:06pm
 
Milton Friedman pioneered the concept of the Negative Income Tax. For those who don't what it is, this is it:

First, let's assume that we implement a tax-free threshold of $40k, and a flat tax rate of 20%. Anyone who earns over $40k will pay 20% for each dollar over $40k. However, if you earn under $40k, say, $10k, then the taxpayer is entitled to a 'negative tax' (i.e. a payment from the government) according to the following principal: $10k - $40k = -$30k. 20% of $-30k is -$6000. This means that you would receive a payment of $6000 + $10k (your earnings) in a financial year. Basically, any amount earned below $40k would be subtracted by $40k and then the tax rate would be applied to that difference, resulting in a net payment to the taxpayer.

If a person earns nothing (i.e. $0) then he/she would be entitled to receive $8000 (20% of $40k).

The Negative Income Tax would replace most if not all welfare payments. Every person would have to file a tax return. Persons entitled to a negative tax would receive their payment periodically (in like manner as the government withholds tax every week/fortnight); this would provide a continual stream of payments.

The minimum amount $8000 is less than the full amount of Newstart Allowance of approx. $12k per annum.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #1 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 6:08pm
 
It would help with the high effective marginal tax rate faced by some people, which means they have little incentive to get off welfare. But it would mean that those who actually need more welfare don't get it. Other than that, it is just a different equation with the same answer.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #2 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 6:10pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 6:08pm:
It would help with the high effective marginal tax rate faced by some people, which means they have little incentive to get off welfare. But it would mean that those who actually need more welfare don't get it. Other than that, it is just a different equation with the same answer.


What do you mean? Can you elaborate? For e.g. when you say they will have little incentive to get off welfare, and that those who need more welfare won't get it?
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #3 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 6:45pm
 
It depends on the details of your suggestion, which was pretty short on details.

I am saying that some people currently have little incentive to get off welfare.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #4 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 7:03pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 6:45pm:
It depends on the details of your suggestion, which was pretty short on details.

I am saying that some people currently have little incentive to get off welfare.


Correct, I don't thing that there can ever be an ideal policy that gives people an incentive to work. If a person doesn't want to work, then they won't even if it means a reduction in quality in life. Some people make that choice. If they make it due to a disability (mental or physical) then the government should help them, absolutely.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #5 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 7:04pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 6:45pm:
It depends on the details of your suggestion, which was pretty short on details.

I am saying that some people currently have little incentive to get off welfare.


The point is that this system would be cheaper and more efficient to administer, in my opinion, as opposed to the burdensome regulations of welfare currently.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16343
Gender: male
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #6 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 7:07pm
 
Isn't benefits and rebates greater than tax paid, negative income tax?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #7 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 7:14pm
 
lee wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 7:07pm:
Isn't benefits and rebates greater than tax paid, negative income tax?


The idea is that the measure would be implemented alongside current welfare policies, with the aim of phasing out the latter slowly. Of course, there would still be government support for persons with disabilities.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 94109
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #8 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 7:24pm
 
$12,000 is not enough to live on - only $230 per week
so how would people live on $8,000 
- only $154 per week?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #9 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 7:40pm
 
Auggie wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 7:04pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 6:45pm:
It depends on the details of your suggestion, which was pretty short on details.

I am saying that some people currently have little incentive to get off welfare.


The point is that this system would be cheaper and more efficient to administer, in my opinion, as opposed to the burdensome regulations of welfare currently.


We would still need all the exceptions. I also doubt it would come out at the nice straight line you imagine. It is a simple way of conceptualising the transition from welfare to full employment.

I suggest a way to take this even further, by replacing fixed, stepped changes in the marginal tax rate with a variable rate.

I originally imagined it as this (numbers used as an example only) for incomes below $30k pa, you pay no income tax. From $30k to 100k the marginal rate varies linearly from 10% to the maximum, eg 45%. Then flat at 45%.

However I see now it could be combined with your idea so it is a straight line that continues to go negative below $30k. That is, the marginal tax rate is a flat line from $0 pa annual income to $100k annual income.

The only adjustment I would make is to have a flat line where it crosses zero, so you don't have to do all the paperwork for plus or minus $50 worth of tax.

One of my reasons for this is that it is a bit of a psychological barrier to work hard to get a raise when you are about to get a big increase in your marginal tax rate.

Not sure if it would be possible to have a straight line or whether that would take away too much welfare.

Quote:
The idea is that the measure would be implemented alongside current welfare policies, with the aim of phasing out the latter slowly.


It should be phased out immediately to the point that it offsets the change, so that you minimise the immediate change in people's income. Any change beyond that is a different question for another time. It is enough of a battle overcoming people's instinctive opposition to change without adding real changes to people's take-home pay.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #10 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 7:53pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 7:24pm:
$12,000 is not enough to live on - only $230 per week
so how would people live on $8,000 
- only $154 per week?



I'm sure we all agree that the government can only provide a certain basic income that is economically sustainable. For e.g. no one would expect the government to pay $1000 p/w in payments to people. My point is that it's never going to be enough money from the government because then it becomes economically unsustainable to do so.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #11 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 7:56pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 7:40pm:
However I see now it could be combined with your idea so it is a straight line that continues to go negative below $30k. That is, the marginal tax rate is a flat line from $0 pa annual income to $100k annual income.

