Unpopular Opinion High Income Earners Pay too Much Tax

Trying2SaveABuck on 11/08/2022 - 12:48
Last edited 11/08/2022 - 13:17 by 1 other user

"3.6 per cent of Aussies account for more than 31 per cent of tax revenue.

The majority of tax revenue comes from those earning $90,001-$180,000 - which makes up 36.8 per cent of tax paid."

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/ato-reveals-how-much-tax-t…

According to the above source 2/3 of all tax collected come from 20% of the 'working' population. - that is an excessive amount of lifting from the top categorises and imho it is unfair but the media wont ever report it.

We need to change the system to tax 'wealth' and not 'earnings' no one should be paying more then 20-25 cents to a dollar of tax on money they earn to the ATO.

my unpopular opinion is higher income earners pay too much tax - change my mind?

Poll Options

617
High income earners pay too much tax (I agree)
654
I disagree with your opinion

Financial

Comments

Benno007 on 12/08/2022 - 08:46

+2

Yeah.. when the amount you pay in tax is more than the average australian's salary, it feels pretty crap at tax time. And then when you have to pay additional tax on top of that… after working your ass off all year, its a punch in the guts for sure.
- xdigger on 12/08/2022 - 08:58
  
  You could game the system and live pretty well in this country without working a single day in your life on centerlink/NIDS pension if you have yourself a good group of doctors/social workers. Generational welfare is a uniquely Australian thing, I don't even think the UK is that well-funded in that regard.
  - Randolph Duke on 12/08/2022 - 09:51
    
    Geez people really are delusional about what it’s like to live on welfare. And getting onto NDIS? Lol - good luck. People who genuinely qualify struggle.
  - RefusdClassification on 12/08/2022 - 10:21
    
    It's extremely hard now to qualify for Disability Pension. NDIS isn't doled out like a pension but for specific expenses like a wheelchair. Dole is easier to qualify for but only 60% of what a pension is worth. Rental assistance is ~$74 a week maximum, which is far too little. Even single pensioners who own their own home just break even; if you have to pay rent on welfare you are in a world of hurt. To live comfortably who need to fully own a home and have an income of $50,000 after tax a year. A full pension is about $23,000 per year.
Zondor on 12/08/2022 - 08:59

+5

I'm more than happy to pay my tax, it's $500 a week but in return I expect actual healthcare, good roads & Infrastructure. Currently I'm unhappy.
- xdigger on 12/08/2022 - 09:14
  
  +2
  
  Dam right. Currently everyday folks are losing the right to free universal healthcare and bulkbilling GPs due to decades-long inadequate healthcare funding, but we apparently have hundreds of billions now to pay tribute to the US/UK for their nuclear submarines.
  - SlavOz on 12/08/2022 - 19:10
    
    +2
    
    What makes you think it's specifically the submarines that are eating up our budget and dipping into healthcare? National defence/strategic international alliances are very low on the list of useless government spending. One could argue we need these things.
    
    Sending billions to sustain Ukraine in an unwinnable war, giving major corporations a free ride during covid, putting the whole country on welfare, a partisan and untrustworthy national news network, surveillance laws, environmental restrictions stifling free trade would all be way higher on the list of government flushing money down the toilet.
    
    Dont forget we fired hundreds of healthcare workers for not getting vaccinated…apparently this was supposed to make us all feel safer, but I suspect it has contributed to the sub-par healthcare we receive.
- idonotknowwhy on 12/08/2022 - 10:09
  
  Same here. But I'd be even happier if everyone else continues to pay tax and I don't.
echelon6 on 12/08/2022 - 09:01

I agree with the statement and I am in favour of it. Society needs to ride the middle class hard to be sustainable. Pls continue to stay away from capital and from the poors.
eek on 12/08/2022 - 09:27

+1

It's only the PAYG employees on 350k pa. salaries who are getting slammed with these exorbitant tax rates. Makes very little incentive to make more money as an individual. Now if you were an independent contractor and could get around PSI rulings etc with a company structure, possibly trust with family then it becomes a different story altogether.
Bren20 on 12/08/2022 - 09:29

+2

The majority of tax revenue comes from those earning $90,001-$180,000 - which makes up 36.8 per cent of tax paid."

that's not a majority…
RefusdClassification on 12/08/2022 - 10:16

+1

You suggest focusing taxation more on accrued wealth rather than income, which is a reasonable proposition. Most wealth in Australia is in housing, so there should be a capital gains tax (at 50%) on all residential housing and land. Also, inheritance taxes, particularly for estates over 1.5 million. Finally abolish middle class welfare, including superannuation tax deductions which benefits the rich and costs almost as much as the pension: https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12…

Our mineral wealth should be treated the same way oil is in Norway. The profits of mining need to benefit everyone, not just corporations and super-rich individuals.

