Should Wealthy People Be on a Version of The "Cashless Welfare Card"

sarahlump on 18/04/2020 - 06:18

The GST is not proportional to income. Very poor people pay the same amount as very wealthy.

If multi-millionaires and even wealthier were forced to use a cashless card they could be charged a higher more proportionate amount of GST.

I also feel that many businesses would relish charging a millionaire $20 for a carton of milk.

I also feel that the super-rich would call in their corporate army to burn the place down if somebody tried to implement it(but that's just the cynic in me).

Just on the merit of whether GST should be proportionate to income, should the uber rich be on a higher rate of gst with a special shopping card?
(ps don't say this is just one of their fancy exclusive credit cards)

Poll Options

  • 4
    Proportionate GST no card
  • 19
    Proportionate GST card
  • 615
    Same GST
Financial

closed Comments

      • arkie0 on 18/04/2020 - 11:54

        lol, the drug dealers higher up the chain launder it and there is gst from that point on wards. Hookers are still a service, if they make over 75k a year they still need to pay gst.

        • Dentshop on 18/04/2020 - 12:06

          Better call my accountant….

      • Tvsupaguru on 18/04/2020 - 16:31

        These things are easy fixed. Remove cash from the economy, have an overarching national bank processing all payments for the banks, and all transactions become electronic and digital. Kill the cash economy, and you kill a great deal of crime, and in turn you collect greater gst and taxes. The national bank also controls all international monetary movements in and out of the country, so it collects GST on all overseas purchases, and all monies spent by corporations on international companies like google, amazon ect who bill from overseas countries excluding gst. Make the GST charged on consumption as money flows out of the country and watch the tax revenue collected grow and it applies to all individuals, corporations, regardless of where the money goes. The minute it is spent, the GST applies !

        • chriise on 18/04/2020 - 22:15
          +2

          I know you're not necessarily condoning this suggestion, but the thought of that amount of overreaching control and surveillance is terrifying. It also wouldn't make a scratch on crime.

  • RockyRaccoon on 18/04/2020 - 09:05
    +10

    Wow, the OP needs to think outside the square.

    So the wealthy just get someone to buy for them. Problem solved.

    Meanwhile we the taxpayer, pays for the administration of this stupid scheme, more public servants, more form filing, more dodgy claim backs by businesses.

    • sarahlump on 18/04/2020 - 10:56
      -2

      This is literally the situation poor people are in atm.

      • Zephyrus on 18/04/2020 - 16:22
        +6

        Is this a legit suggestion or are you just angry about the scheme?

        I'd say no to either scheme, but clearly you think one for poorer people is unfair, but doing to it wealthier people is fair? What are the mental gymnastics you're doing?

        • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 09:34
          +4

          Isn't it obvious?

          It's green gymnastics.

          GreenAF with envy.

  • Ocker on 18/04/2020 - 09:13
    +24

    So how was the plane trip from North Korea?

  • RefusdClassification on 18/04/2020 - 09:20
    -3

    GST hurts the poor far more than the middle and upper classes, since a poor person needs to spend almost all of the income to just get by. I'm all for socking it to the top end of town, but there are probably easier ways to implement this than proportional GST. I favour increasing income tax back to the level it was in the early 90s + an inheritance tax on wealthier estates + a wealth tax (a tax on accumulated wealth rather than income from a job eg investment houses).

    • arkie0 on 18/04/2020 - 09:37
      +10

      The problem with implementing a wealth tax is it unfairly punishes those who work harder and save more. Why work harder when it's just going to be given to the dole bludgers, it depends on at what point you tax applying this wealth tax.

      Some countries have previously tried this, didn't work, too much tax office overhead for it to be cost effective, too many loopholes to reduce assets.

      All the smart / hard working / rich people leave the country. So now you have less income tax, effectively you'll be left with all the "average" people who end up having to pay more tax because the top 1% pay like 15% of the total taxes.

    • RockyRaccoon on 18/04/2020 - 10:15
      +3

      Obviously not wealthy so they are always willing to take it from someone else.

      Ever thought that the 10% GST funds welfare programs, so while they may pay 10% at the bowser, they get the welfare payments and services not available to the more better off.

