So tell me nugget what is a "fair" amount of tax you think we should be giving to our elected robber barons aka gubermint? My take is the top rate should be 1-2% with no deductions for anything. Every time you earn or spend a dollar 2% tax. For a start we could get rid of the ATO and treasury and at least one level of government and 2/3rds of the civil service. We wouldn't need accountants or tax lawyers and you could write the tax code on the back of an envelope. No land tax, no GST, no capital gains tax, no fringe benefit tax, no income tax. Mandate that if the government doesn't balance the budget they go to jail they don't get their pension and they have to work for free when they are paroled until they pay back the excess they spent when in government:lol: Kind Regards non recourse
I suggest that you aren't the "wealthy" I talk of Unless you chill with Queen Beatrix and her pals (I'm inclining towards tin-foil hat territory here) As for taxes my preference is towards a percentage of average income Average income (Mean or mode I don't care and you'll see why) Say 50% less than average pays zero tax 50% above average pays top tax rate Public servants and politicians wages are based as a percentage of the average. Pension is a percentage of average etc etc The beauty of this system is that if the government wants to big up themselves and say "Average wage is $75k" then those on $35k pay no tax. So the government will want to say "average wage is $50k" but then their pal's pay more tax and their personal wages are less. Grr they're in a quandary. How do they tweak the numbers so that they get lots of tax and high wages yet don't allow the majority of tax payers to fall into the "don't pay tax" bracket? In that system there'd be no out clauses for their mates to use either. Also I would throw their uber generous super to the wolves. ZERO recourse to public funds and employer (read taxpayer) contribution mandated at the min payment that the pleb's get. All in all though "what is a "fair" amount of tax you think we should be giving to our elected robber barons aka gubermint?" irrelevant in the big scheme of things on the proviso that EVERYONE pays the same. Allowing an out for land lords or charities or churches or anyone causes problems IMHO. If everyone pays 50% so be it. We'd all be on the same footing so no real net difference. Of course I'm inclined towards the idea that less taxation encourages hard work and enterprise and will have a net gain in total revenue raked in by the government but that's just my bias. The larger the percentage taken in taxation means the less incentive there is to put in any real effort beyond subsitence. Cue USSR examples.
Doesn't seem like he's an inventor. Anyway, even if he is one, his advice is pretty bad which comes as no surprise because you obviously don't take financial advice from your taxi driver so forgive me for not taking the financial advice of an 'inventor' of public speaking. And I am not calling you stupid, just saying that advice is pretty horrible. It doesn't apply to any one asset or investment class. You shouldn't put everything you've got into one investment, that's just foolish nowadays with markets changing quickly and investment opportunities popping up everywhere. Agreed it is nonsense. But didn't those average super funds follow your advice? Yep, all of their eggs into the equities basket! It's growing... it's growing... wait. No it's not. See how wrong it becomes when you look at it from a different perspective. And this is why sometimes I disagree with you nonrecourse, it's not as simple as "I hate RE".
Some use a process involving admiralty law and the claim that you are a unique human being and not at all a social security number consumer. It excludes you from the need to have vehicle registration, drivers licenses and all sorts of things. Of course to go down this route you have to forgo any claim on social security and other government benefits. You will also draw a lot of heat from the cops from time to time. A lot of small self-employed people pay no income tax, either by depreciating XR8 utes or being in a cash based business and not declaring much income. Then there are the welfare recipients who pay no tax. There is still more paying tax in Australia than not these days and I entirely sympathize with them. They have a shocking burden to shoulder.
lets combine boston's advice with jackbrown's... and here is what we come up with: 1: You could be a Jedi Knight etc, and not subject to the claims of earthings... But "you will also draw a lot of heat from the cops..." Fancy spending time with jail with a human version of Jabba the Hutt? 2: "Not declaring much income." Fancy playing cat & mouse with the ATO, where you are the mouse? 3: Being a welfare recipient? If this is a step up for you, wealth-wise, then you must be struggling. So that leaves you with only one option - depreciating XR8 utes :| It was my understanding that you wanted to *GET RICH* aided by not paying taxes This is the type of person who, when their motorcade passes by parliament house, the jaws of all politicians drop, and they look at you in awe... They will say, "He's one of the [silverstackers], fabulously rich, and he pays no taxes... the ATO has tried to tackle him, but they lost every time, and he never even used a lawyer... he represented himself... he's one of the untouchables."