Much could be done to reform the Australian economy, but will never happen because ALL politicians are part of the elite affluent class and will never support measures that harm themselves.
LlamaLlamaLamp on 12/08/2022 - 10:21

+2

I'm one of the 3.6% and I don't believe we should be paying less tax but, the super wealthy and the corporations that avoid their tax obligations should be burned to the ground.
sashatheman on 12/08/2022 - 10:24

+1

I find it funny how there are simultaneously posts saying that higher income earners are paying too much tax, as well as posts saying that higher income earners are benefitting too much from tax rules such as negative gearing and other deductions which you can make only if you have enough wealth to be able to afford the assets.
mini2 on 12/08/2022 - 10:30

+1

Money doesn't grow on trees or get minted as the US does, so someone has to pay for all those DRP, PDLP, buying back houses in flooded regions, etc.
Nost-dc on 12/08/2022 - 10:38

+4

i think the tax rate for that amount is fine, but personally i wish there was a way to better support single income households.
a single income household on 180k pays $51,667 income tax - end result is $128,333
a dual income household where both people make 90k (180k total) each pays $19,717ea (39,434 total) - end result is $140,566

thats $1000 a month, which can make a big difference for a family
- Tonyh87 on 13/08/2022 - 18:40
  
  +1
  
  Absolutely, couples should be able to be taxed as per joint income. This would make a huge difference for struggling families with a stay at home parent.
- hdog on 16/08/2022 - 12:06
  
  This 100%. If the Medicare rebates and other payments can use a couple threshold, why can’t income tax too?
  Single income getting taxed at the higher rate, also another ~10% of gross income deducted to repay HECS, it’s a big income on paper but the reality is almost half disappears before it hits the bank. We’ve definitely noticed it is harder to save as a family of four with cost of living increases the past twelve months.
jaimex2 on 12/08/2022 - 10:39

+3

Once you get into the higher brackets it very much feels like the harder you work the more the rubber band pulls back.

You get to a point where you don't aim to earn more as each dollar is basically halved, why would you?

This is where you need to get an accountant and a financial planner.

They'll turn your tax into wealth fuel.
DingoBilly on 12/08/2022 - 10:42

+5

I don't mind giving back to society and making sure everyone is taken care of. It's what makes Australia a great country to live in vs shit holes like America where if you have a medical health condition you're (profanity).

I don't think wealthy people are taxed enough tbh. At some point money becomes somewhat irrelevant. I get paid a shit load of money to do little work, and it's not like I make better use of the money compared to when I was "only" earning 100k.

If you've been lucky enough to get to a high paying position I think it's only fair you pay your dues back to the unlucky. People will sit and say its all due to hard work and shit like that but I'd say it's mostly luck and networking. I've definitely just lied and waltzed into ridiculously high paying jobs through luck rather than working hard, and know many others in a similar boat.

The only ones I know who truly work hard are people who earn very little, and I easily see more people working harder for $50k than people working hard to earn $200k.
- SlavOz on 12/08/2022 - 19:13
  
  -5
  
  America has the greatest healthcare system in the world, it's not just not very accessible unless you have medical insurance (usually through employment) or accrued wealth.
  
  Saving those 2 conditions, there is no other country you'd rather be sick in than America. We bummed off their entire healthcare system to get us out of covid. Don't see many countries lining up to buy Australia's medical innovations…
  - Quantumcat on 12/08/2022 - 20:00
    
    +2
    
    Lol, are you crazy? People in the USA routinely die of preventable illnesses, they get complications from diabetes because of lack of access to insulin, etc. Their health system is nearly the worst in the developed world.
    - SlavOz on 14/08/2022 - 19:18
      
      -1
      
      They die because they don't have access to the full scope of healthcare, not because of the quality.
      
      Like I said, for those who can afford it, it's the best in the world in terms of expertise. Why do you think all the rich people around the world travel to America for their healthcare? You don't see many athletes who need the world's best doctors coming to Australia for their surgery.
      
