Taxation statistics : 100 people
- Thread starter redwing
- Start date
Nice one Redwing, that is real data behind that 'who foots the bill for lunch' scenario that was going around a few years ago.
So the top 9% pay for half the bill, and the lowermost 25% pay nothing.
That bolded line right there is the root cause of the eternal political struggle that Govt grapples with every day.....and is the root cause of the divisions we constantly see in society, in the past, now and most definitely into the future.
How much can Govt kick the top people in the teeth without hurting them too much such that they decide to keep on paying, and in the same breathe, how much can they afford to hand out to the lowermost group, knowing that they will get nothing back for it.
It may well pay off for Labor in other ways,the people that don't want to work,complain about everything,want all the rules changed to suit the people that want total control,you buy votes in this country,i still think within 6 months there will be a change of government,otherwise this country is stuffed..
Per your own admission Dazz (see below), you are one of the 25% who pay nothing
Kerry Packer and scores of others would pay zip too. Stop complaining.
so am i, i thought it would be much lower. if you qualifty for the co cont then a 1000 bucks is a LOT of money.
Ahhhh....a perfect example of someone who knows very little about the subject, then proceeding to twist and contort things around.
Not true at all. You've selected one small section of a separate post I made, ignored the rest of the post which fully clarified the position and then extrapolated the snipped portion out to include everything....very clever of you image wise but wildly off the mark.
Kerry Packer is dead. Has been for over 5 years. If the ATO are still extracting tax from Kerry they are breaking quite a few laws. I suspect you are 100% dead wrong there as well.
Ummm, I've reviewed my post up top, and there wasn't one complaint in the entire post. A simple observation on how the income tax system collects it's revenue and what ramifications that has politically when it comes to distributing the revenue collected.
Three out of three dead wrong chief....your batting average is dreadful.
Per your own admission Dazz (see below), you are one of the 25% who pay nothing
Not true at all. You've selected one small section of a separate post I made, ignored the rest of the post which fully clarified the position and then extrapolated the snipped portion out to include everything....very clever of you image wise but wildly off the mark.
Kerry Packer is dead. Has been for over 5 years. If the ATO are still extracting tax from Kerry they are breaking quite a few laws. I suspect you are 100% dead wrong there as well.
Ummm, I've reviewed my post up top, and there wasn't one complaint in the entire post. A simple observation on how the income tax system collects it's revenue and what ramifications that has politically when it comes to distributing the revenue collected.
Three out of three dead wrong chief....your batting average is dreadful.
Per your own admission Dazz (see below), you are one of the 25% who pay nothing
Kerry Packer and scores of others would pay zip too. Stop complaining.
I have thought about why the Rich ppl pay less tax on their income compared to someone on median salary and why the government usually lets them get away by not changing the tax laws.
Let's take example of Banks or Retailers like Woolies who employ 10s of thousands of people. Now even if these enterprises only pay 15-20% tax on their profits, imagine the tax revenue the government collects from the 10s of thousands of ppl they employ! The government knows as long as these enterprises can make super profits they will continue to re-invest those profits to grow the enterprise and thereby employ more ppl which means more tax for the government (indirectly ofcourse).
Remember every tax deduction (except depreciation, amortization) for one person/company will be a taxable income on some other person/company's tax return.
Kerry Packer would have paid $0 tax, but how much tax would the government collect from ppl Kerry Packer's company employed + the companies Kerry Packer did business with? How much tax would the government lose if Kerry Packer decided to shut down his business?
Hope that make sense.
Cheers,
Oracle.
Love how everyone sprouts Kerry Packer paying no tax. I can't recall Packer ever saying he doesn't pay any personal tax. He is famous for saying the following
"if anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax, they want their heads read"
but he is also credited for saying
"Over the last 10 years, in government charges, whether they be licence fees, income tax, payroll tax, levies on spectrum, we have paid as a corporation in excess of $2 billion"
So yes Packer did pay tax. A hell of a lot. Maybe not directly but his companies certainly did. Load of crock to say he didnt. And a final word from him
""I pay a lot more tax than they give me credit for, There are no tax schemes involved in my tax, and I pay tax. Whatever the accountants tell me that I've got to pay, I pay it. My motto basically is: never complain, never explain. But this has now become so absurd that I have to answer it myself."
