Thread: The rich get richer.... Poor get...

Originally Posted by Mr Whippy

You will also have to go back to a wage of take home $300 per week. This is what my wage was when I purchased my first home, 27 years ago.

yeah, $300 a week (15k p.a is about right.
house would've cost about 45k (remebr that house to wage ratio)

compare that to today where the average house is 450k? and average wage is 70k?

that ratio has doubled.

G'day Arthur

Was working for my landlord who owned school buses,200 days of the school year, X$ per hour,3 hrs a day,and it came under the allowed amount one could earn and retain one's pension,BUT, in those years the dollars earned was calculated over 365 days not over 14 days as is currently done,I have knocked back a lot of work possibilities because of that reason,I still retain my Bus License and my Authority to drive as well as my "Blue Card" but I was driving long before the "Blue Card" came into existence, I had to undergo a full Police investigation, I presume that the BC is in existence in all states.

My back did not give me to much grief then,it was my left knee that was kinda customised,I gave up driving at the end of 99 (the kids became too feral), had a heart attack in Feb 2000 and Quad by-pass in 2001,eventuallygot my leg/knee straightened in 11 and am now reasonably pain free for the first time in nearly 40 years,but, there are a lot of people much worse that I.

I have one moto now,each morning I wake up I think I am winning,got to be positive,it is the morning that I don't wake up that will be the B**mer!

Originally Posted by Eevo

yeah, $300 a week (15k p.a is about right.
house would've cost about 45k (remebr that house to wage ratio)

compare that to today where the average house is 450k? and average wage is 70k?

that ratio has doubled.

House cost $65,000. On the above figures my house cost 4.3 years pay and it is now 6.4 years. That's roughly a third more, but I had two loans, one at 13.5% and one at 17%

Some time ago, I heard a theory that all taxation rates should be reduced to a flat rate of around 10%.

The thinking is, that with more disposable income both individuals & companies would be willing to spend more, thus generating MORE tax in the long run.

However, where it falls down is in a number of areas. Firstly, people have to spend the extra money they have, and not hoard it by putting it all into the bank, or worse, under the mattress.

On top of this, when the money is spent, it needs to be spent locally. As we know, and have often discussed on here, it is too easy, and often too cheap, to buy from overseas.

As for companies, there are so many that are foreign owned, that making them richer often means that the only people that benefit, are those overseas.

So, like most things, all good on the surface, but when you dig deep, thats when it starts to fall apart.

Originally Posted by Basil135

Some time ago, I heard a theory that all taxation rates should be reduced to a flat rate of around 10%.

The thinking is, that with more disposable income both individuals & companies would be willing to spend more, thus generating MORE tax in the long run.

However, where it falls down is in a number of areas. Firstly, people have to spend the extra money they have, and not hoard it by putting it all into the bank, or worse, under the mattress.

On top of this, when the money is spent, it needs to be spent locally. As we know, and have often discussed on here, it is too easy, and often too cheap, to buy from overseas.

As for companies, there are so many that are foreign owned, that making them richer often means that the only people that benefit, are those overseas.

So, like most things, all good on the surface, but when you dig deep, thats when it starts to fall apart.

This idea was proposed years ago by Joe Bjelke Petersen (amongst others). Basic concept was a flat 15% tax on all earnings - personal income and company tax alike. Government revenue would be raised by tax on spending (a GST if you like). Basics of life (food, clothing etc) would be taxed at a lower rate, if at all - more "luxurious" purchases would attract a higher tax rate. The premise was that it would encourage saving - and there would be Australian saved money available for investment, rather than all new projects and infrastructure requiring foreign capital.

It had a lot of merit .................. but there were also some drawbacks.

Originally Posted by Mr Whippy

House cost $65,000. On the above figures my house cost 4.3 years pay and it is now 6.4 years. That's roughly a third more, but I had two loans, one at 13.5% and one at 17%

i would say you paid above the average back then. not by much

and my point still stands. a third more is still significant.
imagine if taxes increased by a third, or food, petrol, etc.

Originally Posted by Eevo

yeah, $300 a week (15k p.a is about right.
house would've cost about 45k (remebr that house to wage ratio)

compare that to today where the average house is 450k? and average wage is 70k?

that ratio has doubled.

$45k. Ya dreaming. In 1987 mine was $78k plus land ~$18k and that was about ~30k from town and about ~5k from a RAAF base / air port. Hardly prime territory.

Originally Posted by Basil135

Some time ago, I heard a theory that all taxation rates should be reduced to a flat rate of around 10%.

im in favor of this idea.

drop income tax to 20% (i think 10% is too low)
increase the gst to 15%

its more of a user pays system and it encourages buying. its a 2 for 1 deal.