      Also have to consider that their population is terribly sick and running on major inflammation. Healthcare can rarely undo a lifetime of bodily abuse.
      - Quantumcat on 14/08/2022 - 19:22
        
        @SlavOz: It's not a good healthcare system if it can't be accessed. And nobody would travel to the US for healthcare, unless they're in a third-world country. Americans travel elsewhere to get healthcare, lol
        
        SlavOz on 14/08/2022 - 19:30
        
        -1
        
        @Quantumcat: It can be accessed, you just need health insurance or personal wealth. Australia is heading in the same direction, ie forcing everyone to get private cover. Even as things stand here, using our public health system is a lot easier for those who have money. If you're broke, good luck getting an appointment with a $250/hour specialist.
        
        Even then, you better be smart enough to know how our system works and have a fairly good understanding of your condition, otherwise most doctors simply won't bother telling you critical information. If you walk into Australia's public healthcare and just do everything by the book (ie, see the specialists the GP refers you to), you won't get anywhere. You need to be proactive and find the best doctors yourself, yet most people don't know that.
        
        Our healthcare is free, but knowing how to actually use it and get the best out of it is very, very complex.
        
        Americans travel elsewhere to get healthcare
        
        Canada's healthcare is better than Australia's (in terms of accessibility) yet there is a major trend with Canadians actually travelling to the US for treatment
        
        Quantumcat on 14/08/2022 - 20:51
        
        +1
        
        @SlavOz:
        
        Canada's healthcare is better than Australia's (in terms of accessibility) yet there is a major trend with Canadians actually travelling to the US for treatment
        
        If you read the first line of the article you quoted, you'll see it is because of wait times, not because the US provides better quality care (your argument being that the US has better quality care and that ease of access is not counted towards measuring that)
        
        SlavOz on 14/08/2022 - 21:02
        
        -1
        
        @Quantumcat: Would lower wait time not constitute part of the quality? When you need emergency surgery, it sure comes into play.
        
        Australia is the same. Accessible yes, but only if your particular type of cancer or disease has the patience to wait around.
      - Zondor on 15/08/2022 - 13:02
        
        @SlavOz: In "Theory" "Sure".
        
        You also have the problem of insurance company's finding every reason they can to deny all insurance claims. This stuff has been going on for so long there's movies about all the cases.
  - Randolph Duke on 12/08/2022 - 20:29
    
    +4
    
    US didn’t invent COVID vaccines, no matter what Trump claims. And posturing Australia doesn’t innovate in medicine is plainly wrong.
    https://www.austrade.gov.au/news/insights/insight-australian…
  - DingoBilly on 14/08/2022 - 19:11
    
    +3
    
    Is this a joke? I know you have interesting viewpoints but America's healthcare system is known to be one of the worst in the world, if not the worst first-world healthcare system.
    
    And we have plenty of medical innovations that are used worldwide, e.g. the HPV vaccine…
    
    Please don't spread misinformation.
    - SlavOz on 14/08/2022 - 19:23
      
      -1
      
      It's the worst in the world in terms of accessibility. It's not publicly funded and the out-of-pocket cost is untenable for most people
      
      But for those who can afford to be treated there, it is very good. There's a reason every rich person travels to America for their surgeries. If you had cancer and money wasn't an issue, you'd bet your life on the US doctors before Australia's. We are well behind the curve on many things here.
bobloblawlobslawbomb on 12/08/2022 - 11:41

+3

What's the alternative? Equal tax rates, say 20$? So the person on 50k should pay 10k tax, leaving them with 40k, and the person earning 200k should pay 40k tax, leaving them 160k. Now you tell me whose quality of life is affected the most? What does the 50k earner now miss out on? What does the 200k earner miss out on?

I wish people in privileged positions would stop thinking that people are poor simply because they are lazy. I know people who earn less, but work harder than I do. Not everyone is born smart, not everyone had access to schooling and resources that allowed them to reach their potential.

Historically economies have grown when the middle class thrives.
https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates-2012-5
https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/20/growth-and-the-midd…
- Trying2SaveABuck on 12/08/2022 - 11:48
  
  I wish people in privileged positions would stop thinking that people are poor simply because they are lazy. I know people who earn less, but work harder than I do. Not everyone is born smart, not everyone had access to schooling and resources that allowed them to reach their potential.
  
  you literally can get paid 110k to be a labourer in the city in Melbourne you dont need to be 'smart' you just need to be willing to work….. also we have mass worker shortages in Australia if you dont have a job in this market i dare say you are not trying very hard…
  - BravoWhiskey on 12/08/2022 - 12:38
    
    +2
    
    There are reasons some people are struggling that are often hard to see from an outsiders perspective.
    
