 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | David wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | ^
The central planners in Canberra and Bourke Street know best what's good for every little soul and his income, and with no thought for their careers and emoluments they toil endlessly and disinterestedly for the good of all God's children...
....and meanwhile, back in the world, you can't design differential policy for every individual, and you can't make the kinds of tender judgements you assume above ; so you've got to decide what tax rate is justifiable and effective for what level of income across the economy. Hence the discussion. |
^ Exactly. You establish that, say, a gradual rise in the tax rate to an upper level of, say, 60 (or 70, or 80) % doesn't actually hurt production or innovation and that the vast majority of upper income earners are able to cope with it. And then you do it. |
Indeed, and the question is what that rate is. History suggests that it's about 40-50%. At the same time, you also have to morally account for how you spend the money, and whether you have the right to forcibly take from someone far more than is necessary to build good common infrastructure, just because you can. There is a kind of natural justice at work, here, since the person you're extracting money from by the force of the state is actually the one working for the money, not you.
The truth is that the public sector is a massive lobby of self-interest, and in fact one of the most unionised and militant sectors of the economy because it is not exposed to competitive pressure. Just because you live off taxes taken from others, does not make your work good or necessary. |
Ain't that the truth
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
 |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | I don't see how very wealthy people can sensibly be considered 'punished' by higher tax rates. What exactly will people on $150,000+ a year not be able to afford if the rates go up? They'll still have substantially more comfortable lives than most of us.
| Mugwump wrote: | | And indeed they did that 60-70% thing in Britain in the 1960s and 1970s, and ended up going cap-in-hand to the IMF, while having some of the worst infrastructure in the developed world. After 15 years of privatisation and a 40% tax rate (for most of that time) it is once again one of the more pleasant countries in the world in which to live, with pretty good public infrastructure (vastly better than it was in the 1970s). |
I'm actually quite open-minded about the idea of keeping maximum tax rates under 50%, if it indeed turns out to be better for business and therefore government revenue in the long run. But I think the important thing to agree on here is that there is no moral imperative that wealthy people must take home at least 50% of their income. I'm only interested in what's best for society. |
I'd call taking money off people that they've earned when you can't demonstrate that there's a valid reason for it to be punishment. Whether you think they don't ned it is irrelevant thank grod, as I said earlier the number of salary and wage earners in the +$1m category is some relatively small that you achieve bugger all. Add it all up, deduct admin and hand it out to the poor and they'd be able to buy a packet of smokes each year. Far better and smarter ways to ensure the government collects appropriate revenue.
| David wrote: |
I don't particularly care about your home gym, but in my 'utopia' I'd like everybody to at least have a roof over their heads and food on their table. Once that's resolved, maybe we can worry about whether you should be able to have a home gym or not. |
Well lucky again that your opinion on whether anyone should be able to have anything that they purchase is irrelevant. Whether they want to buy gym equipment, bicycles, vintage cars, expensive wine or anything else should be tested by whether they can afford, it not whether everyone else can.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu 
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | I don't see how very wealthy people can sensibly be considered 'punished' by higher tax rates. What exactly will people on $150,000+ a year not be able to afford if the rates go up? They'll still have substantially more comfortable lives than most of us. |
Apart from the fact you are making very broad assumptions given you have no idea what situations or expenses people may have:
What if they employ for example a housekeeper, a nanny, a gardener etc. and the rates go up and they find they cant afford this anymore?
What if they decide the private school fees or the private health care is no longer manageable?
What if they are providing a residence and a full time carer for an elderly relative and this becomes unmanageable?
More unemployed and more people in the public education and health care system!
Do you actually know how much tax someone on $150,000 a year with buggar all deductions pays now?
Why do you people who are so keen on taking more of other people's earnings think you are entitled to dictate how people who earn more than you live or spend their money??
Especially when you mob have conniptions if there is even a mere suggestion from the "wealthy" re how "poor" people should live or spend their money!
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” |
|
|
|
|
Skids 
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Morrigu wrote: | | David wrote: | | I don't see how very wealthy people can sensibly be considered 'punished' by higher tax rates. What exactly will people on $150,000+ a year not be able to afford if the rates go up? They'll still have substantially more comfortable lives than most of us. |
Apart from the fact you are making very broad assumptions given you have no idea what situations or expenses people may have:
What if they employ for example a housekeeper, a nanny, a gardener etc. and the rates go up and they find they cant afford this anymore?
What if they decide the private school fees or the private health care is no longer manageable?
What if they are providing a residence and a full time carer for an elderly relative and this becomes unmanageable?
More unemployed and more people in the public education and health care system!
Do you actually know how much tax someone on $150,000 a year with buggar all deductions pays now?
Why do you people who are so keen on taking more of other people's earnings think you are entitled to dictate how people who earn more than you live or spend their money??
Especially when you mob have conniptions if there is even a mere suggestion from the "wealthy" re how "poor" people should live or spend their money! |
Spot on!
And being on $150k/pa 'aint wealthy, I can assure you.
