Australian Politics, Mark II

The majority of the LNP front bench has this kind of wealth.
Garrunteed the spin on a tax like this would be surrounded by how it will slug the lower and middle class. Clearly it would be bullsht. But the personal greed of LNP Ministers to increase their own family’s wealth through investment and untended Government contracts… is unethically on fcking steroids.

2 Likes

OECD has done a fair amount of work on double taxation and tax havens and i t often features on the G20 agenda

I like the right wing opinion that whatever we contribute to emissionsb on world climate change won’t make any difference anyway so using that theory, I hearby declare to no longer pay income tax

2 Likes

I’d also like to know if there is a formula we can use to calculate how many shares to buy for my mum for example, so she can get just enough franking credits as to not effect her age pension, maybe pay them into her super fund. Everyone should do this

That was Alan Jones take on QandA last night.

“Oh there is only 3% CO2 in the atmosphere and we contribute 1.5% of that”

Spoken like a true right wing luddite, zero understanding of atmospheric science.

Oh look, small numbers = small problems.

■■■■■■■■

2 Likes

I’ve always had the belief and it’s been the values in which I was raised, that Growing up you receive many free/low cost services… and as you work, you’re income tax pays for the services that were provided to you that have gotten you where you are.

I don’t believe I would have thrived in education and career, in any other country in the world. Income tax is about supporting the systems that we had the privilege to use, so that future generations also have that same privilege.

I’ve been unemployed before, and there is no garrunteed I won’t be unemployed again at some stage in my life, if that happens I’d like to have the support and be relatively comfortable until I’m back on my feet again.

There needs to be a re-frame in the way we consider tax. I’ve never been of the belief that it’s bad. Only that it can be improved and be more equitable.

I agree with you. I was raised to believe that we all pay our share and its a good thing to pay tax.

When I went to University, as a mature aged student, I didn’t go under HECS scheme. I paid my own way because I could afford to. My fellow students kept telling what a mug I was.
For me it was simply their opinion and they were entitled to express what they thought and felt. I never felt like a mug and my belief still is, if you can afford to pay your own way then its up to you to decide how it is going to be for you. In my mind I made a place for someone else to take up and it was also the way I was raised.

I didn’t feel any different to anyone else in that respect.

2 Likes

It would be a harder sell than taking franking credits from millionaire retirees. IIIRC, the Keating government floated the idea ever so briefly before the wave of indignation became tsunami like.

On behalf of the entire population. Death tax will never get up.

Did you miss that Labor tried to bring this in under Rudd?

Of course the Tories, led by Tony “Just Say NO” Abbott, mounted a huge scare campaign against it so it never was set up properly.

It was funny seeing WA suits coming out of their offices to protest against the very notion of a resources tax. (Gina gave them time off for their demonstration).

2 Likes

Kerri Anne swung the election. May as well pin it on that as anything. Willfully ignorant nation gets what it will pay for, rich selfish ■■■■■ get richer.

Best thing to do is plant some native flowers and hope the ■■■■■■■ bees revive.

1 Like

No, AT, I didn’t miss it. Both sides of the political spectrum have kowtowed to the miners over the journey. And it’s not only the miners, but other multinational companies who fiddle the books to shift profits offshore. 1/3 of large companies pay no tax in Australia. As I said, the best solution to this problem is to tax cashflow rather than profits.

Yes, and I agree with that. But will it ever happen?

‘Hard sell politically’, however, it makes sense and would raise far more revenue than under the current system. Dunno, but I reckon it will eventually happen. Impossible to say when, though.

1 Like

I might be misunderstanding what you’re suggesting. But would this mean people that inherit assets that have been in a family for generations would have to sell them just to pay the inheritance tax?

That’s not what I said. Australia IS the most generous country in the OECD when it comes to dividend imputation. We are one of four countries that calculates imputation in the way we do and we are the only nation in the OECD that provides a cash refund for unused credits.

As I said above, it is a laughably regressive tax policy, the benefits of which flow overwhelmingly to high income earning households. The Australia Institute research shows 74.6% of franking credits go to the top 10% of income earners. What’s more, the scare campaign by the Coalition on this was a pack of lies as to be expected. When you look at the distribution of franked credits by wealth and by age bracket, not only are the majority of the credits not even given to retirees, the overwhelming majority of recipients are high to very high income earners who hardly need a cash handout from the ATO.

It’s a joke of a policy.

4 Likes

Benfti - you obviously didn’t hear Alan correctly. He said 0.4% of the atmosphere is CO2. That is correct because it is officially 405ppm (parts per million).
He also said that the contribution by humans is 3%. I am not sure if that is correct but I have read it a very small contribution.
He said Australia contributes 1.3% to that portion contributed by humans worldwide - this figure is correct.
This means Australia’s contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.00156%.
Do you think that is worth spending billions/trillions of $ over? Do you really think that is going to change the weather patterns globally if we completely wiped out all of mankind’s emissions?
Too many people are duped by the do-gooder people looking for a cause to beat their drums over - without using common sense and a bit of logic.
I don’t agree with everything Alan Jones says but in this case he speaks a lot of common sense.
I believe strongly in reducing pollution as it is a big (and growing) problem. Does our CO2 emissions effect the weather patterns - I am not so sure of it. Does the combined CO2 of China/India/USA effect the world weather - the scientists say it does so I accept that as a possibility.

I dont like the idea of death taxes.

but if they capped it at like estates with 2million and above I could probably live with it.

It gets kind of like tricky say father 70 dies and passes 10 million farm on to son,
Does son now need to borrow against the farm to pay the taxes. Or sell off part of the farm.

superannuation is too generous for wealthy individuals - and they have been looking at ways of getting some $$$ back like the 1.6million cap for individuals - but that still means a husband and wife can have 3.2 million in super with no tax problems.
Anything over 1.6million pays 15% tax.
but if they are ivnested in equities - then the franking credits could pay the tax and still generate refunds.

Think about that statistic for a second. Our population represents 0.3% of the planet yet we produce 1.3% of the worlds greenhouse gases. That’s an incredible statistic per capita and is the highest amongst the developed world.

It really depends on whether those who have inherited the estate have the funds to pay the inheritance tax. In Japan (where I live), yes, many people are forced to sell part or all of the fixed assets to meet the inheritance tax liabilities. There is a saying in Japanese that over three generations of asset accumulation, a fair chunk will be returned to society and families will be back at breakeven. We are talking about all assets here that make up the estate - fixed (property), as well as more liquid assets such as cash, etc. There is a tax-free threshold. I mentioned it earlier. To use the UK as an example, the tax free threshold is £325,000 per person (approx. AUD$600,000). It doubles to £650,000 for a married couple (so AUD$1.2m). There are variables that can increase this tax-free threshold.

The simple example used on the UK gov site is as follows:

Your estate is worth £500,000 and your tax-free threshold is £325,000. The Inheritance Tax charged will be 40% of £175,000 (£500,000 minus £325,000). So, it would be £70,000. In Aussie dollars, it would mean that a person who inherits around $924,000 (just under a mill) would face a tax liability of $129,000.

Basically every developed nation has some form of this tax. Capital, the same as income need to be taxed. As you said, this should be capped so that only the uber wealthy are targeted.

2 Likes