    Or you don't have enough money to get yourself off the ground, buy a car for transportation, buy the right clothes for an interview, maybe you have commitments to look after people who will literally die or suffer extremely low quality of life if you don't. Or you are suffering from a system that has made your life much harder than it needs to be and given you mental or physical health issues that prevent you from holding down a job.
    
    There is money to go round - but you need to take it out of the hands of people who just hoard and hoard and hoard. They're not helping anyone except people they choose to.
    
    And there's an easy way to stop it - assets are taxed, and taxed reasonably hard (2.5% is not unreasonable). Hold a million in assets? Sure - i'd like my $25 000 tax please. Surely your assets are earning you money - what good would it be holding a non-productive asset?
    
    "Oh but my house is worth a million dollars! I can't afford $25 000 a year in tax!" Sure you can. Because that tax exists, income taxes can be lower - so you'll have some left. Oh and most houses won't be worth a million dollars if there is a 2.5% tax a year on them. Most countries i've lived in have had this tax on real-estate (the US does in most states, as does much of Europe).
    
    You're free to amass as much wealth as you want - but it gets progressively harder to pay tax on it.
    
    If you don't do this - and you keep corpo taxes below income taxes, the rich (and i mean the real rich - i don't care if you have $10 million - you're not rich - don't think you are.. you are comfortable but you are still at the mercy of the world) will just accumulate more and more and more on the back of the work of everybody else.
    
    Anyone earning under $1 million a year (and probably much higher) and shouting out about "I worked hard for this" should be on the same side as those on minimum wage. Your wealth is still tied to your fickle ability to work, and it can stop amazingly quickly (health, burnout, market forces). And if you're holding investments the market can destroy their value for long enough that you have to get rid of them to survive, before shooting back to where they were.
    
    Tax wealth more, earnings less - society will benefit. A very small few will not - and they won't go down without a fight - trying to crash everything to make you beg them to 'fix' things by returning to the status quo.
    - randomvis on 12/08/2022 - 18:00
      
      +1
      
      This feels like theft— a slower form of communism. This 2.5% is like compound interest. You will lose half of your asset's value every 20 years.
      
      Why not just tax less and to bridge the tax gap, spend less as a government.
      - BravoWhiskey on 12/08/2022 - 18:11
        
        +1
        
        @randomvis: Well, inflation is already doing it to your earning capacity and cash… except asset prices tend to rise in lock with it.
        
        It's not theft, it's "You want the benefits of a society, prepare to pay for it". If you hold an asset, it should be generating wealth. Use it or lose it.
        
        Money will be diverted from less productive assets (like - i dunno, a $4 million dollar home that you bought for 500k 20 years ago and did very little with) to more productive assets.
        
        randomvis on 12/08/2022 - 18:15
        
        +2
        
        @BravoWhiskey: Inflation is hidden taxation and taxation is slavery.
        
        If you are taxed at 100% are you not a slave?
        
        You think it benefits society— but that's naive. It will just go into banker bailouts and handouts to Qantas.
    - SlavOz on 12/08/2022 - 19:19
      
      Or you don't have enough money to get yourself off the ground, buy a car for transportation, buy the right clothes for an interview
      
      These things happen over time. It takes years to save up for your own car.
      
      Clothes for an interview? If you can't afford a basic pair of trousers and a collar shirt ($100 at the most), I doubt you have the skills or discipline to do any job that requires that attire. Go on the job site where you can work in shorts and a tank top.
      
      What we need is a program that encourages young people to get off their ass and start saving. Instead, we con them into a user's degree that we know will never get them a job, then slap them with a $50 debt.
      
      There's no use to raising taxes to solve problems we caused ourselves.
      - Quantumcat on 12/08/2022 - 21:30
        
        @SlavOz:
        
        These things happen over time. It takes years to save up for your own car.
        
        How are people going to save when they don't even have enough to afford their rent or their bills? A car is out of the reach of many people.
        
        Clothes for an interview? If you can't afford a basic pair of trousers and a collar shirt ($100 at the most), I doubt you have the skills or discipline to do any job that requires that attire. Go on the job site where you can work in shorts and a tank top.
        