      Taking the GST in isolation from welfare payments and income taxes, is very convenient but not accurate.

  • Baysew on 18/04/2020 - 09:36
    +3

    I don't see how this actually helps the poor.

    Perhaps if the OP was making a sincere suggestion, wouldn't the simple and direct proposal be that GST is removed on purchases on a "cashless welfare card"?

    • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 10:29
      +6

      It doesn't.

      If they disincentivize having a larger income, there will just be fewer businesses, fewer jobs and ultimately, fewer people contributing greatly more than others.

      Less tax revenue means everyone will have to start paying more.

      • sarahlump on 18/04/2020 - 10:57
        -2

        Have you ever stopped to consider the "free market" isn't free.

        • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 11:02
          +43

          Have you ever considered that "sharing" isn't sharing when all you're doing is taking?

  • Almost Banned on 18/04/2020 - 09:48
    +6

    Everyone control how much GST they pay.
    The current system of GST does not apply to basic food items.
    If the 'poor' want to avoid paying GST they should buy more fruits, vegetables and uncooked meats - and less prepared and pre-packaged food. Leave that stuff to the 'wealthy'.

  • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 10:00
    +7

    Just move to a communist country.

    • tomleonhart on 19/04/2020 - 05:09

      Which country is a communist country? :D

      • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 09:37
        +4

        Pick one with a hammer and sickle in their flag and/or major monuments, or where the ruling party literally calls themselves Communist or "People's something or another".

        • OzCheapo on 19/04/2020 - 12:26
          +1

          You sir have forgotten "Democratic People's"

  • popsiee on 18/04/2020 - 10:10

    No doubt the 99.99% coming 15% GST going to effect the poorer people than richer with their disposable income !
    Essential foods is only a small part if you didn't know it !

    • RockyRaccoon on 18/04/2020 - 10:22
      +3

      You make out that the 15% will just go into some black hole. The money goes back in services and welfare payments to the poor. And don’t give the BS that some rich will get some of the payments. That happens regardless., we have rich drug barons, getting welfare payments. There always some smarties who will rort the system, rich or poor.

      We also have a Public service, that will take a cut, but overall the poor would be better off.

      Overall the more tax raised gives more that can be given back. So balance your argument.

      BTW I personally don’t accept the need for a 15% GST. I am just pointing out the flaws in your position.

      • Zephyrus on 18/04/2020 - 16:27
        +1

        It won't go into the welfare system. The majority of the welfare system is federal and GST is paid to the states.

        On a quick look at the breakdown of the Victorian government's expenditure, most of it went to transport, so roads and trains, followed by education (primary schools, high schools and TAFEs), hospitals, police and courts.

        Most people agree that these are the sort of things that governments should be spending their money on.

      • knackers on 18/04/2020 - 20:10
        -1

        and don’t give the BS that some rich will get some of the payments.

        except tax payer funded subsidies going to corporations line the pockets of wealthy shareholders…
        and that's on top of corp tax holidays and the ability to move billions in profits to overseas tax-free havens.

  • jace88 on 18/04/2020 - 10:24

    Income taxes vs wealth taxes (or other asset-based taxes/eligibility) vs consumption taxes

    Progressive vs regressive vs flat taxing structures

    Each serve a different purpose and drive different behaviours/outcomes. All of these taxes will just end up changing the 'tax mix' needed in order to support government expenditure.

    … and I'd agree with the others in here (even though it's probably to my detriment) that if you were going to do progressive taxation, income side is the more sensible place to do it vs. at point of consumption (again, for same reasons as already outlined by others above).

    • sarahlump on 18/04/2020 - 11:00
      -2

      it was somewhat underhanded of me, but I was mostly trying to put the cashless welfare card into perspective for wealthy people, nd that I think that certain taxes are proportionally detrimental to poor people. I figured rich people and collaborators would get mad but that maybe some would see some light.

      • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 14:42
        +10

        to put the cashless welfare card into perspective for wealthy people

        I'm not wealthy but I have a perspective.

        Welfare card "recipients" are getting money from taxpayers. It's for necessities, not for luxuries. Cigarettes, pokies, alcohol, new iPhones are not necessities.

