When I donate, I donate. I don't consider it a tax. I don't consider it a tax because it is not a tax, it is a donation. You can't just make up definitions of words to suit your agenda. This is what Fox News does, and look how stupid it appears.
But by the same token, forcing people to surrender their wealth at a point of a gun is just as immoral, don't you think? Unless someone willingly gives purely of their own volition alone, it ceases to be a donation of any sort and realistically is theft. This is a moral constant that refers to all forms of 'taxation' under any guise. If you're not giving something of your own free will, it's immoral. Period.
I don't like Howard, nor the GST, but to be fair, when the GST came in, sales taxes were removed from most goods. So you did not get a 10% increase in the cost of everything because before the GST businesses paid wholesale sales tax, which was passed onto the consumer, and for the consumer was a "hidden" tax.
I don't believe in moral or immoral, I believe in right and wrong. It is right to donate to help others. It is right to pay a one off levy to help fellow countrymen with catastrophic disaster. It is wrong to tax me so that we can invade a poor nation like Afghanistan and kick in their doors and kill them just because they run their country differently from ours. It is wrong to tax me so that politicians can give themselves retirement benefits and perks that are far more generous than the general public are entitled to.
Auspm, I don't understand how you can bare to live here. Being forced at the point of a gun to give up your money. Oh, the immorality of it all.
Sorry to go off topic, but has anyone noticed our avatars have gone? Kinda liked my woman stacking useless fiat into the fire.... Am I missing something? ws
Boston I am always intrigued when you say this in threads. Do you mean something along these lines? * ATO sends you a bill for tax for the last FY * You ignore it * ATO sends you another bill, with added interest for non-repayment * You ignore it * ATO takes you to court * In court, you cite something from the Australian Constitution * Judge rules in your favour * ..... rinse and repeat every year?
How many of you here have insurance for your car, house, contents? They have gone up considerably after the hail storms, fires and with the recent floods will increase even more. My car insurance shot up by $300 in a year, after the hail storm last year. If you can pay these companies whose only motive is profit why so much noise when the government is trying to raise money to fix the damages caused by the fires and floods? I don't know if the tax is good idea or if there are other means to pay for the damages. Like boston said -> Just wanted to put this down, had a similar conversation at work during lunch now.
A consumption tax is a levy on the poorer members of society since they pay tax on all their everyday purchases (granted not food here but it is levied on almost everything else you need day to day - tampons for instance!). If you are wealthy the GST favours you. You pay less for your expensive habits than a wholesale tax which can target categories of consumption. A consumption tax increases the gap between rich and poor. Just see how long it takes them to increase it when all the states are one political party with the federal government.
Levy has been announced: 0.5% for $50,000-$100,000 1% for $100,000+ So this levy on the "wealthy" is for anyone earning over $50k a year.
There are several people that I know, that simply do not pay tax, car registration, speeding or parking fines etc, and it is all legal. They get taken to court, represent themselves and win! It's all about knowing the original law and it's intent.
Withhold paying your taxes Stedlar, let's see who turns up on your doorstep? I'll give you a hint... it won't be a strippergram. The trouble is, you don't see beyond the system because you're indoctrinated to what it has trained you to believe is rational, moral and just. If I come up to you in the street and say hand over 30% of what's in your wallet this moment as 'tax', you call it robbery. If the government does it through law they themselves create, it's considered legal taxation. You might be so willing as to assume that your taxes are paid in good faith and go to good causes, but you'd be foolish to assume that. It's like donating to support starving kids in africa where 95% of the money you donate goes in 'administrative fees'. You are not yet at the point where you understand the system for what it is, hence why you do what you're trained to do by the system - ridicule those who do understand. The strange thing is, you're an advocate of tax dodging yourself through IP investment and leveraged negative gearing. You assume that it's immoral for those who protest paying a tax they don't want to pay on the one hand, and then mock the very concept supporting a device that not only avoids paying the tax altogether, but also takes back MORE out of the system from others.
Auspm, I don't know where to begin. I can't decide whether you are simply playing devil's advocate, or if you really mean what you say. Its just so broken
That's because your views on free market capitalism and mine are very different. I'm an objectivist at my core. I look at the world differently to you. To you, it's wrong. But you don't know what objectivism is. I've got a work acquaintence who told me she couldn't finish Atlas Shrugged and literally threw it across the room unfinished before the end it made her that mad! She's a traditional left wing political mindset and has always been that way. The ideals of the book just rubbed her up the wrong way big time! She just couldn't fathom it when I said the book formed the core of my ideology and belief system ever since I read it, I found it so profound on an intellectual and philisophical level it was actually a life changing experience for me. And she actually READ most of the book!!! So I am hardly surprised you look at my views like I have hooves and horns growing out of my head. I'm sure when you start talking metal with other work colleagues they probably look at you the same way, no? Which brings me back to the core of the point being context. Without the correct context, you won't see this ideology as anything but immoral, but I contest this is what the system we have at present is designed for you to see it as!