        Again see above. There are people living hand to mouth who literally cannot afford that. Luckily there are charities that get nice second hand clothes to give to people in these situations. You are kidding yourself if you think you can get a job by turning up in very old clothes with holes in them.
        
        Try to picture what life would be like if you erased everything you had on your CV including all your education, and you didn't have the experience from your past jobs in your head. Now picture the $60 in your account that you have left from the last time you did a cashie labouring job, and you have rent for the one room you live in due next week and Centrelink isn't giving you anything until the day after, so you are stressed about pissing off your landlord by asking for some extra time to pay the rent, especially since the same thing happened only two months ago and he was threatening to kick you out then. You've already been to two interviews this week and gotten knocked back for all of them, and you are despairing because they were the only ones you'd seen in a while that didn't require any certificates. You walk 3 kilometres to the library (not going to waste even $3 on a bus ticket, you need every cent of that $60 for all of the next week's meals), and start browsing jobs on their computer, because you don't have one at home and WiFi is not included in your rent to browse on your old phone. And in any case writing cover letters and editing your resume is very difficult on a phone. Next week you manage to score another interview, but it is a decent distance away, and you can't afford an Uber so you travel on two buses and have to walk a good distance so when you get there you are dusty and muddy, wet, and smell like sweat which along with your ill-fitting clothes (they were the best the charity could give you), doesn't give a very good impression. You do your best at the interview and answer the questions pretty darn well but you don't get the job.
bobwokeup on 12/08/2022 - 12:42

+1

I’m a high income earner and I think it’s fair as I have investments which are tax deductible. If other high income owners choose not to do that then that’s their decision.
- Trying2SaveABuck on 12/08/2022 - 21:21
  
  -3
  
  you're welcome to pay more tax if you think the system doesnt tax you enough
  - us3rnam3tak3n on 13/08/2022 - 02:27
    
    +1
    
    Yet another of your comments that shows that you either didn't read or didn't comprehend the post you're replying to.
  - JohnHowardsEyebrows on 14/08/2022 - 21:34
    
    You certainly win the sociopath award for this thread.
rlf on 12/08/2022 - 12:53

-1

Low income earners should stop wasting their money on pokies, sports betting, ciggies and drugs.
Dalton on 12/08/2022 - 12:59

+2

Those who derive the most benefit from a stable society should pay the most to support it.

And, as a corollary, those who earn the least can feel that the society they belong to lacks stability.
filmer on 12/08/2022 - 13:32

I wonder how much % of total money earnt that 3% make up, and how much % they lose to tax above the base living rate.

Eg.30k minimum livable standard.
- Minimum wage $42,224. Tax $4,945.24. This bracket is actually being taxed 42% of their excess without factoring in GST where most the money spent goes to GST.
- 80k wage, Taxed 18k. They are being taxed 35% of their excess money.
- 180k wage, Tax $55,267.00. This bracket is being taxed 35% of their excess money.

When you look at it deeper, the low-income are paying relatively more tax.
- Trying2SaveABuck on 12/08/2022 - 13:35
  
  +2
  
  55k>18k>5k
  
  how do low income people pay more tax?
  
  they pay more as a % of there income they might in the examply you have given but they still pay WAY less tax - additionally they also access more services ie if you are on a lower income you have better access to family tax benefit, your less likely to be 'means tested' out of welfare if you are out of work etc
  
  the top 3% pay more tax then the bottom 80% how is that fair? yet the top 3% probably are means tested out of almost any services that they help fund????
  
  ie means tested out of pension, welfare, family tax benefit etc
  
  got to change the system to benefit all otherwise all that will happen is more and more top earns will leave Aus for tax reasons like more of our high paid athletes
  - filmer on 12/08/2022 - 13:38
    
    +2
    
    I said more relative tax.
    
    Are you implying that in a society we should punish those who aren't as fortunate as others?
    
    I see you edited. Like I said, how much % of total money earnt do they make up. It takes 5 minimum wage workers to make a single one of those people. Of course they make up a large portion of the tax paid.
    
    Edit: I think a lot of people like to imagine there was no luck, in terms of opportunity, or genetics that led them to make the money they do, therefore they believe they should give nothing back. This is just wrong. Yes, some people don't want to put in the work, but even that in and of itself is genetics and was practically decided upon their birth.
    - Trying2SaveABuck on 12/08/2022 - 13:41
      
      +2
      
      Are you implying that in a society we should punish those who aren't as fortunate as others?
      
      no i think society should treat everyone the same regardless of your income - the current system punishes hard workers and rewards lazy people
      - filmer on 12/08/2022 - 13:44
        
        +2
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck: I think you need to find some self-awareness. You would probably be right at home in Nazi Germany.
        
