Bloody Political Pests

From: Ian Parham


Why don't the damned opposition let this one go through to the keeper, just say "yes that's very nice dear", instead of shooting themselves in the foot...I mean they are surely using this avenue themselves if they have any sense...oooohhh....therein lies the conundrum...hmmm.


Govt mulls how to stop rich tax rorters

The government said it was looking at ways to stop wealthy professionals like barristers avoiding income tax.

The announcement, which contains no firm measures, follows reports on Thursday the government would not carry out its promise to crack down on tax avoidance through the use of trusts by the rich.

Attorney-General Daryl Williams and Assistant Treasurer Helen Coonan said they initiated several changes to bankruptcy, tax and family law following a taskforce report on the issue.

The taskforce will set up following reports last year that some barristers were misusing the law to avoid paying tax, they said.

"Work is under way to harmonise family law and bankruptcy law to prevent debtors manipulating these laws to their advantage," the ministers said in a joint statement.

"One option being considered would allow a trustee in bankruptcy the same ability as the Family Court to look through the asset structures of married couples.

"Measures are also being examined to improve the position of third party creditors in family law proceedings and to prevent high-income debtors from using family law as a shield to divest themselves of assets and avoid their tax obligations."

But the opposition attacked the announcement as all talk and no action.

"While the announcement mentions a range of options, it commits the government to doing nothing," Labor's legal affairs spokesman Robert McClelland said.

"Significantly, it contains no promise to release the report of its much-vaunted taskforce into tax avoidance by high-income professionals."

The government has been sitting on the report since January, Mr McClelland said.

"It is pathetic that after more than seven months, all the government can say is that it will further consider the report's recommendations - whatever they are."

....pains in the bum...all of them!

Cheers Ian
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply: 1
From: Dale Gatherum-Goss


Hi Ian

I could be cynical and say that it is because the opposition members like the government members use trusts themselves to reduce their taxes . . .

And, because the people who make large tax deductible donations to those government departments and who therefore have an influence . . . also use trusts to own their wealth.

Tsk, tsk, tsk!

Have fun

Dale
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply: 1.1
From: Ian Parham


My point exactly Dale....if the opposition kept their mouths shut and let the Libs be seen by the 'non investing' type Joe Publics to be running with it, then they all sit around at Parliamentary Question Time nodding their heads vigorously in agreement that Trusts & wealthy people are the scourge of the public and an therefore an inquiry should be held....then let it die a slow quiet death until the next time the Pollies need to try and save face, by being seen as doing something...anything, in the eyes of their constituents....only then we can all continue on as normal.

Perhaps any Govt. inquiries into trusts coincide with the cyclical motion of property performance....a commission every 7 years!

Of course the Pollies will be ok because the public saw on Question Time that they all agreed an inquiry should be held.

...and so the Govt and the Opposition leave the chamber, snortling, guffawing and chortling as they slap each other on the back and retire to the Club Bar so they can set abut quaffing away on their Napolean Brandy and Pinto cigars.....

Ahhhh.....Yes Minister!

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to be cynical!!!

Cheers Ian
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply: 1.1.1
From: Felicity W.


an interesting point made in the Aust Financial Review a few weeks back - regarding top taxpayers.
"And although the top 20 per cent of the nation's 4,758,780 individual taxpayers earn 43.3 per cent of the income, they actually pay 55.7 per cent of the tax.
The poorest 20 per cent, on the other hand, earn 6.4 per cent of the income and pay just 2.1 per cent of the tax."
So it seems that despite all the supposed tax avoidance of the high income earners in this country, they still pay bucketloads of tax.
Keep smiling
Felicity :cool:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply: 1.1.1.1
From: Rolf Latham


Hi FW

Precisely why if we are to have a "flatter system" the governments of the day will always have to target those paying the higher amounts of direct taxation. Not much point targetting the bottom 20 %, or middle 60 % when for the same "effort" you can a result that is 30 times better.

The unfortunate folly behind the whole theory of targetting the wealthy is that as a "country" we would be far better off if our governments would work toward raising our overall standard of living. What do I mean by that ?

Derive, implement and foster policies that reward:

Business risk
Hard and Smart Work
Savings
Contribution to the community

To some extent this already happens and thats why many people prefer to make Oz their home (me included). Big room for improvement though I feel.

ta

Rolf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
W

WebBoard

Guest
Reply: 1.1.1.1.1
From: Lewis O'Brien


Unfortunately, we live in a country where the politicians haven't woken up to one undeniable piece of logic - if you subsidise poverty and unemployment, you will get more of both.

So we go on increasing the benefits available to the poor and unemployed and thereby create more of them. Welfare is more addictive than cigarettes - but there are no warnings on the label.

Now we are at a point where more than 50% of the population rely on the government for a substantial proportion of their income.

So politicians will continue to reward the majority while they find new ways to screw that endangered class - those with the initiative and energy required to create wealth.

Personally, I salute those with the initiative and energy to create wealth despite a system that encourages the opposite.


Lewis
FreeLawyer.com.au
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top