The only adjustment I would make is to have a flat line where it crosses zero, so you don't have to do all the paperwork for plus or minus $50 worth of tax.


I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #12 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 8:06pm
 
Extend your straight line up to $100k pa annual income.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #13 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 8:07pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 8:06pm:
Extend your straight line up to $100k pa annual income.


That would be unsustainable fiscally.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #14 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 8:09pm
 
Why? Are you suggesting a flat negative rate?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #15 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 8:11pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 8:09pm:
Why? Are you suggesting a flat negative rate?


I'm not sure if you understood the OP.

The flat rate would be 20% of any income over $40k. The first $40k would tax-free. 20% would be the Negative Income Tax rate.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #16 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 8:58pm
 
Auggie wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 6:06pm:
Milton Friedman pioneered the concept of the Negative Income Tax. For those who don't what it is, this is it:

First, let's assume that we implement a tax-free threshold of $40k, and a flat tax rate of 20%. Anyone who earns over $40k will pay 20% for each dollar over $40k. However, if you earn under $40k, say, $10k, then the taxpayer is entitled to a 'negative tax' (i.e. a payment from the government) according to the following principal: $10k - $40k = -$30k. 20% of $-30k is -$6000. This means that you would receive a payment of $6000 + $10k (your earnings) in a financial year. Basically, any amount earned below $40k would be subtracted by $40k and then the tax rate would be applied to that difference, resulting in a net payment to the taxpayer.

If a person earns nothing (i.e. $0) then he/she would be entitled to receive $8000 (20% of $40k).

The Negative Income Tax would replace most if not all welfare payments. Every person would have to file a tax return. Persons entitled to a negative tax would receive their payment periodically (in like manner as the government withholds tax every week/fortnight); this would provide a continual stream of payments.

The minimum amount $8000 is less than the full amount of Newstart Allowance of approx. $12k per annum.


OK. My concept is similar to yours, except it is not a flat rate. A single straight line, passing through 0% tax at $40k. Positive and increasing (marginal rate) above that, negative and decreasing below. Overall it would be similar to the current system, so not much change in people's take-home pay.

Your concept would disproportionately benefit people at either end of the spectrum - the very rich and the very poor.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57063
Here
Gender: male
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #17 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:21pm
 
Looks like a typical Liberal party policy take money off of the poor and gives it to the wealthy.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #18 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:33pm
 
Dnarever wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:21pm:
Looks like a typical Liberal party policy take money off of the poor and gives it to the wealthy.


Ah, no. The Liberal Party don't support any such policy. Both major parties support the unfair progressive taxation scheme.

And the policy also benefits the poor given that THE POOR DON'T PAY ANY TAX.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #19 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:37pm
 
It sounds to me like you are combining two different things at once - a change to the 'progressiveness' of the tax system and a change to how it is implemented.

Good way to confuse people and make them hostile to your change for one reason or another.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57063
Here
Gender: male
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #20 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:41pm
 
Auggie wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:33pm:
Dnarever wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:21pm:
Looks like a typical Liberal party policy take money off of the poor and gives it to the wealthy.


Ah, no. The Liberal Party don't support any such policy. Both major parties support the unfair progressive taxation scheme.

And the policy also benefits the poor given that THE POOR DON'T PAY ANY TAX.


There are plenty of people living marginal existences on low wages paying tax.

The Liberals are running several policies to take money out of education and health etc in order to provide business with a tax cut, they do this all the time.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57063
Here
Gender: male
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #21 - Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:42pm
 
Auggie wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:33pm:
Dnarever wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:21pm:
Looks like a typical Liberal party policy take money off of the poor and gives it to the wealthy.


Ah, no. The Liberal Party don't support any such policy. Both major parties support the unfair progressive taxation scheme.

And the policy also benefits the poor given that THE POOR DON'T PAY ANY TAX.


I would think that the rubbish unfair progressive taxation scheme is more fair than what you are suggesting.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #22 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 2:25pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:37pm:
It sounds to me like you are combining two different things at once - a change to the 'progressiveness' of the tax system and a change to how it is implemented.

Good way to confuse people and make them hostile to your change for one reason or another.


The question is: "is it a good policy?" Based on my current understanding of it, I believe it is.

I think you'll find that many people would support a flat tax. The progressive tax system is completely unfair; it punishes people for earning more money.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #23 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 2:26pm
 
Dnarever wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:41pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:33pm:
Dnarever wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:21pm:
Looks like a typical Liberal party policy take money off of the poor and gives it to the wealthy.


Ah, no. The Liberal Party don't support any such policy. Both major parties support the unfair progressive taxation scheme.

And the policy also benefits the poor given that THE POOR DON'T PAY ANY TAX.


There are plenty of people living marginal existences on low wages paying tax.

The Liberals are running several policies to take money out of education and health etc in order to provide business with a tax cut, they do this all the time.


Yes, under my policy any person earning $40k or under wouldn't pay any tax, which is better than the current scheme now. $40k is low middle-class and would benefit a lot of people.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #24 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 2:29pm
 
Dnarever wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:42pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:33pm:
Dnarever wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:21pm:
Looks like a typical Liberal party policy take money off of the poor and gives it to the wealthy.


Ah, no. The Liberal Party don't support any such policy. Both major parties support the unfair progressive taxation scheme.

And the policy also benefits the poor given that THE POOR DON'T PAY ANY TAX.


I would think that the rubbish unfair progressive taxation scheme is more fair than what you are suggesting.



