Using that argument those that salary sacrifice are also avoiding paying their share of income tax, you could hardly accuse them of being uber wealthy though. Move beyond the mentality matthew that when someone with wealth makes a decision to attempt to minimise their taxation it's the equivalent of stealing from everyone else. There's a much simpler way of dealing with income tax that doesn't rely on promoting the oft used red herrings - just get rid of income tax altogether. Rely on a consumption or better yet a debit tax to fund minimalist government services.
^ But in a real world, there will be no such change or reduction to the income of government. So the question then becomes the mix of who pays the bulk of the tax. Example. You are pulling $100k a year and put $20k into Super. To not put that money into super, $20k is taxed at 48.5% and thus $9,700 in tax. If it goes into Super, $20k @ 15% which is $3,000. So you save $6,700 in tax. Example. You are making $60k a year and put $20k into Super. To not put hat money into super, $20k taxed at 31.5% thus $6,300. If $20k goes into super, the tax is 15% which is $3,000. So you save $3,300. As can be seen, those on the high incomes get a bigger tax cut that those on lower or middle incomes. Then the question becomes, who pays for the higher income earners tax cuts? I don't disagree that the government's tax burden is too high, in fact I reckon user pays on non essential services is a great idea and thus could be expanded to cut taxes. But as that's unlikely, all that will happen is the burden of paying taxes will fall, as it always has, on the middle/average income earners which at the moment is about $67k.
Matthew the government taking less money than the maximum they have legislated themselves they may is not a tax cut. It's peoples' money, not the governments. If governments spend too much then that is a problem of spending, not of tax collection.
Check the tax rates. 37,000 - 80,000 is 32.5 and 80,001 - 180,000 is 37. 4.5% difference on a max contribution of 25,000 means the max difference between income of 37,000 and 180,000 is $1,125 a year. They should have left super alone with the cap at 50,000. Changes to super now will be detrimental in the long run.
+1 Matthew, you can't use the Progressive Rate of taxation system we have here in Australia as evidence that higher income earners are effectively avoiding tax by contributing to superannuation. If we didn't use Progressive Taxation and used say a flat rate, or we had no income tax at all, your position would be negated as all would be "contributing" equally. No one pays for the higher income earner's tax cuts, they are not a cost, they are a loss of revenue. I think what you mean to ask is: "Where does the shortfall in Government revenue come from if the more wealthy are given a tax break?" and that is an entirely different argument centred around government overspending, not tax minimisation or perceived notions of "fairness". We could always tax mining companies to make up the shortfall, or carbon and then give some of the money to low income earners only, because that is "fair"??????
ABC1 TV at 12:30pm today, also broadcast on ABC NewsRadio. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/abc1/201304/programs/NC1306C012D2013-04-10T123200.htm
GetUp! what a pack of wankers!!! Love the use of stereotypes in the ad - the rich guy is of course the WASP in the suit LMAO. I listened to the Press Club "debate" Richard Dumbass Denniss was banging on about the usual ie rich people have enough of everything in life so this money should be taken away from them and given to those more deserving. How can anyone be more deserving than the person who actually earned it in the first place? But anyway, I guess I'll never understand. And in the other corner, BIG INDUSTRY SUPER-MAN, John Brogden who was about as inspirational as a lame tortoise trotting out the usual Australians want more super, Australians need more super, super is the best thing to have happened to humanity since the invention of sex and beer - and I represent the players that can best manage your super for you. If I had one round left, I'd have been sorely vexed as who to use it on. Needless to say it was a debate that resolved absolutely nothing, as in the end, as both speakers are supporters of big government intrusion - one because he's a left-wing fundo socialist nutjob, the other coz his six figure paycheck comes from an industry where consumers are mandated to spend money, it degenerated into an argument about whether the government figures are accurate or not. I'm sure most of the journalists would rather have been down the pub skulling G+T's. Actually, probably not, there's very few with sufficient grey matter to have given any thought to alternative views on the matter.
that $15bn "... could be used for infrastructure, health and education..." ... or it could be used for increased welfare payments
Well there's 11.5 million employees, average weekly wage abt $1200, say ave tax is 20% of wages, that's $143 520 000 000/year. You'd think you'd be able to balance a budget with that wouldn't you? An old story (June 2012): http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...air-share-of-tax/story-e6frg9k6-1226425744612