As Dazz said he is dead now so yes I am sure he is paying no tax. But give Gillard and Watermelon Bob Brown a chance and they will find a way to tax the dead.
I'm sure Dazz has paid more than his fair share of tax in stamp duty to the various respective states. If he minimises his other taxes through structuring then he damn well has a right too. Dazz would probably pay more in stamp duty in one shed than most pay in one year on their PAYG taxes.
I wish people would stop sprouting whether Packer, Lowy, Hogan or any other character pays tax or not. Noone has any idea except their advisers and the ATO. All others are pure speculation and mostly ********.
"if anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax, they want their heads read"
but he is also credited for saying
"Over the last 10 years, in government charges, whether they be licence fees, income tax, payroll tax, levies on spectrum, we have paid as a corporation in excess of $2 billion"
So yes Packer did pay tax. A hell of a lot. Maybe not directly but his companies certainly did. Load of crock to say he didnt. And a final word from him
""I pay a lot more tax than they give me credit for, There are no tax schemes involved in my tax, and I pay tax. Whatever the accountants tell me that I've got to pay, I pay it. My motto basically is: never complain, never explain. But this has now become so absurd that I have to answer it myself."
As Dazz said he is dead now so yes I am sure he is paying no tax. But give Gillard and Watermelon Bob Brown a chance and they will find a way to tax the dead.
I'm sure Dazz has paid more than his fair share of tax in stamp duty to the various respective states. If he minimises his other taxes through structuring then he damn well has a right too. Dazz would probably pay more in stamp duty in one shed than most pay in one year on their PAYG taxes.
I wish people would stop sprouting whether Packer, Lowy, Hogan or any other character pays tax or not. Noone has any idea except their advisers and the ATO. All others are pure speculation and mostly ********.
.....cheers Mike, I was going to write down the figure of how much tax I have contributed by the way of stamp duty on property, but it wouldn't make any difference, henceforth I chose not to.
Suffice to say, the tax we paid to the State Govt to purchase our latest property alone, was worth approx. 55 years of income tax for an average worker earning 60K pa.
I guess there is no pleasing some people, especially those who simply don't get it.
Suffice to say, the tax we paid to the State Govt to purchase our latest property alone, was worth approx. 55 years of income tax for an average worker earning 60K pa.
I guess there is no pleasing some people, especially those who simply don't get it.
I always get a laugh out of people claiming credit for the tax paid by independent legal entities they have an interest in whilst having no interest in establishing any legal nexus between them and the liabilities those of those same entities.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
.....and I always get a laugh out of people purporting to be Lenders when those same Lenders know full well that with the various ;
The days of setting of a $2 shelf company and being granted a loan and walking away from it are long gone, which you know.
I think in the case of Kerry Packer, those organsiations wouldn't have been created in the first place, nor continued strongly without his initial capital nor his continued management and guidance. He deserves full credit for what he did.
How someone like you, with not even one investment property under your belt, can snidely sit there in your ivory tower and pass comment on someone like KP is beyond belief. You aren't even qualified to be in the same room.
- company charges
- first registered mortgages
- second registered mortgages
- unlimited company guarantees
- trustee guarantees
- personal guarantees
The days of setting of a $2 shelf company and being granted a loan and walking away from it are long gone, which you know.
I think in the case of Kerry Packer, those organsiations wouldn't have been created in the first place, nor continued strongly without his initial capital nor his continued management and guidance. He deserves full credit for what he did.
How someone like you, with not even one investment property under your belt, can snidely sit there in your ivory tower and pass comment on someone like KP is beyond belief. You aren't even qualified to be in the same room.
Why not Token. I go as far to say I am happy for those who run successful public companies which they don't have a majority interest in, through either options or shares, taking credit for the taxes their companies pay.
If Gail Kelly successfully manages Westpac and through her success the company employs more workers (PAYG,FBT, Payroll Tax) and purchases more buildings (Stamp Duty, GST) then she can take credit for paying more taxes. Whether she credits the people down below her for helping her is up to her. As CEO she has the choice. She won't take credit because her public image would look bad. Private company owners generally don't need to care what their image looks like. So if Joe Bloe wants to take credit as CEO for the various trusts which he administers as director of the trustee companies that are trustee for the trusts awesome. Without his direction and guidance those companies probably wouldn't have done anything. If someone else was director they would probably have done as many others do. Sit around arguing points, running five thousand scenarios, talking to friends, wondering whether the economy is up or down and 20 years later not purchased one asset. Under his direction the trusts have done something and Joe is responsible for that. He can take all the credit he likes in my opinion.