        I can assure you a lot of the population on the minimum wage would love to have the opportunity, or the ability to make the money these high tax payers are making. I'm sure they just love living pay check to pay check and hoping they have enough to pay for fuel to take their kids to sports practice.
        
        Trying2SaveABuck on 12/08/2022 - 13:45
        
        +1
        
        @filmer:
        
        You would probably be right at home in Nazi Germany.
        
        was a socialist left wing party im fairly centre-right mate
        
        i believe people who work hard should be reward and those who dont should not be carried by those who do work hard. I think you might find that Nazi Germany, Communist Russia-USSR/China would suit your mentality….
        
        filmer on 12/08/2022 - 13:47
        
        +1
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck: Do you think having 100k a year after minimum living expenses and tax is not rewarded compared to having 6k a year after living expenses and tax?
        
        Trying2SaveABuck on 12/08/2022 - 13:52
        
        +3
        
        @filmer: Not if you worked and earned that money?
        
        i personally am against income tax in general why right does the government have to money we earn?
        
        Why do MPs have the ability to spend billions in Victorias case spend 1bn to not build a road?
        
        The arguement the government provides services if fair but 10% of expenditure goes to health care, 12% infrastructure, 3% defence, 9% education the rest as far as im concerned is wasted on mostly welfare and over paid bureaucrats - bar those essential spends i dont agree with paying tax at all as the people incharge of spending the money imho arent good a managing it
        
        why should people doing the right think pay for over half the crap the government is spending on that has almost no benefit to them?
        
        if you want more service start a charity and let people decide if they want to support foreign aid, aboriginals extra welfare, social housing, injecting rooms, etc
        
        Randolph Duke on 12/08/2022 - 14:19
        
        +1
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck: Looks at USA.
        Looks at Australia.
        
        Anyone advocating for a US style approach to services etc has never lived there. It’s shit if you’re not earning well. And no - not everyone can earn well, otherwise no one is earning well. Someone has to do menial jobs and they shouldn’t be shunned in society for doing so, and have an adequate safety net so they don’t end on the streets, or worse.
        
        filmer on 12/08/2022 - 14:19
        
        +3
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck: Oh, so helping your fellow humans less fortunate than yourself is a waste of money?
        
        This is where I draw the comparison to being a Nazi. Their whole shtick was around them believing every other race was beneath them.
        
        You say doing the right thing is earning over 180k? You make it sound like every person in society can earn this much. Do you think retail staff, customer service staff, delivery drivers etc should get paid 180k? If not, who should do it, if you think minimum wage people are lesser humans? What about those born disabled, or who became disabled with no choice in the matter? Should we just let them starve and die? You do realise how horrible of a person you should like, right?
        
        tomfool on 12/08/2022 - 15:42
        
        +3
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck:
        
        i personally am against income tax in general why right does the government have to money we earn?
        
        Where do we start.
        I assume you use roads, drink water from public infrastructure, benefited from education, protected by the military, live in a democracy, have benefited from the health system and hopefully think people who worked all their life deserve a pension?
        
        Its also called living in a society, be thankful you don't have to rely on welfare or have to use the health system. Being healthy and in a well paying job is a great position to be in.
        
        Now if only we could get the multi nationals to start paying their far share maybe the burden on you could be reduced.
        
        01001101 01000010 on 12/08/2022 - 14:29
        
        +3
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck:
        
        was a socialist left wing party
        
        There is an interesting write-up on this and how after the Night of the Long Knives there were no socialist elements left in the Nazi party.
        
        Were the Nazis socialists? No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934.
        https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists
        
        Randolph Duke on 12/08/2022 - 15:19
        
        +2
        
        @01001101 01000010: But it’s got socialist in the name, they must be left wing!
        
        BravoWhiskey on 12/08/2022 - 15:21
        
        +1
        
        @01001101 01000010: I think we're wasting time on anyone like this. He's not rich, but he's most likely been extremely lucky throughout his life - but definitely won't feel like it. He will have made his own way in the world, definitely not with help from the taxpayer in studying through school or university. His parents were probably narcissistic, or at least protected him from any real setbacks or emotional challenges.
        