        Taxpayers, from pick-packers to doctors to directors, have earned that money. They can spend it however they want.

        From your OP: "Very poor people pay the same amount as very wealthy." Not true. Australia has a progressive tax system which means that the more you earn, the more you pay.

        certain taxes are proportionally detrimental to poor people

        I can't see how. Quite a number of items in your ordinary grocery list, assuming that you spend on necessary items, are exempt from GST: ATO, GST-free food.

      • irony on 18/04/2020 - 14:51
        +6

        Thank you, I have seen the light. Thinking about it the cashless welfare card should introduced for all welfare receipients to ensure public funds are spent wisely.

  • tsunamisurfer on 18/04/2020 - 11:01
    +24

    OP…you are an idiot.

    Wealthy people pay more GST as they buy more things.

    The poor pay very little GST as they spend most of their money on food and rent.

    Food and Rent unfortunately is GST exempt.

    As long as you have GST exemptions the poor will always contribute very little to GST.

      • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 11:16
        +2

        'whose' - that'll be 50c, thanks.

        • sarahlump on 18/04/2020 - 11:28
          -1

          thank you kindly

      • ozhunter on 18/04/2020 - 11:20
        +4

        Poor people shouldn't be contributing to taxes, they struggle enough as it is.

        Well, instead of all this GST talk, push for raising the tax-free threshold to something like 30k.

        • sarahlump on 18/04/2020 - 11:28
          -1

          I think that is a wonderful Idea, and I completely agree with you!

          • ozhunter on 18/04/2020 - 11:43
            +3

            @sarahlump: Lol, I didn't say I wanted it changed.

            I'm saying that's what you should do.

        • Aneurism on 18/04/2020 - 23:35
          +5

          Since we are pulling out magical imaginary numbers out of thin air, why stop at 30k, .Lets make tax-free threshold $1,000,000,000 . That way no one will ever be poor. I'm pretty sure the socialists will be applauding that concept. Lets all be equally wealthy instead of equally poor right ?

      • RockyRaccoon on 18/04/2020 - 11:49
        +2

        Really, 10’s of millions of dollars. When did they tell you that? With that amount they wouldn’t be playing trivia, they would own the pub.

        But it’s easy to claim.

        Like I know hundreds who are on the dole and who work at the same time?

        10’s of millions, do you really know how much that is? And since you know that “fact” you must know how they got it. Selling drugs on the side, or selling answers to the trivia questions?

        How about pulling my left foot rather than the right

        • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 12:07

          Like I know hundreds who are on the dole and who work at the same time?

          I know of at least 1. My mate's tattoo artist. He is officially unemployed but does tattoos on the side. Mate paid to get this done. He thought it meant 'Freedom'…

          • RockyRaccoon on 18/04/2020 - 15:40

            @[Deactivated]: Well I would guess thats nearer to the truth than my and the Op's ridiculous claims. 🤦🏽‍♂️

            BTW where did you find my old uni days student picture for your avatar?

            • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 15:53

              @RockyRaccoon: Trying something new. There's been so much hate for my moustache lately but I don't understand why.It's somewhere between the one that guy who played Magnum PI was sporting and a fake Mexican one. I personally quite like it. Don't you? ;)

              • RockyRaccoon on 18/04/2020 - 16:10
                +1

                @[Deactivated]: Of course I do, but then like you I'll a little biased. However if only I still looked like that now 😀

        • sarahlump on 18/04/2020 - 23:14
          -2

          inheriting river front properties from their parents and selling them. I feel like your dream propaganda of what a rich person is and does has been a lie.

          • sakurashu on 21/04/2020 - 21:05

            @sarahlump: Maybe you should come back with a more reasonable question about the equity of inheritance and taxing that instead? At least that has an established base of not being nonsense in a number of countries

      • abc123z on 18/04/2020 - 22:40
        +1

        So they aren't out spending loads, but they are living it up at the same time?

        Attending the same presumably free or cheap trivia nights that you, presumably a poor person, are also able to attend?