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Morrigu wrote: | | David wrote: | | I don't see how very wealthy people can sensibly be considered 'punished' by higher tax rates. What exactly will people on $150,000+ a year not be able to afford if the rates go up? They'll still have substantially more comfortable lives than most of us. |
Apart from the fact you are making very broad assumptions given you have no idea what situations or expenses people may have:
What if they employ for example a housekeeper, a nanny, a gardener etc. and the rates go up and they find they cant afford this anymore?
What if they decide the private school fees or the private health care is no longer manageable?
What if they are providing a residence and a full time carer for an elderly relative and this becomes unmanageable?
More unemployed and more people in the public education and health care system!
Do you actually know how much tax someone on $150,000 a year with buggar all deductions pays now?
Why do you people who are so keen on taking more of other people's earnings think you are entitled to dictate how people who earn more than you live or spend their money??
Especially when you mob have conniptions if there is even a mere suggestion from the "wealthy" re how "poor" people should live or spend their money! |
As you might have guessed, I don't support two-tiered health and education sectors, so the more people out of the private system (and the more funding for the public system) the better.
Again, housekeepers, gardeners, butlers and nannies for able-bodied people are a luxury. I don't oppose them on principle but I certainly don't think the ability to have one is a human right. I would far prefer that everybody has enough before worrying about whether an able-bodied person can get somebody else to mow their lawn.
As for people who need carers, I totally support them (and their carers) receiving government benefits. More revenue will make that more possible.
I actually thought someone on $150k would be paying 60-70 in tax. 43 is pretty good really - that's more than $100k after tax, which is a pretty significant amount of money.
Lastly, I have no interest in telling people what they should and shouldn't do. What I am interested in is making the tax system as efficient as possible, and having a general sense of how much people need to be able to live comfortably (without complete extravagances) is a necessary part of that. I'm obviously fine for people to spend the money they have on what they choose.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
OK, So i'll ask the question, what exactly is the problem you're trying to solve/propose solutions for, because you're all over the place like a greased eel.
Is it:
a) There are too many poor people, their standard of living needs to be improved.
b) There is too great a level of inequity in income and standard of living between the top and bottom earners.
c) Some people earn salaries which are too high and unjustifiable. They don't need all that money so we should take more off them and redistribute it.
From reading your posts, my thought is that your actual position is c) but you try to use b) to hide behind. NB, the first two options actually present as different problems with different solutions, c) is a philosophical stance which I disagree with to the point of serious annoyance.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
My position is closest to a), but you need to expand it to incorporate the whole of social infrastructure. I more or less spelled that out here:
| David wrote: | | Do we ever really have enough government revenue? Are our schools the best they can be? Our public hospitals? Do we have state of the art public transport, and do the unemployed and disabled have enough to live on? I don't know what the ideal balance is, but I think it's fair to presume we're a long way away from it right now. |
Though I also believe in b) and c) to an extent (though neither for their own sake). c) is only relevant insofar as, if people have way more money than they need, then it follows that you can take more off them and they can still lead comfortable lives (thus substantially increasing the government spending pool while having a minimal effect on business, incentives to work and so on). b) is important in that the evidence seems to suggest that societies with less of a wealth gap tend to be higher quality overall with more cohesion and more equality of opportunity.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
OK, your written work really seems to point at c. You even hinted at it above when you said people have more money than they need.
If you're goal/aim/problem really is A) you need to let go of C) and looking at the multiple root causes and multiple solutions that are to a degree intertwined but not totally.
C) may be one viable lever to pull to help fund those solutions but I think it's a poor one and to leap at it as a first option is naive and basically stupid.
Keep in mind, Newtons 3rd law doesn't just apply to physics, it has application in social settings, business and economics, basically everywhere you want to make a change to something. It's not absolute, the reaction may not always be equal, but their will be negative consequences that need to be considered and weighed against the potential real gains.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Again, housekeepers, gardeners, butlers and nannies for able-bodied people are a luxury. I don't oppose them on principle but I certainly don't think the ability to have one is a human right. I would far prefer that everybody has enough before worrying about whether an able-bodied person can get somebody else to mow their lawn. |
Well I'm sure that they will be happy to be unemployed and perhaps not have enough because you see them as a luxury!!
Out of curiosity how many hours do you work a week? - not study but work
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
70 hours plus overtime.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
70 hours per week? plus overtime?
38 hours is the legislated max working hrs per week. 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Last edited by stui magpie on Tue Jan 12, 2016 8:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Seriously, I work casually, so it's a variable rate usually between 15 and 30 hours a week. Hence why I'm looking for a second job right now. 
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
David I actually wasn't having a go at you about how many hours your work - but you also need to understand that many jobs that pay 150K ( and less than that) require much more than the 40 hour week and can involve a lot of time travelling and there is often a requirement for further study etc to be juggled in your " free time".
Someone earning 150k may have a large family and a stay at home wife - lifestyle choice fair enough and may pay for assistance to enable them to enjoy some free time some home life - why is that a luxury??
I'm not prepared to pay anymore than I already do for other people's lifestyle choices especially those that breed at a rate that they cannot sustain them and then insist the guvenment should look after them!
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
So is my maths off? How do you get 70 from 15-30 hours a week?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
