| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Doc63
Joined: 06 May 2004
Location: Newport
|
| Post subject: Tax and wealth redistribution |  |
|
<split from 'conga line' thread>
| David wrote: | | ^ Really? I'm a leftist, in that my politics are broadly left-wing (including supporting policies of redistributing money and legislating equality). Happy to admit it. |
How would you go about doing that, if you were in power?
_________________
I hold a cup of wisdom, but there is nothing within. |
|
|
|
 |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I acknowledge it's a pretty controversial idea, but I reckon I'd develop some sort of system whereby a certain percentage of upper earners' incomes are taken by the government and redirected to public infrastructure projects and welfare for the less well off.
I haven't thought of a name for this concept yet, but I'll let you know when it comes to me. 
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I'm glad you got a laugh out of it. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The tax system is/should not be a means of wealth distribution. Tax is the governments revenue collection used to pay for services.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Doc63
Joined: 06 May 2004
Location: Newport
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | The tax system is/should not be a means of wealth distribution. Tax is the governments revenue collection used to pay for services. |
Not according to the radical left wing nutter.
In his country, if your smart enough, or work hard enough (i.e; get of your arse) to earn a good wage, he'd take more off of you, and give it to those who are lazy or thick as two planks.
This approach has worked really well in other countries.
_________________
I hold a cup of wisdom, but there is nothing within. |
|
|
|
|
Doc63
Joined: 06 May 2004
Location: Newport
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | I acknowledge it's a pretty controversial idea, but I reckon I'd develop some sort of system whereby a certain percentage of upper earners' incomes are taken by the government and redirected to public infrastructure projects and welfare for the less well off.
I haven't thought of a name for this concept yet, but I'll let you know when it comes to me. |
So, you've got absolutely no idea then. Didn't think so.
_________________
I hold a cup of wisdom, but there is nothing within. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| So, David, why would these upper earners either a. bother to earn that money or b. stay in your country? Unless you're willing to go full Soviet Union and not let people leave then you're shit out of luck. France brought in a tax on high earners and the next thing you know Gerard Depardieu (sp?) was off to live in Moscow (pretty ironic considering how many were desperate to go the other way from the 40s - 90s). |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | The tax system is/should not be a means of wealth distribution. Tax is the governments revenue collection used to pay for services. |
What does the loaded term mean (wealth redistribution)?
If we accept your loaded term then how does say funding universal health & education differ from your notion of wealth redistribution?
How does the expenditure of monies for say mining or trusts or tax depreciation for business not be seen as redistribution to those who use that? Or how does the now $20,000 tax claim allowed for small businesses not amount to wealth redistribution?
How then does say money spent on lawyers to gear large corporations to avoid tax then claim it on deductions not constitute wealth redistribution?
These Stui my lad are all arbitrary & the notion of tax redistribution is merely a simplistic label to be applied to put down those who question how money is allocated in the first place.
They are just as misleading as using the term left wing & right wing
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Last edited by watt price tully on Sun Jul 12, 2015 7:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | So, David, why would these upper earners either a. bother to earn that money or b. stay in your country? Unless you're willing to go full Soviet Union and not let people leave then you're shit out of luck. France brought in a tax on high earners and the next thing you know Gerard Depardieu (sp?) was off to live in Moscow (pretty ironic considering how many were desperate to go the other way from the 40s - 90s). |
The French paid for his ticket
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Pat Rafter avoided tax by using the Bahamas, Mick Jagger ditto. There are examples everywhere. That is all beside the point of the debate so to speak Wokko .
Having said that I remain curious as to why Rafter was never taken to task over this but sh*t happens. Aussie Aussie Aussie, avoid tax, avoid tax, avoid tax, oi, oi, oi.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | I'd develop some sort of system whereby a certain percentage of upper earners' incomes are taken by the government and redirected to public infrastructure projects and welfare for the less well off. |
If you confined yourself to doing that very efficiently, most of us would support your idea. It's the way providers expand it, that makes it tricky. When someone else is forced to pay, it's a short step from public service to self-service. There's a reason the public sector is the strongest bastion of unionism in the country.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Get bloody real you fantasists. Wanking on and on about "lefties" wanting to "raise taxes". What bullshit!
Most people on the left and even in the centre would be perfectly happy to see tax rates left exactly where they are, or even reduced a little bit, just so long as wealthy cnuts actually paid the tax they are supposed to.
Tax rates have gone down, down, down over the last 50 years, but goverments of any flavour struggle to make ends meet not because of the lower headline rates, but because most wealthy cnuts welsh on their obligations. Australia is the new Greece, and our politicians keep bringing in more and more rules designed precisely to assist wealthy people to evade tax but make ordinary people pay in full. Negative gearing costs billions and only goes to people rich enough to own two houses. Or seven. Dividend imputation tax breaks mostly go to the wealthy. Capital gains exemptions cost even more than negative gearing does, and are even more precisely tailored to exempt the income of the wealthy and hit the ordinary Australian with full rates. Superannuation lurks now cost more than providing pensions, but 80% of the cost goes to wealthiest 10% of taxpayers - the very ones who need help the least. Overseas tax haves, family trusts, transfer pricing scams - none of these are relevant to the ordinary small businessman or wage earner: it's all set up to favour the ones who deserve it least and need it least.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
What's all this stuff about "my country" or "radical left-wing nuttery"? I was obviously being ironic. Tax is wealth redistribution. If you support even the most basic welfare system, then you support wealth redistribution. Where on earth do you think that money comes from?
I'm honestly flabbergasted that so many of you could be confused about this.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | What's all this stuff about "my country" or "radical left-wing nuttery"? I was obviously being ironic. Tax is wealth redistribution. If you support even the most basic welfare system, then you support wealth redistribution.
I'm honestly flabbergasted that so many of you could be confused about this. |
I worked hard for my money & so did my wife. I'm not here to fund you lazy good for nothing welfare bludgers. Only real people in need & the deserving poor need assistance, & I'll tell you who is deserving. It's only those who create wealth that deserve tax breaks. Only those without money talk about wealth redistribution. I mean look at Warren Buffett.
This is the 1950's isn't it?
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