As for paying no tax legally that is impossible unless you own and control the RBA. However you can legally reduce your tax exposure to a much smaller amount if you have a good accountant + knowledge and have the mean's to set up your wealth properly. Hint (using other people's money, and structuring your asset's into trust's). The only other way of reducing tax to zero involves "aggressive evasion technique's" which may work but the risk is a lot higher. Usually involve's running a business with cash only but in today's growing cashless payment system that will become harder.
In the long run, its far, far easier to avoid incurring a tax liability in the first place than it is to incur one and then attempt to evade payment of it.
Fishy you can take your advice at your own peril. Andrew not Dale Carnegie in real terms was the second richest man ever to live in inflation adjusted dollars. Again I quote Mr Dale Carnegie; Why would you put your eggs in different baskets and juggle all those different baskets to watch some of them break when you lose control juggling them. Put it in one basket and watch that basket; My interpretation is do what your good at. I have seen many people make money doing one thing because they are focused and have a good handle at what they do. When they then turn their attention to something they are not so attuned to they lose the lot not just the new diversified investment but often the investment that made them their original stash. ....Why? because they lose focus What precentage of investment advisors are financially secure meaning they can just live off their investment earnings and don't need to work, .....hardly any. How many investment advisors tell you to diversify not hedge mind you but diversify...most and that is why they haven't got a pot to pi$$ in because they have a finger in everything but they control nothing. The operative word is control..who is driving the investment if its not you but some faceless C.E.O. its all care and no responsibility. That is why I made the point I wouldn't put money in the share market unless I owned the controlling majority, Why is it that most investment advisors sneer at property investors.... Because there is nothing in it for them and the investor doesn't need them, again that word they hate property and the control the investor has. Kind Regards non recourse
Actually now that you mention it if your classed as a religious entity you pay zero tax as well. The company Sanitarium is owned by a religious entity in AUS and pay's zero tax on it's profit's. I did mention trust's as a mean's of reducing your tax exposure. You can get it to zero but it involve's one hell of a setup to offset that much tax.
The problem in these kind of deals is the same problem faced by the investment property speculators. It looks like your getting something for free but the assets cannot ever be liquidated without incurring taxes. There is no free lunch that I have ever seen, not for mere mortals anyway.
If you want capital gain's from property you are asking to become poor (Capital Gain's Tax). Property should be treated as a cashflow asset with capital gain's only being a byproduct of the asset. You have to treat your investment portfolio like a business. You have to have consistent positive cashflow coming in every month and you need liquidity. Without either it sink's. Fear keep's you out of the market. Greed kick's you out of the market. Yes property is a good investment, so is stock's and commodities but it is the circumstance's around them that determine's if you can grow capital from them. I am not offering financial advice, it is purely my opinion.
A Private Trust Fund is very different from an ordinary trust and it is not well publicised or known. The former cannot be legally accessed by the ATO or any government authority.
I am not familar with Private Trust Fund's but to my understanding it would be tax free as long as the income stayed inside the trust and was not allocated to any of the beneficiaries. The moment you receive any income from the trust it would be added to your annual income. Hmm you have got me thinking now, I will have to try and get some more information about them. I would not be surprised if the ALP have tried to close such a loop hole up though.