How so? Many middle class people pay around 33c on the dollar in taxes - a third of their income. The progressive tax system punishes the middle class more than it does the rich.

A flat tax would benefit the low, middle and upper classes. Think of it this way: if everyone pays the same rate of tax, then that means that if the Government wants to increase revenue it can ask the people to increase the tax rate so that everyone pays more tax, not just some people at the expense of others.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 79545
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #25 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 2:47pm
 
The flaw is in 'declared income'... many who actually enjoy more than that $40k will find every bolt-hole to reduce their declared income below that so as to suck (again) of the largesse of the government.  Without stringent tests on what is and what isn't income + fringe benefits, this could never work.

The government would be paying Kerry Packer to enjoy the billionaire lifestyle.

Negative gearing is already Negative Income Tax in the sense that it reduces tax liability of personal income tax.
Back to top
 

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


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #26 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 5:19pm
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 2:47pm:
The flaw is in 'declared income'... many who actually enjoy more than that $40k will find every bolt-hole to reduce their declared income below that so as to suck (again) of the largesse of the government.  Without stringent tests on what is and what isn't income + fringe benefits, this could never work.

The government would be paying Kerry Packer to enjoy the billionaire lifestyle.

Negative gearing is already Negative Income Tax in the sense that it reduces tax liability of personal income tax.


Of course, the Government would have to determine what income is, such as fringe benefits, etc. I was just illustrating a simple example; it wasn't the totality of the policy.

I would also be open to supporting a 20% tax on all dividends from company profits irrespective of how much it was. This would prevent rich people from using this method to circumvent paying taxes by paying dividends below $40k.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #27 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 5:50pm
 
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 2:25pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:37pm:
It sounds to me like you are combining two different things at once - a change to the 'progressiveness' of the tax system and a change to how it is implemented.

Good way to confuse people and make them hostile to your change for one reason or another.


The question is: "is it a good policy?" Based on my current understanding of it, I believe it is.

I think you'll find that many people would support a flat tax. The progressive tax system is completely unfair; it punishes people for earning more money.


Tax has never been about fairness or punishment. There is no fair way to take people's money off them. People only resort to the fairness argument when they have nothing else to stand on.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Unforgiven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #28 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 5:51pm
 
It already exists. Its called welfare.
Back to top
 

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 79545
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #29 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 5:59pm
 
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 5:19pm:
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 2:47pm:
The flaw is in 'declared income'... many who actually enjoy more than that $40k will find every bolt-hole to reduce their declared income below that so as to suck (again) of the largesse of the government.  Without stringent tests on what is and what isn't income + fringe benefits, this could never work.

The government would be paying Kerry Packer to enjoy the billionaire lifestyle.

Negative gearing is already Negative Income Tax in the sense that it reduces tax liability of personal income tax.


Of course, the Government would have to determine what income is, such as fringe benefits, etc. I was just illustrating a simple example; it wasn't the totality of the policy.

I would also be open to supporting a 20% tax on all dividends from company profits irrespective of how much it was. This would prevent rich people from using this method to circumvent paying taxes by paying dividends below $40k.



Interesting points.  They're excellent as starting points for discussion of change in the current tax system.

BTW - I note the ATO is looking for workers - starting salary is $81k... not bad for a bottom entry level.  I guess I could get by on $3600 a fortnight before tax.... bet employment has a 'preference will be given' clause.
Back to top
 

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


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #30 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 5:59pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 5:50pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 2:25pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:37pm:
It sounds to me like you are combining two different things at once - a change to the 'progressiveness' of the tax system and a change to how it is implemented.

Good way to confuse people and make them hostile to your change for one reason or another.


The question is: "is it a good policy?" Based on my current understanding of it, I believe it is.

I think you'll find that many people would support a flat tax. The progressive tax system is completely unfair; it punishes people for earning more money.


Tax has never been about fairness or punishment. There is no fair way to take people's money off them. People only resort to the fairness argument when they have nothing else to stand on.


We all agree that the Government needs to collect income taxes, so it's not an issue of saying 'all tax is unfair', ergo this tax policy is unfair. A flat tax is FAIRER because it doesn't discriminate against people just because they earn more (or less).
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #31 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:01pm
 
It has nothing to do with fairness. One system is not more or less fair than another. Fairness is the argument of last resort. Even your system is progressive in an absolute sense. People on a certain wage pay no tax at all. Some even get negative tax.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #32 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:03pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
It has nothing to do with fairness. One system is not more or less fair than another. Fairness is the argument of last resort. Even your system is progressive in an absolute sense. People on a certain wage pay no tax at all. Some even get negative tax.


Even if you argue that no tax is fair, then look at the outcome: all segments of the society benefit from this tax plan.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #33 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:44pm
 
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:03pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
It has nothing to do with fairness. One system is not more or less fair than another. Fairness is the argument of last resort. Even your system is progressive in an absolute sense. People on a certain wage pay no tax at all. Some even get negative tax.


Even if you argue that no tax is fair, then look at the outcome: all segments of the society benefit from this tax plan.


Crap.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #34 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 7:58pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:44pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:03pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
It has nothing to do with fairness. One system is not more or less fair than another. Fairness is the argument of last resort. Even your system is progressive in an absolute sense. People on a certain wage pay no tax at all. Some even get negative tax.


