Says on this mornings radio program that the nunber of super rich grew by 30,000 last year to 400,000 and that super rich means having over $1M to invest into shares or managed funds..
p. Clitheroe on 'the super rich'
- Thread starter investor2009
- Start date
Does not sound like super rich, merely comfortable. I suppose it all comes down to perspective.
The ALP definition of "wealthy" (J Gillard, W Swan and co) was anyone earning $80,000 pa +. A joke really. They justified many taxes on this definition (ie flood levy, medicare surcharge etc).
Debt is often overlooked when comparing wealth. ie Heavily geared investors may have litte to no equity yet ATO, centrelink, Treasury and others pick and choose what they count. ATO adds back neg gearing losses as if cashflows etc didnt happen....Centrelink too. Centrelink assets test however deducts loans from market values of IPs. Taxes and levies usually based on income with adjustmnets.
An investor can lose rental income and there is nothing they can do. No benefits. However lazy person on benefits keeps sucking system dry.
Clitheroe should be campaigning Libs to calculate value of yachts, flash cars, holiday homes etc and use this as a means to determine extra levies and taxes. Not just income.
Debt is often overlooked when comparing wealth. ie Heavily geared investors may have litte to no equity yet ATO, centrelink, Treasury and others pick and choose what they count. ATO adds back neg gearing losses as if cashflows etc didnt happen....Centrelink too. Centrelink assets test however deducts loans from market values of IPs. Taxes and levies usually based on income with adjustmnets.
An investor can lose rental income and there is nothing they can do. No benefits. However lazy person on benefits keeps sucking system dry.
Clitheroe should be campaigning Libs to calculate value of yachts, flash cars, holiday homes etc and use this as a means to determine extra levies and taxes. Not just income.
yikes aren't they taxed to the hilt already? any sort of luxury car is majority taxes
The super rich would be minimising tax in so many ways it would make our eyes water. Which is fine, but I don't think I'd call it "taxed to the hilt" when they have money to pay to get the best advice to legally minimise their tax.
Hold on... isn't $80k the same threshold Abbot is talking about with his 'debt reduction levy'?
Fair's fair.
ah, but he said no new taxes.
He should just call it a price on carbon and all will be sweet.
Not sure what it's like nowadays, but I remember a couple of years ago (2011-12 I think) 80k would have put you in the top 20% of earners, not necessarily wealthy but still, not too shabby. I remember the flood levy kicked in at 50k/yr (though I was one of the 'lucky' ones exempted) and caused quite a lot of grief with the low threshold.
As for Centrelink, I think we'd be on the express train to welfare hell if a negative gearing strategy could be used to boost ones welfare payments.
He promises to tax us more and it will hurt. I dont see him breaking that one.
ah, but he said no new taxes.
He should just call it a price on carbon and all will be sweet.
Yes, thankfully taxes have been removed from massively profitable mining companies and big polluters and now on us.
'We're all in this together!(TM)' + 'We are all sharing the load(TM)!'.
No. That would be $180k. Some reporting $150k.
Wonder if this will be gross income or net income after deductions. I paid zero% tax last year but my gross income from my wage slave work was >$180K.
Hopefully its the latter. Putting a levy on a poor suffering soul like me who can hardly keep his head above water just wouldn't be right. Would it?
Just playin'
Michael
What income did the marginal rate of 87% kick in at, and what was the average wage at the time?