        One day the luck will run out, the people in his life will realise that he's not good for them, maybe they'll get sick, maybe the money train will slow down. Maybe he will double down on the "Every man for himself" attitude, or maybe he will change his tune to "why is the system effecting me!". Most likely, some combination of both of these in a world of doublethink.
        
        Or maybe he will see through it all and realise how challenging the world is for those who haven't been lucky, and look to help change it.
        
        Ask me how i know!
        
        Trying2SaveABuck on 12/08/2022 - 16:23
        
        +1
        
        @BravoWhiskey:
        
        extremely lucky throughout his life - but definitely won't feel like it.
        
        anyone dumb enough to 'believe' in 'luck' deserves to go no-where in life
        
        life isn't about luck it is about making the best of the opportunities your given - absolutely no one born and raised in Australia can complain they are not 'lucky' if you believe in that nonsense
        
        the opportunity this country gives its citizens is probably the best or up there with the best in the world to 'blame' luck kind of tells me you are one of those people who takes no responsibility for where you are in life and instead of getting you s—t together you are happy to blame everyone and everything else and want those who actually work hard and have made the most of their life to pay for you p—s poor mentality
        
        BravoWhiskey on 12/08/2022 - 17:10
        
        +4
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck: It's almost like I read your playbook.
        
        Luck is a thing - and it can have huge effects. You can have all the luck in the world and squander each and every opportunity and end up struggling in life. More often than that you will make one or two bad decisions, often before you are mentally able to make rational decisions, and be in a position where it's hard to find that 'luck' again. Behind the 8-ball.
        
        And look at your assumption - I am complaining about my lot in life. Except every assumption you've made about me is completely wrong. Because it doesn't occur to you why someone who is doing well out of the system complain about it. Except i'm in the 1% - in fact i'm probably in the 0.1%, and i got here from humble beginnings.
        
        But I am white, I went to free school that my parents could never afford if they had to pay out of pocket for everything. I had teachers who cared. I had parents who could see where my interests took me and were able to encourage or provide the ability for me to learn. And i had people who trusted me to help them with the things i'd learnt, who would then go on to give me jobs that would lead to networking. And i had a passport and institutional backing that let me travel the world with ease, earning as I went.
        
        But you're having trouble getting past the mentality that the position you're in might not be 100% down to your own hard work. And that will flow onto to other parts of your life.
        
        Again - ask me how i know.
        
        Trying2SaveABuck on 12/08/2022 - 21:26
        
        -3
        
        @BravoWhiskey:
        
        Luck is a thing - and it can have huge effects.
        
        i stopped reading there honestly i cant believe people are this stupid in life - believing in Luck is like believing in the tooth faith
        
        s—t happens in life some people win the lotto some get hit by drunk drivers and lose everything
        
        anyone who believes in luck which is essentially believing in a mystic force that helps and hinders some people is clearly not all there in the head
        
        pulpfiction on 12/08/2022 - 22:23
        
        +2
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck: I think you’re confusing the use of luck in this context (chance) and magic.
        
        filmer on 12/08/2022 - 22:51
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck: You say luck is not a thing, but what about those in the top 10 percentile in intelligence compared to those in the bottom 10 percentile? Did the more intelligent people 'earn' that, or were they lucky enough to be born with it?
        
        Trying2SaveABuck on 12/08/2022 - 22:57
        
        @filmer:
        
        You say luck is not a thing
        
        yes i am because it is made up - 'Luck' is dependent on the person some people consider themselves lucky to survive cancer where as others wont consider themselves 'lucky' to never have got it.
        
        some people consider winning at the pokies lucky when in reality it just math the house always wins thus 'your luck is someone elses bad luck' this is non-sense
        
        the fact you have internet, running freshwater and a safe place to sleep you would be considered 'lucky' by a large number of people but you dont say you are lucky every time you turn the tap on for a drink - the fact is luck is just people who take what they have for-granted and want more then they got but dont know how to get it and refuse to 'blame themselves'
        
        filmer on 14/08/2022 - 14:33
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck: So you completely ignore the rest of what I said which is quite relevant to what you are claiming isn't based on luck.
        
        helpme on 12/08/2022 - 22:08
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck: https://youtu.be/3LopI4YeC4I
        
        DingoBilly on 12/08/2022 - 17:30
        
        +4
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck: I think your problem is you just equate high income earning as hard-working, when that is not the case.
        