Even if you argue that no tax is fair, then look at the outcome: all segments of the society benefit from this tax plan.


Crap.


Crap? Really? How so?
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
juliar
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 22966
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #35 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 11:06pm
 
Caesar's Ghost, is that what U R proposing for the republic ?

It is little different from the current welfare system.

There is a bit of the old Socialist redistribute income floating around in there.

Why not ban cap gains and neg gearing while U R at it for a total Socialist collapse of Australia ? This is what Labor already has in mind to "solve" the housing crisis.

Don't worry about the panic and recession and loss of the AAA credit rating and foreign govt debt passing up thru the stratosphere.

Gosh, after the housing market collapses the Chinese buyers will buy up whole streets and blocks of cheap houses.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
crocodile
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6682
Gender: male
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #36 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 11:28pm
 
I'd be far more interested in substantial reductions in corporate tax. The real killer of living standards.
Back to top
 

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #37 - Apr 21st, 2017 at 1:47pm
 
juliar wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 11:06pm:
Caesar's Ghost, is that what U R proposing for the republic ?

It is little different from the current welfare system.

There is a bit of the old Socialist redistribute income floating around in there.

Why not ban cap gains and neg gearing while U R at it for a total Socialist collapse of Australia ? This is what Labor already has in mind to "solve" the housing crisis.

Don't worry about the panic and recession and loss of the AAA credit rating and foreign govt debt passing up thru the stratosphere.

Gosh, after the housing market collapses the Chinese buyers will buy up whole streets and blocks of cheap houses.


The Negative Income Tax is unique in that both Libertarians and Socialists can agree with it. Ultimately, we all agree that some form of income redistribution is necessary to provide for a Social Safety Network. I think the NIT is one way that can guarantee a minimum basic income without the need for a person to get through the whole process of Centrelink. In the event that a NIT fails or is not sustainable, then a guaranteed minimum income payment could be provided instead.

Don't forget that these changes are made with the expectation that the minimum wage would either be abolished completely or significantly reduced.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #38 - Apr 21st, 2017 at 1:48pm
 
crocodile wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 11:28pm:
I'd be far more interested in substantial reductions in corporate tax. The real killer of living standards.


A NIT policy would also be accompanied by a reduction of the corporation tax rate to 20%. There is even an argument to reduce the rate for business with a turnover of $1 million or less; such rate being reduce to 10% or less.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #39 - Apr 21st, 2017 at 7:08pm
 
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 7:58pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:44pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:03pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
It has nothing to do with fairness. One system is not more or less fair than another. Fairness is the argument of last resort. Even your system is progressive in an absolute sense. People on a certain wage pay no tax at all. Some even get negative tax.


Even if you argue that no tax is fair, then look at the outcome: all segments of the society benefit from this tax plan.


Crap.


Crap? Really? How so?


By virtue of being complete BS. "all segments of the society benefit from this tax plan"
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #40 - Apr 21st, 2017 at 8:24pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2017 at 7:08pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 7:58pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:44pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:03pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
It has nothing to do with fairness. One system is not more or less fair than another. Fairness is the argument of last resort. Even your system is progressive in an absolute sense. People on a certain wage pay no tax at all. Some even get negative tax.


Even if you argue that no tax is fair, then look at the outcome: all segments of the society benefit from this tax plan.


Crap.


Crap? Really? How so?


By virtue of being complete BS. "all segments of the society benefit from this tax plan"


Effendi, under this tax plan, everyone pays less tax; ergo, every has more disposable income. I know that socialists like you don't consider this to be a benefit; but I do.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #41 - Apr 21st, 2017 at 10:10pm
 
Auggie wrote on Apr 21st, 2017 at 8:24pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2017 at 7:08pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 7:58pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:44pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:03pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
It has nothing to do with fairness. One system is not more or less fair than another. Fairness is the argument of last resort. Even your system is progressive in an absolute sense. People on a certain wage pay no tax at all. Some even get negative tax.


Even if you argue that no tax is fair, then look at the outcome: all segments of the society benefit from this tax plan.


Crap.


Crap? Really? How so?


By virtue of being complete BS. "all segments of the society benefit from this tax plan"


Effendi, under this tax plan, everyone pays less tax; ergo, every has more disposable income. I know that socialists like you don't consider this to be a benefit; but I do.


What about the people who benefited from that tax revenue? You really haven't thought this through, have you?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #42 - Apr 21st, 2017 at 11:54pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2017 at 10:10pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 21st, 2017 at 8:24pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2017 at 7:08pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 7:58pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:44pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:03pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
It has nothing to do with fairness. One system is not more or less fair than another. Fairness is the argument of last resort. Even your system is progressive in an absolute sense. People on a certain wage pay no tax at all. Some even get negative tax.


Even if you argue that no tax is fair, then look at the outcome: all segments of the society benefit from this tax plan.


Crap.


Crap? Really? How so?


By virtue of being complete BS. "all segments of the society benefit from this tax plan"


Effendi, under this tax plan, everyone pays less tax; ergo, every has more disposable income. I know that socialists like you don't consider this to be a benefit; but I do.


What about the people who benefited from that tax revenue? You really haven't thought this through, have you?


They will be better off because they'll pay either no or less tax. Besides, the NIT provides a guaranteed minimum income for all citizens; they don't have to go through the soul-destroying process of Centrelink to get their payment; plus there are no conditions to receiving such a payment. We would abolish Centrelink completely, and leave other payments, such disability to the States/local councils.

