Why is the Herald so nasty to Clarkson and Albanese?

[Old Koreelah]

4 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

While the rest of the world was in depression, Nazi Germany jumped out....  my understanding is that Hitler had zero understanding of what were the accepted ideas of economics, and everybody around him was too scared to stop him building roads and armies and stuff.

Hitler was seen as a great leader during the 30s for dragging Germany out of Depression. He was even named Time’s Man of the Year, but it was all built on credit; he had to plunder his neighbours to pay for it.

4 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

…don't forget that the Weimar republic was the world's worst example of bad inflation in the 1920's.

 Mugabe might have been worse:

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Wow that's an impressive banknote old K.

 

[onetrack]

And it's not even worth the same value as a sheet of toilet paper.

[Marty_d]

Funny place, Africa.  When we were in South Africa in 2007, beer was cheaper than soft drink.  Not crap beer like that West End from Adelaide, either - proper beer.

[Jerry_Atrick]

8 hours ago, old man emu said:

I don't get this "print more bank notes" idea. Isn't it just like making confetti out of coloured paper? Does a banknote represent anything tangible? I've just been looking at buying some Hi-Viz vests. I could give today's banknotes to the seller, but I could also used plastic. The Government can print enough banknotes to have a ticker-tape parade, but does that alter the worth of the vest? If I use plastic, then all I am doing is altering the seller's and my numbers in bank accounts. 

 

How does printing more banknotes affect inflation?

The cash to support the payments are physically held by the banks as cash or cash-like equivalents (e.g. AAA government bonds). If you transfer funds within the same bank, then only numbers on two accounts change. If you transfer cash to someone at another bank, you bank ha an account with that other bank, and if the payments they make in a day exceed the amount they have in cash at the payee's bank, you bank has to physically transfer cash to your payees bank (well, they can go into an overdraft). The cash & equivalents in the bank's vaults and held at the RBA has to tally.

 

8 hours ago, spacesailor said:

Superannuation! 

 The Singaporeans have a Great super investment scene ,

When they need their home deposit . It comes from that ' superannuation ' they have paid .

It helps two fold : first it gives incentive 😂  then they have a paid-off mortgage,  as they receive their pension .

spacesailor

 

Singapore as fiscal policy reasonably well laid out.. at least for ex pats. First year is tax free and the idea is that you invest what you would have paid in tax (and a bit more) to help pay for ongoing year's taxes. It compounds after a while and you have a nice little next egg + pension/super to boot.

7 hours ago, octave said:

f everyone one avoids tax then how do we pay for the age pension and run our hospitals?

True OME. The problem is governments allow a distinctly tilted playing field, and therefore everyone tries to get out of it if the fat cats can. In addition, a lot of people think they are not getting great value for that money (whether they are or not is up for debate).

 

[onetrack]

The greatest single problem with our tax system is that employees have no choice but to pay the tax deemed to be owing - but corporations and companies can afford to employ double-degree accountant/lawyers to devise tax avoidance schemes that are so complex they often take the ATO years to unscramble - and the end result is the corporates and companies see paying tax as optional.

 

Fix the tax system so the corporations and companies can't avoid their proper levels of tax, and the Govt would have enough to spare to guarantee every person in Australia a basic living wage.

 

The motor vehicle manufacturers, along with many other large Australian businesses, are notorious for sidestepping taxes by generating a myriad of dubious tax deductions that are denied to the everyday wages employee. 

 

The Iron Ore producers of Australia (along with a raft of other global corporations) neatly avoided a vast amount of taxes with their "transfer pricing" schemes. Even when the ATO nailed them, they still ended up only paying part of the total tax bill calculated by the ATO.

[spacesailor]

WHO ! .

Pays tax when using '' Bit-Coin '' .

The wealthy deem it their birthright to Avoid that dreaded tax .

Why expect the POOR side of the economics  to provide more than it's  FAIR share .

The Superannuation is a huge ripoff for the lowest paid !.

BUT

The C E Os of those companies are paid $ millions , so keep the pittance. that the low earner's put in, as it pays the wages for those on the company payroll.

By the time a low wage worker gets their pension , ( 45 years of employment ) it will be only a couple of years wage, in the kitty.  ( 1978 \ 2023 )

Go back in time & look at the wage of the low paid, then compere it with the wage paid 45 years latter.

spacesailor

[Bruce Tuncks]

Why don't we ( well me anyway ) feel like it's stealing when you avoid taxes?

Personally, I feel no guilt if the guy accepts cash which I suspect he is not going to declare as income.

 

 

[facthunter]

IF he's investigated you may be drawn into it.  The BIG players don't often get tackled.  Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

Some billionaire property developer is slamming the proposed Super tax as ridiculous: https://www.theage.com.au/money/super-and-retirement/it-s-ridiculous-billionaire-john-gandel-slams-super-tax-change-20230301-p5colh.html (open in private mode).