Loopholes are only closed when the public catches on. It'd be easy for the government to close them all down but why would they do that? Complicated tax laws create plenty of jobs for boffins to exploit loopholes. Complicated tax laws create traps for Joe Average tax payers to fall into (and subsequently hauled over the coals). Complicated tax laws allow wealthy people to lower their tax burden to similar dollar amounts to the working poor.
Yes, that is the generally accepted wisdom and has worked in a sense up to now. But consider the real return on rental properties, it's about 2 or 3% pa. After the property is paid in full of course. If this sounds low do the math yourself. 700k of property rented at 25k/year, deduct overheads. (rents don't keep up in a bubble) You can get triple that return with that much cash just sitting in the bank. So why would you tie up all that capital? Because of the promise of capital gains of course. You would need millions of dollars worth of houses to generate a comfortable cash-flow in retirement, by today's standards anyway. But no one asks these questions, all they see is free money paid to them by dumb renters and a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. They are too focused on the dream to see the freight train bearing down on them. In the future there will very poor rental income, already in the US and the other OECD nations that are collapsing, rental returns have fallen sharply just as prices of homes have collapsed. It's worse for commercial RE. So people try to convince themselves that this is just a bad recession and things will get better, even in the light of all the evidence posted here to the contrary. Personally I don't believe much of the real estate in existence today will ever come back. I believe James Howard Kunstler is correct in his assertion that suburbia and it's associated infrastructure is the greatest miss-allocation of resources in the history of the world. A 100 year experiment based on the delusion that we would have cheap abundant energy long into the future. With the peak in oil production in 2005 and it's erratic price movement ever since it is clear that the party is over. Soon we will be doing what they are now doing in the back blocks of the US. Grinding up the sealed highways and turning them back into dirt roads because it's cheaper to grade dirt than to re-lay the roads with oil based surfaces. Eventually it will be too expensive even to grade them and many will revert back to rutted tracks. It's no coincidence that things started to really unwind after 2005, our entire world is built on cheap oil.
That should answer it. The property market is not for everyone. Yes you can lose in the market but that all depend's on the individual.
This should make more than a few think about just how much debt they're in this year... And what sort of expensive world we are now all living in... "A HANGOVER is not the only headache people will wake up with on January 1 - life is about to become a whole lot more expensive. Families already saddled with large mortgages or record rent rises will face a minimum $4000-a-year increase in living costs. Numerous fees and charges will rise in 2012, with mums and dads having to pay more for preschool and TAFE fees, electricity and water bills and bus and train tickets. Power and water In NSW, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal will deliver its final decision on electricity prices and water charges next year. But Opposition Leader John Robertson said the draft projections show power bills could increase by up to 10 per cent and water bills by $143. Asked to comment on what the O'Farrell government was doing to ease the financial pressure on taxpayers, NSW Finance Minister Greg Pearce's spokesman Kary Petersen yesterday said he was unable to provide a response: "Sorry, I can't do it." The lack of response from Mr Pearce's office is an ominous sign for the state's energy and water customers, who have already copped massive hikes in their utility bills. Public Transport The Queensland Government has already announced plans for a third annual 15 per cent increase in public transport fares in the state's southeast, and CPI increases for regional bus travel. And in NSW, commuters on trains, ferries and buses into the city next week will be stung with price hikes. Mr Robertson said the increase was twice the rate of inflation, and would cost the average commuter from the western Sydney suburb of Penrith an extra $156 in 2012. He said Mr O'Farrell had "turned his back" on western Sydney strugglers. "Barry O'Farrell is supposed to be the Minister for Western Sydney but he's making life harder for western Sydney families," he said. Childcare Controversial childcare reforms will take effect from tomorrow amid warnings of soaring fees. The Gillard Government has continued to dismiss concerns by its key economic advisory body that childcare fees could spike by up to 15 per cent when the new care ratios are enforced. Minister for