Second, the NIT is based on a libertarian principal. Surely, you would agree, as a anti-establismentarian that Government exists to be relevant and to accumulate more and more power? What's the solution presented by all parties? To pass more laws, and to give government more power. What does this result in? More bureaucrats, more red-tape, more rules that the government requires of citizens to follow, resulting in a soft tyranny of rule-making.

The government just needs to stay out and stop making so many laws and regulations. I believe in small government and personal liberty and choice. Also, the government sucks at pretty much everything, except collecting taxes and protecting people from harm.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #43 - Apr 22nd, 2017 at 9:17am
 
Quote:
They will be better off because they'll pay either no or less tax.


You really haven't thought this through, have you? Does this scheme simply invent bucketloads of money so everyone is better off? Plenty of people on welfare pay zero tax already. Your scheme is a redistribution of wealth on a massive scale and it is astonishing that you actually think there would be no losers.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57063
Here
Gender: male
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #44 - Apr 22nd, 2017 at 9:41am
 
Quote:
They will be better off because they'll pay either no or less tax.


So now the government can not pay their bills and the deficit goes through the roof ?



The minimum amount $8000 is less than the full amount of Newstart Allowance of approx. $12k per annum.

From the original proposition you really think that people who are $4,000 worse off are not worse off now ?

How about pensioners ? same boat now that you have put them on $8,000 are they not worse off by more, they would lose $20K and get $8K ?

In reality any change would have to at least balance with the current numbers. All this does is redistributes the tax burden making it fairer for some at the expense of others.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #45 - Apr 22nd, 2017 at 10:08am
 
Quote:
The minimum amount $8000 is less than the full amount of Newstart Allowance of approx. $12k per annum.


Perhaps he thinks that conforming to his strange ideological stance about fairness would make up for the missing $4000 and the inability of the government to provide other services.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #46 - Apr 22nd, 2017 at 12:00pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 9:17am:
Quote:
They will be better off because they'll pay either no or less tax.


You really haven't thought this through, have you? Does this scheme simply invent bucketloads of money so everyone is better off? Plenty of people on welfare pay zero tax already. Your scheme is a redistribution of wealth on a massive scale and it is astonishing that you actually think there would be no losers.


Ok, let me clarify. Under a NIT, those who are on welfare will be given less than what they are given now, so they will be the losers.

The issue is, how much money should the government give for unemployment benefit? They can only give enough money that is economically sustainable; for e.g. we would agree that the government can't sustainably given $1000 per week for Newstart Allowance. Ultimately, the the unemployment benefit is NEVER GOING TO BE ENOUGH. Such benefits aren't designed to be incomes on which people can live but financial assistance.

So, yes I agree that some people will be worse off. According to an article I read there are 3 mil Australians who live below the poverty line. That's slightly more than 10% of the population. Most of them are single-parent families. Should the government make laws that benefit 10% of the population at the expense of the other 90%? Should you have less money in your pocket to subsidize the stupid choices of other people?

Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #47 - Apr 22nd, 2017 at 12:02pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 10:08am:
Quote:
The minimum amount $8000 is less than the full amount of Newstart Allowance of approx. $12k per annum.


Perhaps he thinks that conforming to his strange ideological stance about fairness would make up for the missing $4000 and the inability of the government to provide other services.


Effendi, what does a person have to do to get that extra $4000? They have to go through the soul-destroying process of Centrelink, and participate in compulsory activities. At least under the NIT system, there are no conditions; people get the money irrespective: they don't have to fill out forms and deal with uninspired Centrelink officers.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #48 - Apr 22nd, 2017 at 12:04pm
 
Dnarever wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 9:41am:
Quote:
They will be better off because they'll pay either no or less tax.


So now the government can not pay their bills and the deficit goes through the roof ?



The minimum amount $8000 is less than the full amount of Newstart Allowance of approx. $12k per annum.

From the original proposition you really think that people who are $4,000 worse off are not worse off now ?

How about pensioners ? same boat now that you have put them on $8,000 are they not worse off by more, they would lose $20K and get $8K ?

In reality any change would have to at least balance with the current numbers. All this does is redistributes the tax burden making it fairer for some at the expense of others.


Dnarever, there's never enough money that the government can provide. Should the Newstart Payment be $1000 per week? Of course not. Should it be the amount that is enough for a person to live off? Of course not, otherwise no one will work.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #49 - Apr 22nd, 2017 at 2:45pm
 
Auggie wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 12:00pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 9:17am:
Quote:
They will be better off because they'll pay either no or less tax.


You really haven't thought this through, have you? Does this scheme simply invent bucketloads of money so everyone is better off? Plenty of people on welfare pay zero tax already. Your scheme is a redistribution of wealth on a massive scale and it is astonishing that you actually think there would be no losers.


Ok, let me clarify. Under a NIT, those who are on welfare will be given less than what they are given now, so they will be the losers.

The issue is, how much money should the government give for unemployment benefit? They can only give enough money that is economically sustainable; for e.g. we would agree that the government can't sustainably given $1000 per week for Newstart Allowance. Ultimately, the the unemployment benefit is NEVER GOING TO BE ENOUGH. Such benefits aren't designed to be incomes on which people can live but financial assistance.

