Close Topic Options

No Tax! - Page 3

Wow, it has taken me a while to read through the long responses to this. Instead of arguing the existing points, I'm going to state mine. I voted to tax for defense and security. Income tax and sales tax and property tax are forced taxation that I don't agree with. Take my care for instance. If you look at it as taxes are needed, then its not so bad. But take another look at it. You have to pay the government for the right to buy a car. Think not? Find out what happens if you don't pay sales tax! You have to pay the government for the right to keep your car. Think not? Try not paying the personal property tax on your car and see what happens. You have to pay the government for the right to work. Think not? People go to jail for not paying their income tax. Income tax is unconstitutional since it was originated to pay for wartime only. The reason being was that we needed a tax to pay for our defenses. After the war was over, we just kept being taxed. I believe federal government taxes and programs should be very low. State taxes should ALL be voted on, and programs attached to them. There for if no one wants to pay for a program, then we don't get taxed for it. But that wont happen, the idea of providing only what you need and taxing only for that amount would be considered laughable today.

Tax No

How would you pay for public education, then? To some extent, taxes must be forced on us for the greater good. I think w have far too many social programs for which we are taxed, but some are necessary. I think everyone in society should pay for public education. I think educated people in society is necessary to the point where we should all have to pay for it.

No Tax! History & Civil Business Politics

Good point, but has an easy work around. We have education taxes that pay for public education, none of your income tax is used for it. Taxes for education could be per city or per state completely dependant on the amount of people who are in the city. People within a city would have city taxes for education and county tax or state tax for education. This would stop the dependance on schools to the federal government and create less reliance on the federal government for tax money. Schools and education being managed on a much smaller city basis would insure that each student got more attention because they wouldn't just be a block of kids in a region.

Page 3 Tax No

Tax is very much a topic of debate in Australia at the moment. Last night our Treasurer Peter Costello delivered the Federal Budget with massive hand-outs and tax reform. He could do this because Australia is currently riding the crest of a resources boom and the Government is looking decisively richer because of taxes collected from the mining sector. It's also the penultimate budget before the next election.

The people who benefited last night were largely high and low income earners. Middle income earners missed out, again. There was also significant lollies dolled out to families, especially those with more than two children,

What the Treasurer did last night was change the top tax bracket from $97,000 to $150,000, and lower the amount of tax in this bracket from 47 cents in the dollar to 45 cents. This mean savings for those who are already extremely wealthy.

I have no problem with this in principle except that the overwhelming majority of tax payers are in the $25,000 to $75,000 bracket. Bracket creep has only marginally been corrected for this group of people. Our tax is NOT indexed with CPI which in my opinion is a crime.

Why is this significant? Because right now Australians are being taxed far more in real terms than they ever have in any time in our history. And, our hospitals, schools and infrastructure are in a state of disrepair. The Government is also privatising a lot of its major service providers like telecommunications and the public health insurer.

Some here might argue this is a good thing and Governments shouldn't run such organisations, but I would beg to differ. Government services can be made more efficient with privatisation, but this inevitably leads to higher costs and a profit-focussed service. Part of the function of Government is to help regulate markets to keep them affordable. Especially essential services such as health and telecommunications. By privatising everything you end up with a user pays system, which is often great for the rich and not accessible to the poor. I think there needs to be balance and Governments should exert some control, even if they were to out-source services while holding the reins.

For those who are knocking social welfare I urge you to visit Sweden. Its welfare system is far advanced to anything you will see in the US or Australia. Parents get a combined 12 month paid maternity leave when children are born. They receive a tax free child allowance until the children turn 16. Education is paid (even at University) and all Swedes are covered by a national health cover. Unemployment is high at the moment in Sweden, but this hasn't lead to the issues of poverty it would if Australia had similar unemployment levels. This is because of their social welfare system.

Sweden's social welfare system

Despite their taxes, Swedes are still some of the wealthiest people per capita in the world. They are also the best looked after I have experienced.

I have no problem paying taxes if it is going towards infrastructure and vital services. I also have no problem paying taxes if the money goes towards those who need help the most. What I do have a problem with is my taxes being used as a political football to win elections.

Edited: arvhic on 10th May, 2006 - 3:38am

Tax No

The only comment I have is to point out that by lowering the top tax bracket does NOT necessarily mean savings to the extremely wealthy. It means savings to the very well paid, who are usually some of the most productive members of society, business owners who provide the bulk of the jobs.

As an example, John Kerry and Edward Kennedy, both US Senators, both extremely liberal, both of whom scream at any reduction in any tax rates, both of whom don't pay income taxes. They are both incredibly, extremely wealthy, but neither one has income! (Well, maybe some dividends or something, but not from any work that they have done.)

