No - we are unique in the world in that the healthcare system and our pension system (superannuation) is NOT largely funded by payroll taxes on employers. That is the exact point I spelt out earlier on in a reply to rusty.

You are arguing that the tax mix is wrong, not that the taxation levels are too high. Our overall tax take compared to the size of the economy is lower than the OECD average.

If you think that company and income tax rates are too big, then you are arguing that we need more indirect taxes (GST) or land taxes.

The size of the economy is extremely relevant to taxation levels because of the expenditure levels required by Govt increases with the size of the economy. This should be obvious, but clearly isn't.

The cost of building a road in China is much smaller than in Australia.

The cost of living (and therefore basic welfare requirements) is much less in China than Australia.

If you have a large wealthy economy, things cost a lot more. Are you really not able to understand this?

We are talking about company taxes.

The UK has a 20% company tax rate. Australia has 30%

Now you tell me where a business will invest or set up. Australia or UK?

There is not a big difference between the GDP of the UK and that of Australia.

http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/Paper.aspx?doc=html/publications/papers/report/section_5-07.htm

Edited by Aikhme: 10/5/2016 06:09:05 PM

Edited by Aikhme: 10/5/2016 06:11:37 PM

That is absolute rubbish - we are one of the only countries in the world that distorts our tax system so severely to favour investment in housing. It distorts the economy.

Good luck investing in the USA and Europe - they do not have negative gearing to the level that we allow.

Once again, you seem to disagree with the RBA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing

In 2003, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) stated in its submission to the Productivity Commission First Home Ownership Inquiry that "there are no specific aspects of current tax arrangements designed to encourage investment in property relative to other investments in the Australian tax system.... the most sensible area to look for moderation of demand is among investors.... the taxation treatment in Australia is more favourable to investors than is the case in other countries.

"In particular, the following areas appear worthy of further study by the Productivity Commission: "1. ability to negatively gear an investment property when there is little prospect of the property being cash-flow positive for many years; "2. benefit investors receive when property depreciation allowances are 'clawed back' through the capital gains tax; "3. general treatment of property depreciation, including the ability to claim depreciation on loss-making investments."[13]

Here are treasure figures of where Australia stacks up compared to other OECD countries. We are among the worst.



http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/Paper.aspx?doc=html/publications/papers/report/section_5-07.htm

Edited by Aikhme: 10/5/2016 06:12:49 PM

You conveniently ignored this part:

http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/Paper.aspx?doc=html/publications/papers/report/section_5.htm

While Australia's mix of direct and indirect taxation is broadly comparable to other OECD countries, its composition differs in several respects. Australia is one of two countries, with New Zealand, that do not levy a social security tax and which have a dividend imputation system.

Yes but we are talking about Corporate Taxation which is the second highest in the OECD.

What this suggests to me is that the Government need to have a GST debate. Broaden the base and raise it to 12.5%

In return, lowering of income tax, corporate tax, and raise the tax free threshold.



Edited by Aikhme: 10/5/2016 06:24:03 PM

You conveniently ignored this part:

http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/Paper.aspx?doc=html/publications/papers/report/section_5.htm

Corporate tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is the fourth highest in the OECD

That was back in 2009, we are now second highest.
Also, while some businesses may not pay social security tax, they do pay payroll tax and superannuation.

So now you are arguing that the tax mix is the issue, not how much we are taxed overall.

That is a different argument than you were making before.

What you should have said is that direct taxation is too high, and indirect taxation (eg GST) is too low.

I don't have a problem with that point of view. I don't entirely agree with it, but I think there are arguments in favour of it. But it is clear that this is not what you were originally arguing.

The other thing to consider is that the UK has a very large finance industry base, and is located very close to Europe. Therefore competitiveness in regards to company tax is more important.

In Australia, despite the mining boom ending, our economy is still heavily weighted to mineral extraction. Therefore a higher rate of corporate tax makes sense because the minerals are in the ground, if you want to dig them up you have to stay here.

So you can afford to have a higher rate of corporate tax when a large portion of the tax base is not mobile.

No I am still thinking that we are taxed excessively overall. The high tax bracket is at 49% That is excessive.

I also believe that the Corporate Tax levels are excessively high at 30% and the LNP's plan to lower them are good.

Also, all workers are now being penalized with bracket creep. The whole purpose of CPI pay increases is so that workers can maintain their purchasing power. That is not possible when they eventually creep into the next tax bracket.

I also do not believe the Government should touch negative gearing or Capital Gains Tax concession. These initiatives are mostly utilized by middle income families - nurses, teachers, police etc etc.

No companies pay social security tax on payroll in Australia. In other countries they do, and it can be quite high.

Companies pay payroll tax everywhere in the world.

Superannuation is funded by workers, not by employers. When superannuation was brought in, workers had to forego pay increases they would have otherwise got to fund the superannuation. It is just withheld by the employer. It is not a tax that goes to the govt.

http://www.treasury.gov.au/Policy-Topics/Taxation/Pocket-Guide-to-the-Australian-Tax-System/Pocket-Guide-to-the-Australian-Tax-System/Part-1

Australia’s composition of direct taxes differs from most OECD countries. Australia is one of two OECD countries (the other being New Zealand) that do not levy social security taxes. In contrast, social security taxes are a large source of direct taxation revenue for a significant number of OECD countries (Chart 5).