So, yes I agree that some people will be worse off. According to an article I read there are 3 mil Australians who live below the poverty line. That's slightly more than 10% of the population. Most of them are single-parent families. Should the government make laws that benefit 10% of the population at the expense of the other 90%? Should you have less money in your pocket to subsidize the stupid choices of other people?



You started out making this about simplifying the tax and welfare systems with a single straight line. Now it turns out it is really about wealth transfer.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #50 - Apr 22nd, 2017 at 3:31pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 2:45pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 12:00pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 9:17am:
Quote:
They will be better off because they'll pay either no or less tax.


You really haven't thought this through, have you? Does this scheme simply invent bucketloads of money so everyone is better off? Plenty of people on welfare pay zero tax already. Your scheme is a redistribution of wealth on a massive scale and it is astonishing that you actually think there would be no losers.


Ok, let me clarify. Under a NIT, those who are on welfare will be given less than what they are given now, so they will be the losers.

The issue is, how much money should the government give for unemployment benefit? They can only give enough money that is economically sustainable; for e.g. we would agree that the government can't sustainably given $1000 per week for Newstart Allowance. Ultimately, the the unemployment benefit is NEVER GOING TO BE ENOUGH. Such benefits aren't designed to be incomes on which people can live but financial assistance.

So, yes I agree that some people will be worse off. According to an article I read there are 3 mil Australians who live below the poverty line. That's slightly more than 10% of the population. Most of them are single-parent families. Should the government make laws that benefit 10% of the population at the expense of the other 90%? Should you have less money in your pocket to subsidize the stupid choices of other people?



You started out making this about simplifying the tax and welfare systems with a single straight line. Now it turns out it is really about wealth transfer.


It doesn't transfer any wealth to anybody. Those who earn more pay more tax than those who earn less. Sure, they'll pay less tax than under the current scheme, but they'll pay less tax.

Why is everything about transferring wealth? Do you think the government has the right to take your money and give it to someone else? What if they took 70% of your income? Would you be happy with that?
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #51 - Apr 22nd, 2017 at 4:13pm
 
Another variation to this tax proposal is the following:

- $40k tax-free threshold.
- 15c per dollar on incomes over $40k
- 10c per dollar negative tax on incomes under $40k.

The lower tax rate on the negative tax would make the scheme more sustainable, since more money would be coming in than out.

The States would implement their own NIT scheme:

- tax-free threshold is the same.
- States implement either 0 to 15c per dollar over the 20c
- implement 0 to 15c per dollar on the negative tax over 10c.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #52 - Apr 22nd, 2017 at 4:55pm
 
Quote:
It doesn't transfer any wealth to anybody.


You can't help it can you?

Does it transfer wealth to the people paying "negative tax"?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #53 - Apr 22nd, 2017 at 6:03pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 4:55pm:
Quote:
It doesn't transfer any wealth to anybody.


You can't help it can you?

Does it transfer wealth to the people paying "negative tax"?


Ah, I see what you mean: it transfers wealth to the poor. Yes it does. I thought you were criticising the fact that it transfer wealth to the rich; otherwise why would you criticise it?
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #54 - Apr 22nd, 2017 at 6:10pm
 
Relative to the current system it does. You tried to pass it off as a more streamlined system, when in fact it was actually a major change to the distribution of wealth. You also made the absurd claim that everyone would benefit, despite many people being massively worse off.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #55 - Apr 22nd, 2017 at 6:51pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 6:10pm:
Relative to the current system it does. You tried to pass it off as a more streamlined system, when in fact it was actually a major change to the distribution of wealth. You also made the absurd claim that everyone would benefit, despite many people being massively worse off.


Yes you're right. I should have said that the majority of people will be better off. And it would be more streamlined particularly if it replaces centrelink.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #56 - Apr 22nd, 2017 at 9:22pm
 
Quote:
I should have said that the majority of people will be better off.


Because it is the truth, or because it is easier to get away with?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57063
Here
Gender: male
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #57 - Apr 22nd, 2017 at 9:54pm
 
Auggie wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 12:04pm:
Dnarever wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 9:41am:
Quote:
They will be better off because they'll pay either no or less tax.


So now the government can not pay their bills and the deficit goes through the roof ?



The minimum amount $8000 is less than the full amount of Newstart Allowance of approx. $12k per annum.

From the original proposition you really think that people who are $4,000 worse off are not worse off now ?

How about pensioners ? same boat now that you have put them on $8,000 are they not worse off by more, they would lose $20K and get $8K ?

In reality any change would have to at least balance with the current numbers. All this does is redistributes the tax burden making it fairer for some at the expense of others.


Dnarever, there's never enough money that the government can provide. Should the Newstart Payment be $1000 per week? Of course not. Should it be the amount that is enough for a person to live off? Of course not, otherwise no one will work.


Quote:
Should it be the amount that is enough for a person to live off, Of course not


People on newstart die of it, really ?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #58 - Apr 23rd, 2017 at 7:10pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 9:22pm:
Quote:
I should have said that the majority of people will be better off.


Because it is the truth, or because it is easier to get away with?


Does it matter?
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #59 - Apr 23rd, 2017 at 7:11pm
 
Dnarever wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 9:54pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 12:04pm:
Dnarever wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 9:41am:
Quote:
They will be better off because they'll pay either no or less tax.


So now the government can not pay their bills and the deficit goes through the roof ?



The minimum amount $8000 is less than the full amount of Newstart Allowance of approx. $12k per annum.

