 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
So we gave the kids Some cash for Christmas, you want to double-tax that? Don't forget we already paid tax on it once. How about the cars some kids get for their 18th? Is there an age limit?
Why are you so keen to double dip?
Do you pay the government tax from ingmars pocket money?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
 |
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ exactly, TP. If I work to help my child.pay off his mortgage, giving him my wages after I've paid tax on it, that's taxable to hm ? What about if I buy him clothes or food, relieving him of that expense so he can pay a mortgage ? Or downsize my house to allow him cash to house his family ? Nope, it won't work and the level of record keeping and snooping involved is the kind of thing civil libertarians on the Left would have conniptions about. And the publc, of course, will not toleratei it. So you have to have something like the seven year rule, which is the best of bad options. As Hayek said , the endless lust of the government and sections of the public for someone else's money is the road to serfdom. This kind of policy would be a highway to it.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | So we gave the kids Some cash for Christmas, you want to double-tax that? Don't forget we already paid tax on it once. How about the cars some kids get for their 18th? Is there an age limit?
Why are you so keen to double dip?
Do you pay the government tax from ingmars pocket money? |
Ingmar's what now? 
I'm not so much suggesting that tax should be paid on gifts (though I don't necessarily oppose that idea either; see my views on inheritance tax), but more that it should be used as part of the overall calculation when working out what percentage of tax you should be paying on your actual income. It's hardly that radical an idea.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | think positive wrote: | So we gave the kids Some cash for Christmas, you want to double-tax that? Don't forget we already paid tax on it once. How about the cars some kids get for their 18th? Is there an age limit?
Why are you so keen to double dip?
Do you pay the government tax from ingmars pocket money? |
Ingmar's what now?
I'm not so much suggesting that tax should be paid on gifts (though I don't necessarily oppose that idea either; see my views on inheritance tax), but more that it should be used as part of the overall calculation when working out what percentage of tax you should be paying on your actual income. It's hardly that radical an idea. |
So your saying my daughters cars we gifted them for their birthdays should be taken into account for taxation purposes?
My sisters in laws kid is a star wars nut, has a shitload of expensive memorabilia, mostly as gifts from her parents, does that count? How about the kid down the roads pony?
Basically, because people save and buy useful things, ie cars, houses", or even toys, rather than spend it on things that are not tangible, such as holidays, you want to penalise them?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Last edited by think positive on Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:15 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | ^ exactly, TP. If I work to help my child.pay off his mortgage, giving him my wages after I've paid tax on it, that's taxable to hm ? What about if I buy him clothes or food, relieving him of that expense so he can pay a mortgage ? Or downsize my house to allow him cash to house his family ? Nope, it won't work and the level of record keeping and snooping involved is the kind of thing civil libertarians on the Left would have conniptions about. And the publc, of course, will not toleratei it. So you have to have something like the seven year rule, which is the best of bad options. As Hayek said , the endless lust of the government and sections of the public for someone else's money is the road to serfdom. This kind of policy would be a highway to it. |
Yep, no wonder people hide it under the mattress!
_________________
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: | | think positive wrote: | So we gave the kids Some cash for Christmas, you want to double-tax that? Don't forget we already paid tax on it once. How about the cars some kids get for their 18th? Is there an age limit?
Why are you so keen to double dip?
Do you pay the government tax from ingmars pocket money? |
Ingmar's what now?
I'm not so much suggesting that tax should be paid on gifts (though I don't necessarily oppose that idea either; see my views on inheritance tax), but more that it should be used as part of the overall calculation when working out what percentage of tax you should be paying on your actual income. It's hardly that radical an idea. |
I disagree.
If you have a lot of stuff like cars, DVD's, clothes, memorabilia etc, you purchased them with money you'd already paid income tax on and for the main you would have paid GST on the item when you bought it so the taxman has already taken their slice twice.
You pay income tax on your income.
_________________
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: | |
|
I feel like a better tax system would take this stuff into account somehow, in any case. Happy to discuss how to improve the current model without disadvantaging people unfairly. The problem at present, as I see it, is that gifts (in some cases, substantial amounts of money) can have quite a substantial effect on overall wealth but have no impact on the amount of money you give back to society.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | I feel like a better tax system would take this stuff into account somehow, in any case. Happy to discuss how to improve the current model without disadvantaging people unfairly. The problem at present, as I see it, is that gifts (in some cases, substantial amounts of money) can have quite a substantial effect on overall wealth but have no impact on the amount of money you give back to society. |
The gifter has already given money to society, on behalf of the giftee!
Stop being greedy, or begrudging other people being able to help out their kids!
