|
thatfatkid posted:1. They weren't a "micro-party" they held the balance of power in the Senate. 1. So? Mal Colston is a party by that definition. A minor party then. 2. My point exactly. A good lesson in how to destroy yourselves on the interpretation of "keeping the bastards honest".
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
The Mining Tax was also really lucrative for smaller miners, and FMG counts as a smaller miner. Like a small business, but with 1,000,000x the turnover.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
God damnit, the GST isn't a regressive tax. Do I need to hit you all over the nose with a rolled up newspaper?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Laserface posted:How does this even happen? forget all the obvious 'loop hole' poo poo, like how do you have that much money, that you have that much is also public information, yet the tax dept is just like 'welp!' and nothing happens? Last year out of the top 200 Australian companies, 29% paid 10% or less in tax and 14% paid 0. The $100 million+ disclosure was supposed to shine the public spotlight on this so it's little wonder the Libs want to scrap it. There's lots of factors at play, but you getting told you owe $400 results in you quickly repaying. Going after the big fish can mean years of litigation with the probability of losing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Nibbles! posted:Last year out of the top 200 Australian companies, 29% paid 10% or less in tax and 14% paid 0. The $100 million+ disclosure was supposed to shine the public spotlight on this so it's little wonder the Libs want to scrap it. My problem with this is its blatantly loving obvious they are skirting the law so why cant they just say 'yeah nah mate' and slap them with a bill? in the mean time, they just hand close to a billion dollars to Murdoch because reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
The GST is pretty obviously a regressive tax. Everyone pays the same amount which favours people with more money. You can argue that tax breaks in other areas make up for it, but that doesn't mean it's not regressive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
open24hours posted:The GST is pretty obviously a regressive tax. Everyone pays the same amount which favours people with more money. You can argue that tax breaks in other areas make up for it, but that doesn't mean it's not regressive. Ehhh, but if that's the case then I could argue that company tax is regressive too. It's just that company tax can be minimised.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
ScreamingLlama posted:The same 'most people' that many in this thread have painted as abysmally stupid, terribly ill-informed, or both. The same 'most people' who voted 'for Abbott', thus creating the mess we have now. The same 'most people' who forgot all about WorkChoices because they were distracted by the slow implosion of the federal ALP. Based on that, do you think 'most people' really remember or care about ONE loving SENATOR brown-nosing up to Howard 20 years ago? Sure, marginally smarter folk like yourself can point at us and loudly bray "I REMEMBER WHAT YOU DID LAST CYCLE" because you're so completely secure in the knowledge that our one fuckup somehow disqualifies all future AD members and senators from ever doing anything useful again. I think if you're starting a political party with new faces/ideas, taking on the reputation of an older defunct party causes as many problems as it solves. Sure, there'll be a chunk of the population that'll be like "oh those old chaps, I'll vote for them because they were familiar when I was a lad" and get you over the "who the gently caress is this" hump, but you're also going to dissuade a chunk of the population that are still annoyed at said party for their past deeds. No amount of cajoling is going to convince them otherwise, either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Les Affaires posted:Ehhh, but if that's the case then I could argue that company tax is regressive too. It's just that company tax can be minimised. Company tax is indeed regressive, but it only applies to companies. Small businesses under 5m? turnover have the option of being sole traders, partnerships or trusts, with appropriately changed tax codes - such that small businesses get taxed in a progressive system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:57
|
|
Les Affaires posted:Ehhh, but if that's the case then I could argue that company tax is regressive too. It's just that company tax can be minimised. You can minimise GST by Going Galt
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
The democrats eh?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Oh hey the Dems are back. Good luck on keeping them honest this time!
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Really, how many illegitimate children are there in parliament that it requires a whole party to keep them honest
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
politics... theyre all the same arent they...
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
open24hours posted:The GST is pretty obviously a regressive tax. Everyone pays the same amount which favours people with more money. You can argue that tax breaks in other areas make up for it, but that doesn't mean it's not regressive. I'd say that technically GST isn't regressive because the tax rate is always a flat 10%. It does disproportionately affect those with less income because of that, however. Then again, we could stop quibbling over the semantics and just agree that it sucks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Furthermore if it was dropped tomorrow you wouldnt see much of a change if any in pricing, and if you did it'd creep back up within weeks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
You know what you are when you participate in the resurrection of a party like the Democrats? Splitter!