From the original proposition you really think that people who are $4,000 worse off are not worse off now ?

How about pensioners ? same boat now that you have put them on $8,000 are they not worse off by more, they would lose $20K and get $8K ?

In reality any change would have to at least balance with the current numbers. All this does is redistributes the tax burden making it fairer for some at the expense of others.


Dnarever, there's never enough money that the government can provide. Should the Newstart Payment be $1000 per week? Of course not. Should it be the amount that is enough for a person to live off? Of course not, otherwise no one will work.


Quote:
Should it be the amount that is enough for a person to live off, Of course not


People on newstart die of it, really ?


So, you think that the government should pay a minimum liveable wage to everyone?
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57063
Here
Gender: male
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #60 - Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:46pm
 
Auggie wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 7:11pm:
Dnarever wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 9:54pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 12:04pm:
Dnarever wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 9:41am:
Quote:
They will be better off because they'll pay either no or less tax.


So now the government can not pay their bills and the deficit goes through the roof ?



The minimum amount $8000 is less than the full amount of Newstart Allowance of approx. $12k per annum.

From the original proposition you really think that people who are $4,000 worse off are not worse off now ?

How about pensioners ? same boat now that you have put them on $8,000 are they not worse off by more, they would lose $20K and get $8K ?

In reality any change would have to at least balance with the current numbers. All this does is redistributes the tax burden making it fairer for some at the expense of others.


Dnarever, there's never enough money that the government can provide. Should the Newstart Payment be $1000 per week? Of course not. Should it be the amount that is enough for a person to live off? Of course not, otherwise no one will work.


Quote:
Should it be the amount that is enough for a person to live off, Of course not


People on newstart die of it, really ?


So, you think that the government should pay a minimum liveable wage to everyone?


I sure don't want people who go onto new start to be falling off the perch because of it.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 94109
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #61 - Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:51pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 10:08am:
Quote:
The minimum amount $8000 is less than the full amount of Newstart Allowance of approx. $12k per annum.


Perhaps he thinks that conforming to his strange ideological stance about fairness would make up for the missing $4000 and the inability of the government to provide other services.


FD,
The cost of living is so high & the lousy newstart so hard to get
that it's no wonder we have streets full of crime & home invasions.

No one is safe anymore - even in their own home.

The fact is that there are not enough jobs to go around
& those without jobs need to resort to crime in order to live.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #62 - Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:53pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:51pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 10:08am:
Quote:
The minimum amount $8000 is less than the full amount of Newstart Allowance of approx. $12k per annum.


Perhaps he thinks that conforming to his strange ideological stance about fairness would make up for the missing $4000 and the inability of the government to provide other services.


FD,
The cost of living is so high & the lousy newstart so hard to get
that it's no wonder we have streets full of crime & home invasions.

No one is safe anymore - even in their own home.

The fact is that there are not enough jobs to go around
& those without jobs need to resort to crime in order to live.


So, you think that the Government should give people $50,000 per year in guaranteed income?

Second, are you justifying murder on the basis of poverty? There are plenty of poor people who don't commit crimes. It's a choice. It's not like these people are starving.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #63 - Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:55pm
 
Anyone who can't sponge of the system in Australia isn't trying hard enough. Which is also why they don't have a job. Being on the dole should not be easy. It should create a strong incentive to get a job.

Auggie wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 7:10pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 9:22pm:
Quote:
I should have said that the majority of people will be better off.


Because it is the truth, or because it is easier to get away with?


Does it matter?


Not to you apparently. But it will when you try to reduce people's net income.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57063
Here
Gender: male
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #64 - Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:56pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:55pm:
Anyone who can't sponge of the system in Australia isn't trying hard enough. Which is also why they don't have a job. Being on the dole should not be easy. It should create a strong incentive to get a job.


It does.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 94109
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #65 - Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:59pm
 
Auggie wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:53pm:
Bobby. wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:51pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 10:08am:
Quote:
The minimum amount $8000 is less than the full amount of Newstart Allowance of approx. $12k per annum.


Perhaps he thinks that conforming to his strange ideological stance about fairness would make up for the missing $4000 and the inability of the government to provide other services.


FD,
The cost of living is so high & the lousy newstart so hard to get
that it's no wonder we have streets full of crime & home invasions.

No one is safe anymore - even in their own home.

The fact is that there are not enough jobs to go around
& those without jobs need to resort to crime in order to live.


So, you think that the Government should give people $50,000 per year in guaranteed income?

Second, are you justifying murder on the basis of poverty? There are plenty of poor people who don't commit crimes. It's a choice. It's not like these people are starving.



They are starving - people are living under bridges -
I can't image how awful it would be to be in their position.
There's no excuse for this in a wealthy 1st world country.
We have to help those people as a high priority.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #66 - Apr 23rd, 2017 at 9:03pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:59pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:53pm:
Bobby. wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:51pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 10:08am:
Quote:
The minimum amount $8000 is less than the full amount of Newstart Allowance of approx. $12k per annum.


Perhaps he thinks that conforming to his strange ideological stance about fairness would make up for the missing $4000 and the inability of the government to provide other services.


FD,
The cost of living is so high & the lousy newstart so hard to get
that it's no wonder we have streets full of crime & home invasions.

No one is safe anymore - even in their own home.

The fact is that there are not enough jobs to go around
& those without jobs need to resort to crime in order to live.