Relative to GDP, Australia has the third lowest level of total taxation on personal income, which includes taxes on personal income, social security taxes and taxes on payroll, in the OECD (Chart 6). Australia’s tax burden relating to these items (11.2 per cent of GDP) is lower than the OECD average (18.4 per cent).

But 49% is just the headline figure. You are ignoring at what income levels the marginal rates kick in.

You are also ignoring the lost income tax due to negative gearing. If you get rid of negative gearing, you could cut income tax rates.

Many countries have issues with bracket creep.

That is simply not true - the largest beneficiaries of negative gearing are the richest people.

You also are ignoring the distorting effect negative gearing has on the economy as a whole. It is a very inefficient, and distorting tax.

Here is another point. Australia raises well over 57% of its total tax revenue from income tax.

The right pie chart is the OECD average.



So yes, the tax mix needs to be adjusted. Therefore, a GST debate needs to be had. And, perhaps, A Social Security Tax as well.

http://www.treasury.gov.au/Policy-Topics/Taxation/Pocket-Guide-to-the-Australian-Tax-System/Pocket-Guide-to-the-Australian-Tax-System/Part-1

Edited by Aikhme: 10/5/2016 06:46:00 PM

In additional to NewsPoll, Essential Research also has Labor leading 51-49 on two party preferred:
http://www.essentialvision.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Essential-Report_160510-1.pdf

I agree with Mark Latham though (yes I watched the banal Paul Murray Live on Sky News, *bleh*), that the more relevant polls will be those taken after the election was called, because people will be thinking more seriously about their vote

If you cut negative gearing, everyone's retirement plan will also be up shit creek. Property values will decline. And I can assure you that it is in fact the middle class that buy property for investment. The Rich have other schemes they invest in. Usually shares, business, and overseas.

Not a good idea taking away people's aspiration.

I am fully aware at what the marginal rates are. And I am saying that 49 cents in the dollar is excessive. I believe that income tax rates are excessive for all tax brackets as my previous post clearly shows. Therefore, a full tax review is required and I hope the LNP win so that we can have this review rather than go on an ALP spending spree.

Edited by Aikhme: 10/5/2016 06:53:53 PM

I love PM Live. My favourite Journalist of all time! Love his show! :cool:

I admire your persistence AzzaMarch but is it really worth it? He even uses links to charts and evidence that support your argument.:lol: I'm guessing you're learning a bit more about the topic as you go, building a database of information that you can use with someone more capable?

No they don't. The links I use were carefully researched and support my argument.

AzzaMarch is in fact correct that the tax mix is wrong.

I am corect in saying Corporate Tax Rates are high. They are now the second highest in the OECD as mentioned in Q&A and at the time of the tax review within the links I posted in 2011, we were fourth highest. That is because other OECD countries have been cutting the Corporate Tax Rates.

I am also correct in saying that Income Tax Levels are proportionately much higher in Australia compared to other OECD countries.



57.1% of total tax revenue raised in Australia is from Income Taxation.
33.4% is the OECD average.

Obviously, you love making a fool of yourself.

http://www.treasury.gov.au/Policy-Topics/Taxation/Pocket-Guide-to-the-Australian-Tax-System/Pocket-Guide-to-the-Australian-Tax-System/Part-1

Holy shit :lol:

https://twitter.com/DavidLeyonhjelm/status/729945742798786561

:lol:

LOL. Conehead is a dead man walking thanks to DD election :cool:

:lol:

Depends where he is on the ballot. Top left corner again and he might get two in.

that chart is income tax as a percentage of total tax
the chart below shows we have the third lowest income tax in the oecd
Also social security is like income tax anyway

He's preferencing the Greens last. Makes me want to vote for him more.

I thought you would be ok with this.

Edited by vanlassen: 10/5/2016 10:26:15 PM

Who he preferences last is pretty irrelevant now unless you don't think for yourself and follow how to vote cards.

As someone who is in no way conservative but socially liberal, I'll be preferencing the LDP pretty favourably and ahead of the Liberal party. In fact the only parties I'd preference behind the Libs would be the far-right nationalist parties.

I think what he is referring to is the 'How to Vote Card". A lot of people follow those instructions.

I don't think the Lib Dems have any Party member running for the house of Reps so you won't be forced to preference The Greens or Christian Democrats alongside them.

I'm still a little confused on how the Senate voting system works now. I might just vote below the line.

Yes I know but to me it's odd that anyone who would support a party of "personal freedoms" in particular would slavishly follow a how to vote card.

I always vote below the line in the senate as I want to control preferences myself. If you vote above the line in the senate now they're going to recommend you number at least 6 above the line (though 1 will still be accepted). I don't know what that means when your 6 are exhausted though.

Right and wrong is a matter of opinion lol.

While it may have had ethical roots it has morphed into something terrible.

-PB

Message for coalition supporters?

-PB