Sure, why not.
I'd rather there just be a 15% income tax for everyone...wouldn't you.
No tax breaks, deductions etc...just a straight forward 15% for everyone.
The Great Reverse Government
- Thread starter Strannik
- Start date
Sure, why not.
I'd rather there just be a 15% income tax for everyone...wouldn't you.
No tax breaks, deductions etc...just a straight forward 15% for everyone.
Sure we will also rename OZ to Honkers....it will also make the rich Chinese feel welcome. 
Sure we will also rename OZ to Honkers....it will also make the rich Chinese feel welcome.
what is your suggestion?
Taxes explained, in beer
Many people don't really understand the economics of taxation.
I'm happy to share this little story that periodically winds up in my inbox.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something 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
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.
Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
The bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man?s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.
But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,'but he got $10!?'
'Yeah, that?s right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar too. It?'s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!'
'That?s true!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2. The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison, 'we didn't get anything at all. This new system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how the tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
They might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Many people don't really understand the economics of taxation.
I'm happy to share this little story that periodically winds up in my inbox.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something 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
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.
Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
The bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man?s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.
But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,'but he got $10!?'
'Yeah, that?s right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar too. It?'s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!'
'That?s true!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2. The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison, 'we didn't get anything at all. This new system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how the tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
They might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Yes; but of course; the poorer/victim/Greedy Boss/Rich ***** mentality folks won't ever see it this way.
Also; I have had sooo many arguments over the years about how the rich still pay a lot more volume of tax than the average/poorer person - even if the percentage is lower.
For example; the tax bill for say; Gina Rheinhart would probably be more than almost all of Victoria's entire workforce put together, yet everyone will whine of she/others similar get a bit of a tax break (maybe exaggerating; but you get my point).
Of course; we should all pay our fair share of tax; but don't kill the golden geese....this Country is running out of big players and big employers rather quickly these days.
Also; I have had sooo many arguments over the years about how the rich still pay a lot more volume of tax than the average/poorer person - even if the percentage is lower.
For example; the tax bill for say; Gina Rheinhart would probably be more than almost all of Victoria's entire workforce put together, yet everyone will whine of she/others similar get a bit of a tax break (maybe exaggerating; but you get my point).
Of course; we should all pay our fair share of tax; but don't kill the golden geese....this Country is running out of big players and big employers rather quickly these days.
you would probably go to two different doctors.
you would go to the one with all the common people sitting in the queue, and she would have a doctor come out to her.
i find that it's different. some people just don't understand the percentages vs absolute numbers.
so while someone high earning might pay lots of tax in absolute numbers, in reality it might be just peanuts compared to their income.
When I was a kid, the doctor did come to me sometimes...doctors used to make house calls
I understand the point you are trying to make.
If Gina R wants to pay for a doctor to come to her...good on her.
This is the core of the argument...percentages versus absolute dollar amount.
The PAYE guy is upset that the "BIG" Company pays less of a percentage of tax than he does.
To the PAYE guy, this is a fair enough whinge. I have been the PAYE guy at times. There is bugger-all tax relief and deductions for the PAYE guy.
But, there is also no responsibility/liability/risk for the PAYE guy. He works, he goes home, he still gets paid and has no skin in the game.
The BIG Company on the other hand; they have all the responsibility and the liability and the risk. The Gubb realises this, and wants the BIG Company to grow, and to employ more people, to save dollars that the Gubb would need to spend to support the PAYE if he was out of work, and as BIG grows, the Gubb gets a bigger slice of tax, so the Gubb encourages the BIG via tax deductions and so forth to lessen the tax burden.
It is the incentive - if you like - to encourage business to start and hopefully prosper; to employ more PAYE Joes.
I think this is fair and just - I have my BIG Company hat on now.
Of course; it doesn't matter whether I am "BIG" or just "Corner Store" Company; without the incentives, I/we are never going to bother taking on responsibility/liability/risk....less jobs for PAYE Joe.
Less jobs for PAYE Joe means more Gubb welfare spending; more tax required from Joe.
it's all good and well when the money is reinvested into the business to grow it like you say.
however in most cases reality is slightly different.
you usually see big companies laying off staff and trying to squeeze out more work for the same pay out of people left, while the CEO and the rest of leadership team get a fat bonus cheque to spend on hookers and blow.
however in most cases reality is slightly different.
you usually see big companies laying off staff and trying to squeeze out more work for the same pay out of people left, while the CEO and the rest of leadership team get a fat bonus cheque to spend on hookers and blow.
Yes, I know this occurs, and it is a disgrace.
I think any staff retrenchment should automatically include a 50% reduction for all the Board Members' salaries until they re-employ the same amount of folks they laid off.
But of course; in publicly listed Companies, often a retrenchment triggers a share price increase by the shareholders.
Businesses don't grow without some level of reinvestment into various sections as we know.
What the owners do with their profit after all is paid and settled is their business.
At the end of the day, BIG Company is still paying a lot more volume of dollars in tax than Joe PAYE.
And if Joe PAYE doesn't like how the owner of the business spends his/her money, he can go out and start up himself, or move to another job..
At the end of the day; what do folks go into business for? Almost all will be in it for the opportunity to become rich. Some might dispute this.
If they are not in it for the money, then how come you never see any CEO's and/or other types of owners running massive businesses they started up/bought, and still only pulling out average wage?
Similar threads