The wealthy are those who have huge collections of assets. The productive are those who work hard, have created something very useful, or who have sacrificed much to get special education and skills. These are the ones who are damaged by progressive taxation schemes. Since the top 10% of earners (not the top 10% of wealthy people) pay over 50% of the taxes (probably closer to 70% in Australia), any country that directly attacks these people is causing problems for themselves by punishing hard work and innovation.

No Tax!

This is a bit overstated. The latest figures I have seen says the top 25 per cent pay 64 per cent of income tax in Australia. It certainly is a lion's share but have you to take these figures into context.

If you have a proportional tax rate of say 30 per cent, it means that those who earn high incomes pay a similar proportion as those who pay low incomes. While this sounds fair in principal, the reality is those with high incomes also have a much higher borrowing power and capacity to earn more income through investments etc. Yes, investments are also taxed, but earning power means more than pay packet. Low income earners simply don't have this capacity. So you have to take all this into account when calculating who should pay for Government infrastructure and services.

As you have pointed out through the example of the Kerry's, income is not a fair measure of wealth.

While I am not in the high income earning bracket, I actually support tax relief for high income earners because it is long overdue. My point was that the whole system needs fixing and while it is great high income earners have had their bracket substantially corrected, most bracket creep effects middle income earners. It is the area that has seen the least correction during the Howard years. Personally, they should just fix the whole bloody system and index it with CPI, but Government's are reluctant to do that because they lose control over their coffers.

I take exception to this comment. Is a doctor who works 40 hours a week as productive as a journalist or engineer who works a similar time period? NO. Is a fireman who works 60 hours a week as productive as a company CEO who works 50 hours? Income is not a measure of productivity, it never has been. It's a measure of market forces. Some professions earn far more than other professions because the market pays for that. Is that fair? Of course it's not.

No Tax! - Page 3

Go back and reread what I wrote. I commented on the fact that some people, some professions, sacrifice a lot. For example, doctors, who may sacrifice 12 to 20 years of their life to become the specialists that they are. They ARE more productive than a janitor, a journalist, or an engineer, because they have very specialized knowledge and skills that are very important to society.

Very detailed statistics show that the top 10% of earners in the US pay well over 50% of the taxes. They also show that the top 1% pay over 30% - alone.

Now, that is not taking into account the fact that corporations are heavily taxed. And, since corporations are purely profit machines, they pass those taxes on to the consumers, causing more hardship upon the lower and middle classes. It is estimated that 30% of the price of high-price items such as cars, consist of corporate taxes. Just think about it. The mining companies pay taxes and pass them on to the steel mills, who are taxed and pass them on to the steel broker who is taxed....

What is particularly bad is that the same thing is done to food, clothing, and shelter. So, in effect, our wonderful governments, in their haste to redistribute wealth and give it to the poor, are actually making it more difficult for the poor to get by. In fact, some states, such as Utah, require sales tax on food and clothing!

Yes, the system is broken - even worse than most people are willing to admit.

No Tax! Politics Business Civil & History - Page 3

Most doctors I know don't sacrifice 12 years of their life. In fact I have several friends who have studied medicine and have far more free time at university than my friends who studied courses like engineering did. I should know because I had the most free time!

Furthermore, the skills of engineers and journalists can be just as important to society as doctors. The standard GP deals with colds, coughs and other minor illnesses a nurse could diagnose most of their time.

My father was one of the leading electrical engineers in Australia who undertook massive power projects that were massively important to society. So I understand how taxing this job is. Without electrical engineers society doesn't function. He typically worked 14-18 hour days and managed his own business. He was extremely productive and towards the end of his career started earning what an average GP gets. This has nothing to do with productivity and everything to do with market forces. Do you honestly believe CEOs of major corporations, worth millions of dollars each year work harder than their troops?

If journalists didn't exist or were controlled by the government you would not enjoy all the freedoms you do today. There would also be far more atrocities being committed and people being killed because reporters weren't there to let the world know. Every profession is valuable, but not every profession is valued the same.

The tax stats I mentioned were Australian, so of course it is different to the US system.

Who pays Australia's tax?

The problem with not taxing corporations, is that if you don't people will launder money through a "corporation" to avoid paying tax altogether. I agree it is always passed onto the consumer, but corporations are a part of the community and have a responsibility to contribute to the community. In reality this is done through higher prices, but at least money is being poured into the community in some fashion.

I agree the system needs fixing, but what do you reckon should happen?