_________________
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 feel like a better tax system would take this stuff into account somehow, in any case. Happy to discuss how to improve the current model without disadvantaging people unfairly. The problem at present, as I see it, is that gifts (in some cases, substantial amounts of money) can have quite a substantial effect on overall wealth but have no impact on the amount of money you give back to society. |
But you're looking at the extreme end of the spectrum (substantial amounts of money etc) and putting that filter over all, which is ludicrous.
I buy a cheap car for my son to help him out, that should be somehow taxed again? Far coff.
The best tax system would remove most of the exemptions rather than triple dipping, have a flatter and fairer income tax structure with indexation to remove bracket creep, get everyone to pay their fair whack without being punitive to those who are able to earn higher incomes.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Thailand
|
| Post subject: | |
|
If the government is going to tax people for buying their kids cars they had better go and borrow several thousand billion dollars to fix up the infrastructure. You might have trains, buses and trams in Northcote and Glen Iris but what do you have in the bush. A farmer buying his kid a car so he can get to university, or a job in the nearest rural town will just turn it into a tax liability. If he dies and the taxman says give me a third for inheritance tax you may well send the inheritor into permanent debt or forced to downsize his property to pay for it. As with all these things the banks will be the winners and bloody hell they need more profits to not pay tax on.
My parents bought a house and land in rural QLD. Over the last 30 years they have added a bus shed, a stone BBQ, 2 shade houses, a pergola, a new roof, solar panels, grey water recycle system and a satellite TV system So if they pass on the value of the property has been capitally improved all by things they have paid sales tax, increased rates, GST and the installers paid income tax. The house and is worth about 300,000 . There are 3 kids. Because of the location it could take up to 6 months to sell as it is in a small village with no shops or pubs but has a primary school. It is 30 minutes drive to the nearest decent rural city. One of us, presumably me, is going to have to spend that 6 months cleaning, maintaining a a large garden, throwing out 60 married years of junk, etc. And I should give the government inheritance money on top of stamp duties etc. I don't think so.
In the 1960s and 70s the pre baby boomers were selling homes and moving to Qld in droves to get away from inheritance taxes. Good for Qld but not for families who lost normal contact with grandparents etc.
_________________
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ The lady speaks true. Unfortunately spending other people's money is so damn seductive that, after the democratic Right clean up and put the business back in order, it just starts all over again.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yes, until someone asks Maggie to define "socialism". *Silence*
David, the problem with inheritance concerns substantial estates which hand over unearned capital control and therefore reduce competition. The maintenance of class in this way is substantial cause of inflation because it creates a fossilised stratum which has great power and a major role in the economy, but has never competed to demonstrate its fitness for that role.
Capital allocation is a job or career like any other; making it heritable is reminisce of medievals or monarchies handing roles from father to son. The obsessive need for a large segment of Old Capital to override competition like that shows a contempt for free markets. A natural contempt, but not one anyone who believes in free societies and optimal markets should tolerate.
"The unearned charge of capital allocation, at any level of society, contradicts the benefits of competitive markets and imposes an inflationary tax on the rest of society." - An hypothetical version of Maggie who actually understood socio-economics.
Chasing modest-to-small amounts, much like chasing minor tax or welfare cheats, is a waste of time and a distraction, though.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | Yes, until someone asks Maggie to define "socialism". *Silence*
David, the problem with inheritance concerns substantial estates which hand over unearned capital control and therefore reduce competition. The maintenance of class in this way is substantial cause of inflation because it creates a fossilised stratum which has great power and a major role in the economy, but has never competed to demonstrate its fitness for that role.
|
Inflation ? Huh ? Inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods (demand side), or demand running ahead of the productive capacity of the economy (Supply side). The ownership of capital is likely to be irrelevant to these issues, presuming the money is spent or invested and can be allocated to productive uses. If anything, concentration of capital is deflationary because the propensity to spend of someone whose wants are largely satisfied is lower (reduced demand = deflation).
I could live with inheritance taxes on very large estates, but then the owners just move country to avoid them. The sums at stake are big enough to warrant that, and the assets are liquid. If you freeze the assets, you starve the economy of capital inflows. So in the cases where it does make sense, it doesn't work. Where it doesn't make sense, it works to trap the middle classes who mostly earned their money through merit.
In Britain inheritance taxes were brought in by the Lloyd George Liberal Government around 1910 to destroy the aristocracy, which they did very effectively. Houses and land cannot be moved. Thousands of stately homes were demolished in the period between its inception in the early 1900s and 1970 as a result, and those that are left are largely owned by the National trust. no one shed many tears for that land reform, which was overdue and inescapable. It's yesterday's policy.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Yesterdays policy that doesn't apply to Australia.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