    • lionelhutz on 18/04/2020 - 21:51
      +2

      It's not idiotic. GST is regressive by design. It is a tax on spending. It does not apply to money that is saved or invested. The poor spend 100% of their income, therefore they pay GST on 100% of their income. A rich person might be able to afford to spend 70% of their income and invest the rest in shares or property or just leave it in the bank. Yes, the rich contribute more in absolute terms, but in relative terms more of a poor person's income will be subject to GST than a rich person's.

      Of course all these arguments were raised when Howard introduced the GST, turns out Howard's battlers were not too bothered.

      The suggestion of a variable GST is a silly one though. There are other taxes that are much easier to adjust if you want a progressive tax system - you could increase income tax or introduce an estate tax.

  • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 11:15
    +1

    I'm going to need a cake explanation.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a11EGkZFcXk

  • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 11:29
    +6

    I also feel that the super-rich would call in their corporate army to burn the place down if somebody tried to implement it(but that's just the cynic in me).

    Nah, they'll just move somewhere else - a more welcoming country. Plenty of those around. Why stay and be fleeced?

    • Flowerbomb on 18/04/2020 - 11:56
      +1

      The amount of income tax working Australians pay is too much! Lots of university graduates pay around 1k monthly of tax in their first job. Agreed about the getting fleeced part, horrible.

      • jace88 on 18/04/2020 - 14:23

        Agreed with the sentiment but let’s not forget those graduates may have also gotten an interest free loan with generous repayment terms to cover the cost of that education.

        • sarahlump on 18/04/2020 - 23:17

          "but we still have to pay back more, just later." - said every landlord in the landlord threads.

          • jace88 on 19/04/2020 - 00:59
            +2

            @sarahlump: I don’t see the relevance of your comment in the context of discussing HECS?

  • tabz on 18/04/2020 - 12:01
    +35

    I feel like this beer analogy is quite fitting in this thread (taken from https://mannkal.org/downloads/rspt/beer.pdf):

    AUSSIE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED USING BEER!!

    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 ball. "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 men would now cost just $80.

    Being good mates and Australians they 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.
    Now what about the other six men? They were after all the paying customers. How
    could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They
    realised 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 a
    higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the Principle of the Australian Tax
    System they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he
    suggested that each should now pay.

    And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% Saving). The sixth
    now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving), The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7
    (28% saving), The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving), The ninth now
    paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving), The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59
    (16% saving). The six are better off than before and the first four continued to drink
    for free.

    But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a
    dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man
    and said "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 benefit than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh
    man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the
    breaks!"
    "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all.
    This new tax 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 their 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!

    So! Boys and Girls, journalists and government ministers, is how the Australian
    Taxation System. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get
    the most benefit from a tax reduction.

    Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up
    any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the tax atmosphere is
    somewhat friendlier.!

    • Baysew on 18/04/2020 - 12:21
      +1

      So! Boys and Girls, journalists and government ministers, is how the Australian
      Taxation System.

      What does that even mean?

    • Vote for Pedro on 18/04/2020 - 12:41
      +4

      Did you dig that out of the IPA handbook?

      • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 15:15
        +3

        Lmao honestly. Every time one of these threads come up we see the true demographic of OzBargain - very wealthy little nitpickers who have no idea what it's like to be poor and want to minimise costs in all aspects of life (tax, bargains etc). Scrooge McDuck city.

        • RockyRaccoon on 18/04/2020 - 16:16
          +1

          Yea if you had your way, all wealthy, would be banned from ozbargain, and then there would no neeed for posts like these.

          https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/441689

          • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 16:23

            @RockyRaccoon: Not sure how your comment is relevant?

        • Croshema on 18/04/2020 - 21:08

          Maybe that level of scrutiny regarding their financial identity is a factor in financial success.

          • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 21:36

            @Croshema: Well sure, I don't doubt it.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 22/04/2020 - 22:45
          +1

          Scrooge McDuck city.

          You called?

          And make it quick, this solid gold phone is heavy.

    • Ash SA on 18/04/2020 - 12:43

      Oh wow, very nicely put.

