We will be paying more tax. No way around it. Here's why: National policy dictated by special interest groups and incumbent businesses that ultimately retards economic growth.[/*] National policy dictated by powerful multi-nationals (under threat from their backing governments) that harms competition and attacks innovation.[/*] Government policy that encourages population growth at a rate that exceeds the increase in taxation receipts under the current levels and mix of tax.[/*] Government addiction to debt, and the growing costs of servicing that debt[/*] Of these, population growth is the most insidious because it is the hardest to discuss without sounding like an asshole. One of the key issues is that the rate of population growth exceeds the rate of growth of the tax base, and hence, continuous increases in spending on maintenance of existing infrastructure to deal with the constantly growing strain, along with investment in new infrastructure, is required to maintain viable levels of service. Often this simply does not happen until things reach breaking point. The can is kicked down the road making things far more expensive to deal with in the future. We are rapidly approaching the end of that road due to current economic events. In the end, the piper must be paid.
Or we could stop spending so much money?maybe balance the books, don't buy Subs and planes that don't work..
What, austerity measures?! That won't go down well at the next election. If politicians want to get more votes the obvious answer is to tax the rich, they can afford it, give the money to the lower income earners who need it the most, they will stimulate the economy by spending more and before you know it we will be out of debt and able to afford all the foreign imports again, jet-skis for everybody!.
Here is another one for the list: National entitlement mentality and welfare dependence is sending us broke.[/*] Social security and welfare accounts for 39% of total Commonwealth Government Revenue. It might be argued that we should exclude the GST, as these revenues ($54 billion in 2014-15) are earmarked for the States and Territories. If this revenue is deducted, then social security and welfare spending rises to 46% of the remaining total Commonwealth Revenue. On average, 48% of Australia's 12.2 million "income units" pay no net tax. Any tax they do contribute is more than offset by the welfare pensions, family tax benefits or childcare rebates they receive. On average, 8 out of 10 income taxpayers go to work every single day just to pay the welfare bill. In reality, only the top fifth of households ranked by their income - those with incomes of more than $200,000 a year in the financial year ending June 2012 - pay anything into the system net of the value of social security in cash and kind received. No, the rich don't pay a 'fair share' of tax. They pay all of it. Source: www.abs.gov.au
I'm not rich, I don't get benefit from negative gearing, receive no welfare and I pay roughly 30% tax. I have private health insurance, no offshore accounts or double Irish sandwiches. No kids, so no family tax benefits. IMO, single middle class people get shafted the most. At least the rich can get fancy with the books and accumulate assets like property or distribute income through trusts to their unproductive family members to avoid tax (which is a form of welfare for the privileged). Can you link to the article(s) on the abs site that you are referencing wrcmad, rather than just the host domain? What shits me the most is how the Gov pumps 4 billion a year into inflating up the property market, and only about 5% of that helping people start a business. Property is a non-productive asset, which does nothing for the economy except the banking sector via rising levels of debt and associated interest. Negative gearing doesn't create jobs, or promote innovation. The money spent on welfare is badly mismanaged, to the point of virtual embezzlement. The job agency system that is now impossible to avoid when looking for many types of employment has created another middleman taking a cut in between the employer and employee, and there are cases where significant government funding towards initiatives through these agencies have ended up enriching the agency rather than enabling the client to find work. Source: Data supplied by Treasury from its 2010 Intergenerational Report. As the above clearly shows, by far the most welfare spending is on aged care, followed by families and the disabled. Now being disabled or old are not really a lifestyle choice, I think that having children is, and should not be subsidised by the tax payer. Maybe putting that money toward promoting small business instead might help reduce the unemployment welfare expenses too.
+1000, but the nongs still mostly vote for parties with socialist policies. I'm pretty sure that's not so easy any more. That's because it's not a capital investment, it's just the ability to offset losses against earnings.
The issue is 'middle class welfare' - being the bribes refined to an art form by Howard. Buying votes is what it amounts to. All for a safety net, but not a hammock.
Our skilled and dedicated staff are here to help you. Source: I wouldn't even leave my purse in a room with this lot.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]&prodno=6537.0&issue=2009-10&num=&view= http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/6537.02009-10?OpenDocument BTW, Table 3.8 here is a little more up to date: http://www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/myefo/download/MYEFO_2014-15.pdf The rest is math.
The problem is that these "losses" are often a lifestyle choice, due to the ability to be used for tax purposes rather than the result of investor misfortune. The net result is a transfer of tax revenues into the banking sector.
As someone said previously, if your motive for investment is a tax break, you're not really investing
It's a government service, what do you expect? Throwing more money at the government doesn't really improve their performance in case you hadn't noticed. You're just throwing it down a black hole mostly.
I know, why don't we give all our earnings to the government and have them distribute it as they see fit. Bread line anyone?
It's what will eventually happen with superannuation. Lump sum withdrawals will be aboloshed, your super will be moved into some sort of government-controlled pool, and they'll dole out a little each month as a pension. Eventually, you'll get a pension card instead of cash and will only be allowed to spend funds on government approved goods so that old people "don't waste their pension" by spending it on luxuries or things like cigarettes and alcohol (sound familiar?)