So, you think that the Government should give people $50,000 per year in guaranteed income?

Second, are you justifying murder on the basis of poverty? There are plenty of poor people who don't commit crimes. It's a choice. It's not like these people are starving.



They are starving - people are living under bridges -
I can't image how awful it would be to be in their position.
There's no excuse for this in a wealthy 1st world country.
We have to help those people as a high priority.


You're seriously implying that these people are living in the same conditions and level of deprivation that is experienced in Sub-Saharan Africa? If so, that's just stupid.

Bobby, why are people homeless? Why aren't they relying on their families or friends?
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #67 - Apr 23rd, 2017 at 9:04pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:55pm:
Anyone who can't sponge of the system in Australia isn't trying hard enough. Which is also why they don't have a job. Being on the dole should not be easy. It should create a strong incentive to get a job.

Auggie wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 7:10pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 9:22pm:
Quote:
I should have said that the majority of people will be better off.


Because it is the truth, or because it is easier to get away with?


Does it matter?


Not to you apparently. But it will when you try to reduce people's net income.


So, you think that everyone should earn the same income irrespective of talent or productivity?
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #68 - Apr 23rd, 2017 at 9:05pm
 
Quote:
They are starving - people are living under bridges -


Because they are too drunk, high or crazy to fill out a form. Not because of lack of handouts. They are not starving, BTW.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 94109
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #69 - Apr 23rd, 2017 at 9:06pm
 
Auggie wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 9:03pm:
Bobby. wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:59pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:53pm:
Bobby. wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:51pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 10:08am:
Quote:
The minimum amount $8000 is less than the full amount of Newstart Allowance of approx. $12k per annum.


Perhaps he thinks that conforming to his strange ideological stance about fairness would make up for the missing $4000 and the inability of the government to provide other services.


FD,
The cost of living is so high & the lousy newstart so hard to get
that it's no wonder we have streets full of crime & home invasions.

No one is safe anymore - even in their own home.

The fact is that there are not enough jobs to go around
& those without jobs need to resort to crime in order to live.


So, you think that the Government should give people $50,000 per year in guaranteed income?

Second, are you justifying murder on the basis of poverty? There are plenty of poor people who don't commit crimes. It's a choice. It's not like these people are starving.



They are starving - people are living under bridges -
I can't image how awful it would be to be in their position.
There's no excuse for this in a wealthy 1st world country.
We have to help those people as a high priority.


You're seriously implying that these people are living in the same conditions and level of deprivation that is experienced in Sub-Saharan Africa? If so, that's just stupid.

Bobby, why are people homeless? Why aren't they relying on their families or friends?



Families don't want to know you when you have no money -
this is a dog eat dog jungle that we live in.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 94109
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #70 - Apr 23rd, 2017 at 9:07pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 9:05pm:
Quote:
They are starving - people are living under bridges -


Because they are too drunk, high or crazy to fill out a form. Not because of lack of handouts. They are not starving, BTW.



Where have you been FD?

I've seen plenty of dirty, filthy, starving, beggars in Melbourne.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #71 - Apr 23rd, 2017 at 9:09pm
 
They were not starving. They were hungover. Ever seen a fat junkie?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #72 - Apr 23rd, 2017 at 9:11pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 9:06pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 9:03pm:
Bobby. wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:59pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:53pm:
Bobby. wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 8:51pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 22nd, 2017 at 10:08am:
Quote:
The minimum amount $8000 is less than the full amount of Newstart Allowance of approx. $12k per annum.


Perhaps he thinks that conforming to his strange ideological stance about fairness would make up for the missing $4000 and the inability of the government to provide other services.


FD,
The cost of living is so high & the lousy newstart so hard to get
that it's no wonder we have streets full of crime & home invasions.

No one is safe anymore - even in their own home.

The fact is that there are not enough jobs to go around
& those without jobs need to resort to crime in order to live.


So, you think that the Government should give people $50,000 per year in guaranteed income?

Second, are you justifying murder on the basis of poverty? There are plenty of poor people who don't commit crimes. It's a choice. It's not like these people are starving.



They are starving - people are living under bridges -
I can't image how awful it would be to be in their position.
There's no excuse for this in a wealthy 1st world country.
We have to help those people as a high priority.


You're seriously implying that these people are living in the same conditions and level of deprivation that is experienced in Sub-Saharan Africa? If so, that's just stupid.

Bobby, why are people homeless? Why aren't they relying on their families or friends?



Families don't want to know you when you have no money -
this is a dog eat dog jungle that we live in.


That's bullshit! Sir Bobby. There are plenty of decent families out there.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 94109
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #73 - Apr 23rd, 2017 at 9:12pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 9:09pm:
They were not starving. They were hungover. Ever seen a fat junkie?



FD,
they are on drugs because their life is so awful that
they can either commit suicide or take drugs to feel better for a few hours.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #74 - Apr 23rd, 2017 at 9:29pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 9:12pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 23rd, 2017 at 9:09pm:
They were not starving. They were hungover. Ever seen a fat junkie?



FD,
they are on drugs because their life is so awful that
they can either commit suicide or take drugs to feel better for a few hours.


It's called addiction Bobby. Nasty stuff, but not the same thing as starvation, and not something you can cure with $50. That usually just makes it worse. Anyone who is genuinely hungry gets fed, if they can string to words together to ask for food.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print