    • sakurashu on 18/04/2020 - 16:29

      This is what I basically came here to say - if I was very wealthy there's no way I'm paying more for the same goods, I would move to a different country first before I put up with that

      • sarahlump on 18/04/2020 - 23:19

        where? europe? good luck. America? good luck. Australia is a paradise compared to many countries, especially for the rich.

        • Aneurism on 18/04/2020 - 23:50
          +5

          It is also a paradise for the poor. How may articles do you read about Australian schoolkids being mass murdered at school, Or being stoned to death or executed for their religion, adultery, being gay, speaking out about the government ?

          Perhaps it is your perspective that is lacking wealth.

        • Laurana on 19/04/2020 - 02:58
          +7

          Ehh. Have you seen America’s tax brackets? They are a lot more forgiving than ours. Whilst our poor are a lot better treated.

          Can I also hear more about these magic tax deductions that Accounts are getting for the rich? Because other than some outrageously dumb articles and people whining about negative gearing who don’t seem to not fully grasp the concept, I’ve never actually seen proof for this. Yes, maybe some people are doing odd things to get out of paying as much tax but I assure you that it is a lot less common than this thread is making it out to be.

          Taxing 45% of your wage after you earn $180k is absolutely insane. People earning $180k are not billionaires who inherited from their parents. They’re CEOs and Doctors working 14+ hrs per day. I look at my bosses’ income after tax and I look at mine, and I’m pretty happy to not work the additional 4-6hrs per day for the extra money.

          • sangohan on 19/04/2020 - 23:40

            @Laurana: those earning around 180k is the middle class imho. They are indeed being squeezed for tax.

            The poor has nothing to be taxed - that's why they are poor. The rich has ways to dodge taxes, and has more power to leave. The gov't can't tax them too much for fear of capital flight and divestment in the country.

            So that leaves the middle class. They aren't rich enough to dodge taxes (and wage earners can't really dodge anyway). They aren't poor enough to need any gov't assistance (they are net positive tax contributors). I'm still glad that aus has a fairly large middle class - otherwise the country is gonna go to shit like the USA.

    • Tvsupaguru on 18/04/2020 - 16:37

      Tabs - 100% spot on my friend ! Excellent post

    • mousie on 18/04/2020 - 19:34
      +1

      The first 4 men get pulled over by an RBT and are done for mid range drink driving. Fined $2000 and now have interlocks on their cars.

    • darkmattersunB6c0MV on 19/04/2020 - 15:21

      A very good analogy.
      Seriously thinking of shifting to the Bahamas :-)

    • [Deactivated] on 19/04/2020 - 15:56

      A very simplistic view. Say these 10 hypothetical people all work for the same company. With the richest being the owner and the poorest 4 being the minimum wage store people. Remove the bottom 4 and the company halts there’s no one at the bottom to move productivity forward to keep the company flowing. Then they are all affected.

  • Vote for Pedro on 18/04/2020 - 12:37
    -1

    GST is a regressive tax. Our taxation system (including tax concessions) is deeply flawed and will not serve us well going forward. But, don’t dare any reform because those getting concessions will eat you alive.

    • Vote for Pedro on 18/04/2020 - 13:06

      Seems like I’ve hit a nerve with someone getting tax concessions

  • StalkingIbis on 18/04/2020 - 13:03
    +6

    Lots of people will live out their lives in Australia without ever paying much tax while still enjoying the benefits of infrastructure, healthcare, and Centrelink.

    • Vote for Pedro on 18/04/2020 - 13:07

      Newscorp?

    • ozhunter on 18/04/2020 - 13:11

      Yep, pay the least and receive the most.

      • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 13:33

        Where do I sign up?

        • brendanm on 18/04/2020 - 20:51

          Cento

          • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 21:22

            @brendanm: I might have to quit my job, divorce my wife and go back to uni first. I'm doing 2 out of those 3 things come July. 🤞🤑

            • brendanm on 18/04/2020 - 21:29
              +2

              @[Deactivated]: Rack up that HECS debt. "Divorce" the wife, but keep living together as "room mates", then you can both get the singles welfare, and the wife can get more for the kids. You'll also get some money for dental for the kids as well. #winning

              • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 21:59

                @brendanm: Would my wife have to quit her job too? She loves it and I was hoping I could double dip : welfare and alimony.