Can't see why Dazz and others are not doing the same. Legally they are independent but as CEO they make decisions which result in their companies paying tax. Yes I think you can have it both ways.
If Gail Kelly successfully manages Westpac and through her success the company employs more workers (PAYG,FBT, Payroll Tax) and purchases more buildings (Stamp Duty, GST) then she can take credit for paying more taxes. Whether she credits the people down below her for helping her is up to her. As CEO she has the choice. She won't take credit because her public image would look bad. Private company owners generally don't need to care what their image looks like. So if Joe Bloe wants to take credit as CEO for the various trusts which he administers as director of the trustee companies that are trustee for the trusts awesome. Without his direction and guidance those companies probably wouldn't have done anything. If someone else was director they would probably have done as many others do. Sit around arguing points, running five thousand scenarios, talking to friends, wondering whether the economy is up or down and 20 years later not purchased one asset. Under his direction the trusts have done something and Joe is responsible for that. He can take all the credit he likes in my opinion.
Can't see why Dazz and others are not doing the same. Legally they are independent but as CEO they make decisions which result in their companies paying tax. Yes I think you can have it both ways.
Good one Andy. I like that !!
Also the whole tax %'s reminded me of this little story that was posted some time ago. Apparently has been posted numerous times but I thought appropriate to post again.
Ten men go out to dinner.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go like this:
The first four men ( the poorest ) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
And the tenth man ( the richest ) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decide to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner through them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers,“ he said. “ I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."
So, now dinner for the ten men only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four were unaffected . They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customer's ? How would they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get their
‘ fair share ‘ ?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everbody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so :
The fifth man like the first four , now paid nothing ( 100% savings )
The sixth man paid $2 instead of $3 ( 33% savings )
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 ( 28% savings )
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings )
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings )
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 ( 16% savings )
Each of the six men was better off than before . And the first four continued to eat for free. But once out side the restaurant , the men began to compare their savings.
“ I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man. “ But he got a $10 saving“
“ Yeah that’s right ,” exclaimed the fifth man. “ I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than me “.
“ That’s true !! “ shouted the seventh man. “ Why should he get $10 back when I only got $2 ? The wealthy get all the breaks ! “
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men. “ we didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor.”
The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between them for even half of the bill !.
Cheers
Ten men go out to dinner.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go like this:
The first four men ( the poorest ) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
And the tenth man ( the richest ) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decide to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner through them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers,“ he said. “ I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."
So, now dinner for the ten men only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four were unaffected . They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customer's ? How would they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get their
‘ fair share ‘ ?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everbody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so :
The fifth man like the first four , now paid nothing ( 100% savings )
The sixth man paid $2 instead of $3 ( 33% savings )
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 ( 28% savings )
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings )
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings )
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 ( 16% savings )
Each of the six men was better off than before . And the first four continued to eat for free. But once out side the restaurant , the men began to compare their savings.
“ I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man. “ But he got a $10 saving“
“ Yeah that’s right ,” exclaimed the fifth man. “ I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than me “.
“ That’s true !! “ shouted the seventh man. “ Why should he get $10 back when I only got $2 ? The wealthy get all the breaks ! “
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men. “ we didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor.”
The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between them for even half of the bill !.
Cheers
There's a very clear difference in noting the taxation contribution the company you lead or own makes and using that as some sort of justification for your personal tax minimisation activities.
Do you really thnk Gail Kelly would argue she somehow has a right to pay lower tax proportional tax rates that others because Westpac pays a shiteload?
It appears your reading comprehension approaches the level o your interpersonal skills.
- When did the topic move from taxation to your ongoing difficulty with your financiers?
- I didn't mention Kerry P.
- I've had several investment properties.
- And as I keep saying, there's plenty of opportunity for a cashed up financial savant like yourself to get into the lending caper and show everyone how it's done. Have at it son!
Oh how I do wish this were interpersonal and not thru some super safe moderated anon internet portal. I'd be a very happy little jelly bean to show you my complete lack of interpersonal skills.
Oh how I do wish this were interpersonal and not thru some super safe moderated anon internet portal. I'd be a very happy little jelly bean to show you my complete lack of interpersonal skills.
investor fight club??