Child Care Kate Ellis has strongly defended the changes, saying the new "national quality framework" meant parents could have peace of mind. "When they drop their children off at care, they will be safe, have access to quality early education and be well looked after," she said. Some families with a child in Sydney's inner-city in a state-run preschool could need to find an extra $8600 next year. Stamp duty In NSW, in a further hit to the hip-pocket, young couples looking to buy their first home will be slugged an average $18,000 stamp duty bill after Premier Barry O'Farrell scrapped the blanket exemption rule. The decision to limit stamp duty exemption to newly built homes is expected to affect up to 95,000 first home buyers. The policy change will deliver the O'Farrell government a massive revenue windfall. The $7000 first home owner grant will continue to be available for first home buyers. School fees Fees at Adelaide's elite schools will top $500 a week in 2012 as they are forced to cover rising costs. Since 2007, yearly fees at many of the state's top schools have risen by between $5000 and $6000, or 30 to 40 per cent, with at least five now charging more than $20,000 for Year 12. About one in five SA students attended one of the state's 94 independent schools, many of which are in outer metropolitan and country areas and which charge low to moderate fees. About the same number of students attended Catholic schools. Mercedes College and Rostrevor College were among the highest-charging schools in that sector. Association of Independent Schools of SA executive director Garry Le Duff said the average fee rise was between 5.5 and 6.5 per cent. He said the increases differed across year levels and at each school depending on their level of growth. "It's not in the interest of schools to set excessive fee rises but schools have a responsibility to remain viable," Mr Duff said. The fee rises ensured improvements that met parents' expectations and attracting the best teachers, he said. Mr Le Duff said the latest Education Resources Index revealed costs had risen by 6.7 per cent for pre- and primary schools and 7.3 per cent for secondary schools. He said the drivers included updating IT, teacher salaries especially with the roll-out of the national curriculum and the new SACE. "The cost of utilities - electricity, water and insurance - are imposing increasing burdens on schools," he said. At Prince Alfred College the average fee increase was 5.5 per cent, but differed across year levels. Headmaster Kevin Tutt said the school worked to cut staff to deliver extra classroom resources. "The fee structure next year reflects the increases in our operational costs and the rising cost of salaries and tuition expenses," he said. St Peter's Girls principal Fiona Godfrey listed teacher salaries, technology upgrades and the school's preparation to implement the International Baccalaureate Diploma from 2013 as key reasons for the fee rise. Private schools generally offer discounts for siblings. Other crackdowns and reforms The New Year fee increases are among a host of law changes, which include controversial trials in Queensland's Logan and Rockhampton, where teenage parents could be docked welfare payments six months after their baby is born unless they meet tough study or work requirements. A crackdown on the disability support pension also starts tomorrow, with new impairment tables assessing applicants based on what they can do, rather than what they cannot do. The Government will offer incentives for employers to hire up to 35,000 jobseekers who have been unemployed for two or more years. The subsidy, which lasts six months per employee, will be set at the average rate of the dole. From tomorrow, there also will be extra support for parents with teenagers at school with the maximum rate of Family Tax Benefit A rising by $150 a fortnight for teens aged 16 to 19 years in high school or vocational training. Youth allowance eligibility also changes, with all regional student applications to be treated equally. The age of independence for youth allowance will be lowered to 22, with an extra 11,000 students expected to qualify in the New Year. But students who have already racked up a debt for university study will lose some of the discount for voluntarily paying off their loan, which will be halved to 5 per cent. Banks also get a shake-up, as they and other lenders are forced to provide borrowers with a fact sheet to allow consumers to compare loan costs." Read more: http://www.news.com.au/money/cost-o...ar/story-fnagkbpv-1226233730203#ixzz1i9zA16Da
with things like stamp duty exemptions being cancelled it looks like the party is definitely ending for RE TheEnd. What a juggling act they have on their hands now. \Glad I don't own a tv so I don't have to hear all the BS excuse making and blame shifting.
Labor puts people on welfare, gets them to the point where they become useless and unemployable then uses their welfare money as a leash around their necks.