 

The comments are largely about how it is unfair for the rich, etc. 

 

I am a little concerned at such a tax - at least set to $3M; If you have a SMSF that invested in a couple of houses, you may well have seen your asset values increase astronomically,  but, up until fairly recently, no change to your income -in fact yields were paltry for quite some time. Now that income to the fund is going to be taxed at a higher percentage stifling your fund growth. It as being cast as affecting only 86,000 people, but I think that is the wrong way to look at it. It should be looked at through the lens of what is proportionate to the investment and the beneficiaries. 

 

In the above example, an asset valuation can scream ahead but the income can remain little changed. The returns are re-invested to grow the value, but now there will be less returns to invest. In other words, there should be a correlation between the return or income and the taxable value. It could be done on a percentage of the asset valuation, but, it probably should be done on the absolute return value of income. There is a question of capital gains as well, but let's park that for the moment. 

 

So, it could be structured similar to PAYG, except of course the bands would be different, and the percentages would be different. That way the tax doesn't unnecessarily punish anyone. It can be argued it will disincentive fund managers from making higher returns, but I don't buy that.  

 

 

 

[spacesailor]

When one person takes home $ ONE Million each WEEK . & has bonus and other incentives ( like salary sacrifice ) Why shouldn't he pay the Miserable 33% tax . The same as low paid worker's Pay .

spacesailor.

[Marty_d]

2 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Some billionaire property developer is slamming the proposed Super tax as ridiculous: https://www.theage.com.au/money/super-and-retirement/it-s-ridiculous-billionaire-john-gandel-slams-super-tax-change-20230301-p5colh.html (open in private mode).

 

The comments are largely about how it is unfair for the rich, etc. 

 

I am a little concerned at such a tax - at least set to $3M; If you have a SMSF that invested in a couple of houses, you may well have seen your asset values increase astronomically,  but, up until fairly recently, no change to your income -in fact yields were paltry for quite some time. Now that income to the fund is going to be taxed at a higher percentage stifling your fund growth. It as being cast as affecting only 86,000 people, but I think that is the wrong way to look at it. It should be looked at through the lens of what is proportionate to the investment and the beneficiaries. 

 

In the above example, an asset valuation can scream ahead but the income can remain little changed. The returns are re-invested to grow the value, but now there will be less returns to invest. In other words, there should be a correlation between the return or income and the taxable value. It could be done on a percentage of the asset valuation, but, it probably should be done on the absolute return value of income. There is a question of capital gains as well, but let's park that for the moment. 

 

So, it could be structured similar to PAYG, except of course the bands would be different, and the percentages would be different. That way the tax doesn't unnecessarily punish anyone. It can be argued it will disincentive fund managers from making higher returns, but I don't buy that.  

 

 

 

 

I take the other view.  Quite simply, if 99.5% of superannuants could never hope to have anywhere near $3m in a super account, then who cares if the rich have to pay slightly more tax on their massive earnings.  

I'd go even further and index it above 30%, eg additional 5% per $1m over 3m.  Let's face it there's plenty of investment opportunities out there, Superannuation is specifically to allow a dignified retirement and reduce pressure on the Age Pension.  There's absolutely no reason for anyone to have more than $3m in a superannuation scheme with reduced tax on its earnings, if they want to invest more then they can go do it the same as everyone else and pay the same damn tax.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Because they are not taxed on the 3m asset itself, but on the earnings on their fund... so, In my example all you do us slug the mum and dad whis asset valued for no increase in income.. yesterday they pay 15% and Because the market ups their asset value, they now pay 30%.

 

But  if you progressively tax the income you can be certain it will survive those that can legitimately suppress asset valuations yet see their income for those assets increase.. Property is one example; private holdings are another. 

 

On redemption into an annuity or whatever they do, you could apply a tax on the lump sum of the conversion, too... by not stifling the growth of a fund they can't touch, its growth will accelerate compared to being taxed and if you tax the outgoing you have a bigger pot to tax, and end up with more tax $ to boot.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[Bruce Tuncks]

Thanks Jerry, I wonder why our pollies get things so wrong. They seem to "deliberately" leave loopholes for the super rich.

A wealth tax is what is needed, cutting in at more than a farm is worth. Say 20 million dollars.

[facthunter]

Wealth taxes can break up businesses.  It would be an issue with Rural land  Cash flow low and high apparent value. Often crippling Council rates also apply. You have to consider the "Unintended Consequences" in all these things.   Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

On 02/03/2023 at 8:59 PM, Bruce Tuncks said:

Thanks Jerry, I wonder why our pollies get things so wrong.

Because they follow th3e votes, which are short term and often driven by the MSM. 

 

BTW, Ross McEwan, whom I have had the "pleasure" of meeting, thinks the tax is a good thing: https://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/that-s-a-lot-of-money-to-have-in-a-super-fund-nab-chief-backs-tax-hike-20230303-p5cp4k.html

 

I don't disagree that it would affect a small number of the population - but it does not mean it is right, nor, more importantly,  does it not mean there isn't a better way to raise more while increasing the wealth of all retirees.

