In Australia, if any were self-employed, then they would have paid no tax or very little. The wage and salary earners would have paid almost all of the tax, and the ones receiving Social Security payments and no other income would have not paid tax.
From a UK site.
Let's put the tax system in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing The fifth would pay $1 The sixth would pay $3 The seventh would pay $7 The eighth would pay $12 The ninth would pay $18 The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free, but what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings) The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings) The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings) The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings) The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings) The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings)
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking elsewhere where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
In Australia, if any were self-employed, then they would have paid no tax or very little. The wage and salary earners would have paid almost all of the tax, and the ones receiving Social Security payments and no other income would have not paid tax.
URSUSMAJOR
The richest guys would also pay nothing for their beer. I remember that one year Kerry Packer paid $2 tax.
All business owners would (effectively) pay nothing for their beer - it would be a business expense.
The average, middle class, wage earners would be buying the beer for everyone.
So in terma of salary and paying for beer, it would be a bell curve.
And if all of the small business owners stop being business owners a large proportion of the Australian population would end up on welfare so the middle income earners would be screwed even harder
Come on guys, get the chip off your shoulder about those who take all the financial risks in this world.
D4 SDV6, a blank canvas
I think you will find that all the companies that were created using Kerry Packer's money (all the companies that he invested it in) would have paid much much more than $2. So he may have personally paid only $2 but that is because the money he received had already been taxed. Nothing unfair about that.
Snowy - 2010 Range Rover Vogue
Clancy - 1978 Series III SWB Game.
Henry - 1976 S3 Trayback Ute with 186 Holden
Gumnut - 1953 Series I 80"
Poverty - 1958 Series I 88"
Barney - 1979 S3 GS ex ADF with 300tdi
Arnie - 1975 710M Pinzgauer
How our tax system works
No matter how "rich" you may be or how little regular income tax you may pay, the money ALWAYS comes out into the system somewhere.
Fuel excise, import duty, stamp duty, GST, capital gains tax - you name it.
For those who run a business, you can try to lock up your capital in trusts and company structures, but somewhere along the line it has to come out and when it does, the ATO is there to take their share.
So to put it in the context of the beer scenario - if the richest guy only pays $2 towards the beer bill, that is only because his company probably already paid for the pub!
| Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
|---|
|
|
|
Bookmarks