                • brendanm on 18/04/2020 - 22:03

                  @[Deactivated]: That's a good idea. She should keep her job, but you have the kids. I'll only take a 5% cut as your welfare adviser.

                  • [Deactivated] on 18/04/2020 - 22:17
                    +1

                    @brendanm: I'll keep the main house then. She can move in the IP. I might even charge her for Netflix and chill. I could also start a tattoo business in my garage-I'm excellent at drawing stick figures. Both business will be cash in hand, of course.God forbid I should ever pay tax.

                    4 % of my income, excluding whatever I get as cash in hand payments. Deal?

              • sarahlump on 18/04/2020 - 23:21

                @brendanm: nobody gets money for their kids to have dental done. The country sees that children are not independent and unable to feasibly provide for their own dental care, as such dental work for children is free.(supported by gov)

                • brendanm on 18/04/2020 - 23:26

                  @sarahlump: Incorrect. Not everyone gets this.

                  • sarahlump on 18/04/2020 - 23:32
                    -1

                    @brendanm: I'm exceptionaly glad some people do.

                    • Aneurism on 19/04/2020 - 00:04

                      @sarahlump: A single poor person who has no family complains that those families with two independents and children overall receive more money than they do. To make things fair he says they should he should receive a higher benefit from them to equalize things.. or for their rights to be revoked..

                      The families who are all poor get annoyed and say ..but later if you get a family with kids you would have the same rights, ..so why remove ours ?
                      The single guy says I am never going to have a family because that is unobtainable to me, so lets remove their rights instead.

              • Laurana on 19/04/2020 - 03:05
                +4

                @brendanm: It really blows my mind that your partner’s income is tested for Centrelink payments but you can’t file taxes jointly/take advantage of the double tax free threshold. And that no one seems to complain about it.

                If Centrelink expects your partner to support you, then the ATO should recognise it accordingly. In our current tax system, being married is a massive liability.

                • Tonyh87 on 19/04/2020 - 23:05
                  +1

                  @Laurana: Agreed, I have been saying this for years.

  • peterw1 on 18/04/2020 - 13:23
    +3

    I thought they were and its called an amex black

  • OG Puppy Banana on 18/04/2020 - 13:27
    +18

    If you give low income earners a comfortable life paid for by the state, they have no imperative to contribute meaningfully to society.

    The feeling of "doing it tough" isn't a punishment, it's an economic motivation to work harder. Without this motivation, there will be a bloated amount of people living off the tax payer on both ends (the elderly and the low/no income earners).

    Hitting high earners and the upper middle class is inefficient as their motivation to earn more (thus pay more in taxes) is no longer incentivised.

    I hate to say it but you can't burn your candle at both ends. Australia needs to remain productive to support our social policies.

    • whooah1979 on 18/04/2020 - 13:41
      +2

      If we don’t provide low income earners enough money for them to live a reasonable lifestyle then they may find other sources of income. Last thing we want is for them do unlawful things to survive.

      • ajr5k on 18/04/2020 - 14:06
        +7

        And if you give them too much, there is no motivation to be a productive member of society.

        It is a surprisingly delicate balance which I think we err slightly towards providing too much, but I am sure someone on the receiving side of the fence will always argue that they get too little.

        • tarb on 18/04/2020 - 16:12

          I thought every report said NewStart was below the povety line? Or do you think that below the povety line is still too much?

          I agree with your original point though. I think we need to find that point were people have all their basic needs met, where they can live lives without stressing about core bills, food or rent - but not so much that they get to indulge, no holidays, no latest iphones, no eating out 3 nights a week, no new cars, no buying a house. A basic no frills life.

          • sakurashu on 18/04/2020 - 16:34

            @tarb: Poverty line at 50% of the median wage is 457 a week and Newstart for a single person with no children is $559.00. It obviously gets a bit more complex if it's an unemployed family but Australia is actually quite good. In Brisbane on 559 a week I could rent a place with flatmates (maybe $200), throw in a few bills and food and I would still have enough money left over for a few luxuries

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join