[nomadpete]

Sorry to push the thread drift, but it has got me wondering...

Would a simple transaction tax be fair?

For instance, a plain tax on EVERY monetary transaction, say 0.5% of every transaction made through the banks without exception? Cancel GST/VAT, sales taxes, stamp duty, etc.

 

That makes the big companies, billionaires, etc pay larger amounts than the pensioner simply because the size of expenditures are proportional to the wealth.

 

Simple to implement, less waste caused by complex systems, more collected because less 'smart dodging'.

[Bruce Tuncks]

There was a political party which wanted to tax only land. It is the one thing which you can't deny owning, and the rooms-full of tax laws could be replaced with a single A4 sheet. Yes, it would be hard on the farmers.

Needless to say, this was not accepted, and I'm sorry to say that any sensible change will not be either.So bad luck Nomad.

Frankly, I like the idea of making the rich pay their fair share of tax. I dunno if they would under a transaction tax but they would probably pay more than they do now.

[old man emu]

40 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

Would a simple transaction tax be fair?

For instance, a plain tax on EVERY monetary transaction, say 0.5% of every transaction made through the banks without exception? Cancel GST/VAT, sales taxes, stamp duty, etc.

 

Ever wondered how they came up with 10% as the amount to charge as GST? 

 

From ancient times in Mesopotamia it has been the practice that people pay one tenth of what they produce towards the upkeep of places of worship and the maintenance of those who kept the practices of worshipping going. Needing a word to describe the practice, the Saxons of England around 750 AD called it teogoþa, one-tenth part of something, which eventually mutated into the word tither. The idea of paying this contribution had been introduced to them by the Christian missionary, St Augustine. It was formally adopted into Christian practice around 575 AD from that ancient Middle Eastern custom.

 

Rulers had long since applied "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" and also demanded one tenth of the people's production. Evidence of those payments to the State has been found on the clay tablets discovered in the archived records of Mesopotamian rulers. In England tithing to the State continued until about 1936. Now, that demand for payment by the State is called a tax. Tax has another source. It arises from  Medieval Latin taxa, from Latin taxare  to evaluate, estimate, assess, handle. Taxare also has the meaning"to touch". 

 

So, the way States currently determine how much they "touch" the purses of the people is an aberration from a practice millenia old. Nomad calls for a 0.5% transaction tax. Why not simply set the tax rate at 10% for all, with no exemptions. That would ensure that every person and business was taxed at the same rate. It would have the pleasant effect that everyone would keep more of their earnings, which means more value circulating in the economy. The downside is that governments would have to reassess their priorities. That would probably mean higher fees for government services and a need to rely on the philanthropy of the community for a lot of what governments now provide.

[nomadpete]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

Why not simply set the tax rate at 10% for all, with no exemptions.

Because it can be dodged. Ten percent of what?Ten percent of profits. Of assets, of turnover? As measuredby whom?

A small transaction tax could be administered by electronic reporting of every bank transaction, including transfers which would ultimately probably add up to at least 10% of a purchase by the end user. But would also apply to billion dollar aquisitions by corporations. 

Still not totally equitable but simpler than present and how many small businesses would do better if they didn't have to do their regular BASI documentation for GST?

[nomadpete]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

philanthropy of the community for a lot of what governments now provide.

We already rely heavily upon volunteer workers to provide numerous important services that governments should provide. EG: Fire fighters and SES, for instance.  Isn't that philanthropy at the grass roots level?

[old man emu]

Let's face it. We simply don't like paying tax, but bitch and scream when that which we believe governments must provide are not being provided. The problem is that the majority of Commoners are honest, or live in fear of being beaten up by the Elite.

[facthunter]

We are pretty good at wanting them to do "everything" when there's a weather calamity or a big accident. IF you expect those things then be ready to pay for them. Large place with sparse settlement outside of the major cities.   Nev

[spacesailor]

Am I right , that ' salary-sacrifice ' . The money NOT in your wage packet . IS NOT TAXED. because the missing money was taken out Before tax , & put into your Superannuation .

That means your threshold  tax is lower . the same as a company car . ( My neighbor has a new Tesla . salary sacrificed  ) .

spacesailor

Edited March 6, 2023 by spacesailor
A little more added

[Bruce Tuncks]

OME, I reckon nomadpete is right and it is the rich who will finish up not paying again.

Alas, land is the only thing you can't deny owning without risking it being stolen from you.

But the land tax idea has not been well received so let's forget it.

A flat tax has been described as "regressive" when the super-rich should be paying much more.

Personally, I think they are paying less than 10%.

One thing to do is to try and find out the tax paid by the top 1%....  I'm going to try but don't hold your breath.