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Endman posted:I'd say that technically GST isn't regressive because the tax rate is always a flat 10%. Wait isn't this the part that actually makes it regressive?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
The Democrat Alternative
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Endman posted:I'd say that technically GST isn't regressive because the tax rate is always a flat 10%. A flat tax can still be regressive when poor people pay more than rich people, as a percentage of their total income.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
I didn't think the definition of a "regressive" tax took into account diminishing marginal utility.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
markgreyam posted:Wait isn't this the part that actually makes it regressive? Well they could be really harsh and reverse the income tax scales...i.e. 45c per $ for the first $18k of your income, 37c per $ for the next $18k to $37k and so on...
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Ragingsheep posted:Well they could be really harsh and reverse the income tax scales...i.e. 45c per $ for the first $18k of your income, 37c per $ for the next $18k to $37k and so on... If that doesn't encourage you to make more money nothing will.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Laserface posted:My problem with this is its blatantly loving obvious they are skirting the law so why cant they just say 'yeah nah mate' and slap them with a bill? Who says its obvious? There are actual loopholes in our tax code and they all have legal advice from the major law/accounting firms that justify their position. If the ATO couldn't even get someone like Paul Hogan how hard is it going to be for them to go after after someone with a much bigger war chest?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Friendlyjordies is gettin' angry and it's great. https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=767173863403437&fref=nf
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Endman posted:I didn't think the definition of a "regressive" tax took into account diminishing marginal utility. It's a pretty common argument in relation to the GST, although you are correct that it does rely on some pretty simplistic assumptions (ie. rich people will buy the same amount of taxed good at the same price as the poor person)
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Les Affaires posted:God damnit, the GST isn't a regressive tax. Do I need to hit you all over the nose with a rolled up newspaper? This is a loving dumb post and you know it. Consumption comprises a larger part of your income the lower your income is. GST is applied to consumption. GST comprises a larger part of your income the lower your income is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
cpaf posted:It's a pretty common argument in relation to the GST, although you are correct that it does rely on some pretty simplistic assumptions (ie. rich people will buy the same amount of taxed good at the same price as the poor person) I actually read a study a while ago (I can't link it, so handful of salt) that suggested that because richer people are capable of making purchases with greater sunk costs that they end up spending less overall since they can purchase greater quality goods that last longer from the time of purchase, rather than sub-standard, cheaper goods that need to be replaced/bought again sooner. It was a pretty interesting argument, albeit mostly conjectural.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Rich people, is there anything they can't do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Basically you should tax the gently caress out of rich people because they're better at conserving money than poorer people for a variety of reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
markgreyam posted:Rich people, is there anything they can't do? Demonstrate basic empathy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
Endman posted:I actually read a study a while ago (I can't link it, so handful of salt) that suggested that because richer people are capable of making purchases with greater sunk costs that they end up spending less overall since they can purchase greater quality goods that last longer from the time of purchase, rather than sub-standard, cheaper goods that need to be replaced/bought again sooner. They can also buy in bulk saving a lot on the unit cost. There are about a million articles about it, most with titles that are variations of the cliche 'it's not cheap to be poor'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
60%+ income tax for the highest income bracket isn't wholly unreasonable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
open24hours posted:They can also buy in bulk saving a lot on the unit cost. There are about a million articles about it, most with titles that are variations of the cliche 'it's not cheap to be poor'. 5 seconds on google and you're right, here's one now: https://robertnielsen21.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/its-expensive-to-be-poor/
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
The world prospered with 90%+ post WWII.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Nibbles! posted:The world prospered with 90%+ post WWII. But then you ended up with the baby boomers so... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
It does also ignore the pretty obvious phenomenon of arbitrary increases in cost based on things like brand, sustainable and responsible production methods, tie-ins etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
cpaf posted:It does also ignore the pretty obvious phenomenon of arbitrary increases in cost based on things like brand, sustainable and responsible production methods, tie-ins etc. Economics is complicated. I think we should go back to bartering pigs for prostitutes and be done with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
The tax system really does need an overhaul. The top rate is $180k or so? You could make the case for new brackets in the mid to high six figures and even seven. BAS and the like could do with change as it can be a headache for smaller businesses every few months. Addressing profit sharing would be one of the larger steps towards preventing large tax avoidance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
Endman posted:60%+ income tax for the highest income bracket isn't wholly unreasonable. Yeah because rich people pay all their taxes, as we just discussed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:54
|
|