A Life Time of Tax.

[Nathan]

I think tax is fair, everyone pays it....

if you dont and you get it back, means you have lost money (so you havent escaped it) buy negative gearing (contibuting to affordable housing etc) or business venture (creating jobs)....

and then with whatever money left over, every one is taxed on what they buy with it, so its somewhat fair system... we all pay taxes, and if you try escape yu pay in other ways... depends what way you look @ it howver...

its the cost of doing business i guess.

 

[Sunfish]

Peter what I mean is income tax paid & lost for ever , never to be claimed back upon. ie work related expenses etc.

Hope this helps.

It doesn't help me.

Maybe it would help if you stated whether you are against paying tax, absolutely, or if you just think you should get more out of it than you put into it.

Life's a bit like a sewer when you think about it "What you get out of it depends on what you put into it".

 

[Rixter]

Maybe it would help if you stated whether you are against paying tax, absolutely, or if you just think you should get more out of it than you put into it.

Im all for tax minimisation & totally against tax avoidance, how ever thats entirely off thread topic.

 

[HiEquity]

I reckon Peter's analysis is pretty good given today's marginal tax rates. $500k seems to be where it's at. On what basis are you proposing to double it Rixter? I assume we are all talking 2008 figures?

 

[Peter Parker]

Peter what I mean is income tax paid & lost for ever , never to be claimed back upon. ie except work related expenses etc.

I'm still having problems with the 'lost forever' concept.

It might go to someone else (would you begrudge a tenant's pension and the source of your rent money?).

It might go to pay off debt incurred by past generations.

Or maybe be used to build things to be used in the future.

Others in your age cohort might get it when they retire.

Is it better to say that instead of money being 'lost', it's circulated?

The concept of money circulation underpins all trade, business and commerce.

Without it all economic activity would stop.

Up would go the barricades, and no one would spend since they're scared of money being 'lost'.

Saving and investing is cupping your hands into the river of money circulation. This act changes its flow ever so slightly and you might even get to control or keep a bit.

No matter what you do, much water will pass through your hands, but it is wrong to say that bit is all 'lost'.

I would not necessarily begrudge this; you have influence over this and the baker, repairer or candlestickmaker downstream will have provided a service in return. Even the government, although it might not be in ways all would agree with (eg negative gearing tax breaks for investors!).

Circulation from upstream will have replenished your lot, and expanding your investments will have made your dam a little wider and given you more flow to control.

An individual is temporary.

So is their control over money.

Even hoarded fortunes are eventually dispersed.

Is it not better to dip your oar into the river of money rather than forlornly watch a diminishing evaporating stagnant cut-off pond?

Getting part of the flow gives the chance to exercise wise stewarship over the stream and thus influence.

Hence it may be that outgoings as part of the big circulation that makes the world go round so can be viewed positively rather than written off as mere losses.

 

[Rixter]

I'm still having problems with the 'lost forever' concept.

Peter, I mean someone who works all their life and has no other (ie business or investment) tax deductions except their paye work related expenses over that period.

They pay a life time of income tax but never claim any other deductions to redirect it back to themselves.

 

[Rixter]

$500k seems to be where it's at. On what basis are you proposing to double it Rixter? I assume we are all talking 2008 figures?

Yeah 2008 figures indexed to cpi over a 40 odd years working life time.

 

[Sunfish]

Im all for tax minimisation & totally against tax avoidance, how ever thats entirely off thread topic.

But that's what I'm asking: What is the point of the thread?

Im all for tax minimisation That's a "motherhood" statement. I'm all for motherhood, just as long it's some other silly bugger does the breeding bit. Methinks your attitude to tax is similar.

 

[Peter Parker]

Peter, I mean someone who works all their life and has no other (ie business or investment) tax deductions except their paye work related expenses over that period.

They pay a life time of income tax but never claim anything else back.

And I take it that this someone was't born in a (taxpayer subsidised) private or public hospital, had parents who claimed (taxpayer subsidised) Baby Bonus and FHOGs, got (taxpayer subsidised) immunisation shots, didn't go to a (taxpayer subsidised) school, didn't take a (taxpayer subsidised) bus on a (taxpayer subsidised) road, worked for a company that did (taxpayer subsidised) contract work for the government, watch (taxpayer subsidised) sport or arts or serve out their last months in a (taxpayer subsidised) nursing home?

Such a person may exist but would be very rare indeed, and would certainly not be 'average'. For good or bad, the government has its finger in so many pies and it's difficult to escape this in a modern, urbanised society.

Peter

 

[Rixter]

But that's what I'm asking: What is the point of the thread?

As per post 26 above.

 

[Rixter]

And I take it that this someone was't born in a (taxpayer subsidised) private or public hospital, had parents who claimed (taxpayer subsidised) Baby Bonus and FHOGs, got (taxpayer subsidised) immunisation shots, didn't go to a (taxpayer subsidised) school, didn't take a (taxpayer subsidised) bus on a (taxpayer subsidised) road, worked for a company that did (taxpayer subsidised) contract work for the government, watch (taxpayer subsidised) sport or arts or serve out their last months in a (taxpayer subsidised) nursing home?

Such a person may exist but would be very rare indeed, and would certainly not be 'average'.

Peter

Peter Im not interested in what they've benefited from their income taxes, just what their income tax liabilities are they've paid.

Hope this helps.

 

[Sunfish]

As per post 26 above.

You started the thread, take the time to explain what you mean. I still have no idea.

Galbraith spoke of "Public squalor, Private splendor". Is that your goal?

 

[Sunfish]

Peter Im not interested in what they've benefited from their income taxes, just what their income tax liabilities are they've paid.

Hope this helps.

So:

Any scholars out there want to put a price on the amount of income tax the average PAYE worker contributes to Canberra never to be seen again over a working life time - starting work age 15 and retiring at say 65 years of age??

SHOULD read, "How much tax do you pay?"

 

[Rixter]

So:
SHOULD read, "How much tax do you pay?"

Over a working life time for the average paye worker.

By George I think you've got!

Now the rain in spain stays mainly on the ...?

 

[Sunfish]

Over a working life time for the average paye worker.

Like extracting teeth!

One more question: Is that gross or nett?

 

[Sunfish]

OK Rix. Peace

You don't like paying tax nor do I. I'm off to bed.

Goodnight!

 

[Rixter]

One more question: Is that gross or nett?

I dont know if I've got time to explain it to you!

 

[Token Funder]

*in Comic Book Guy voice*

Most pointless thread.... ever.

 

[GreatPig]

Have to agree with Token Funder.

GP

 

[Rixter]

*in Comic Book Guy voice*

Most pointless thread.... ever.

Have to agree with Token Funder.

GP

Get up to speed guys. Its like beauty - in the eye of the beholder..

But going by these responses I couldnt agree more.