        I can assure you that in many cases, the more you earn, the less you end up working. As a manager I'm earning twice as much as I did when I was doing twice as much technical work. Many of my colleagues are the same - it becomes much easier to do less when you have money. And now I have money, I make even more money and it's super easy for me to move to a job and get another $30k without much hassle. Much easier than when I was jumping jobs for $5k a pop.
        
        Those who do work hard around me otherwise are getting screwed hard. What they really need is less tax at lower incomes and higher tax at higher incomes…
        
        And as the other poster posted - yes, luck has a massive factor in every single person's success. Whether it's the person earning 250k a year or the mega billionaires on the planet, if you think that they all got there from hard work alone you are completely oblivious to how the world is.
        
        satyaguru on 12/08/2022 - 18:01
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck: White Australia policy was crafted by ALP - left wing party which is the modern day reincarnation of Nazi Germany.
        
        SBOB on 12/08/2022 - 18:09
        
        +4
        
        @satyaguru: So the alp is the modern day nazi party now..
        Well, I guess we've reached the Godwin's law point of the thread.
        
        satyaguru on 13/08/2022 - 21:59
        
        -1
        
        @smartazz104: how about you try to continue the original conversation with your rebuttals instead of throwing insults. You do realise that can go both ways?
        
        smartazz104 on 13/08/2022 - 22:00
        
        @satyaguru: Congratulations, can you roll over and play fetch too?
BumbaT on 12/08/2022 - 13:55

So how much total $ does the 3.6% make compared to the rest of the peasants? Once we know that amount you can compare how much tax they are really paying compared to the majority who earn less, i.e., % tax per dollar earned as well as total $ value of these taxes would be a fairer comparison.
bobolo on 12/08/2022 - 13:55

+2

"work harder" should always be replaced with "take more risks"

Most people don't like risk and end up poor/mediocre forever. Nothing wrong with that - just don't expect the same quality of life with those that do
SlartiBartFozz on 12/08/2022 - 14:14

+1

According to the ATO https://www.fwc.gov.au/high-income-threshold, a 'HIGH INCOME EARNER' is an individual earning $162,000 or more.
Your definition of $90-180k doesn't really encapsulate that small group at all well. I believe if you define high earners more concisely, you should get a more supportive poll.

You should also consider that corporate and resources tax rates are far too low, executive salaries are too high — rather than taxing poor and middle income workers, corporations and multinationals are the big earners that should shoulder the greater, even entire, burden of tax in this country — paradoxically in many cases pay zero tax at all.
RolandWaites on 12/08/2022 - 14:21

+1

I know plenty of people on $90k+ and none of them are struggling because taxes are too high
monky on 12/08/2022 - 14:49

+1

I'm just a monky, so I dunno if my opinion means anything but…

Tax the rich.
- The Wololo Wombat on 12/08/2022 - 17:50
  
  +1
  
  Why should we tax the rich…?
  - monky on 12/08/2022 - 18:12
    
    +2
    
    I found out recently that rich people have money… I know it's crazy, but it's true!
    
    Later I found out we can actually use money to do cool things, like support the education and healthcare system as well as giving people warm places to sleep in winter and food to eat when they're hungry.
    
    I found out that Gina Rinehart's has about $32 billion dollars just in her bank account… You could buy over 8 BILLION KFC go buckets with that! (I like the one with the chicken tender, it's really good!)
    
    Now I know she's a hefty lass, but surely she couldn't eat all that chicken right? And I work really hard for my money, and I don't see her shoveling rocks or laying bricks all day… So why do I and a lot of people around me have less than her?
    
    Strange times…
    - The Wololo Wombat on 12/08/2022 - 18:25
      
      +1
      
      Let's say you earn minimum wage in Australia. That puts you in the richest 5% of the world - with 10x more than the average person
      
      How much of your wage do you give to support others? Even 1% of a minimum wage income could support the health and education of an entire family in many places around the world, lifting them out of poverty.
      - monky on 12/08/2022 - 18:33
        
        @The Wololo Wombat: After my needs fundamental for survival are met?
        
        All of it.
        
        The Wololo Wombat on 12/08/2022 - 18:35
        
        +1
        
        @monky: Is this your way of justifying not being generous until you own your own home, or did I read too much into what you said?
        
        monky on 12/08/2022 - 18:54
        
        @The Wololo Wombat: Reading an appropriate amount, but it sounds better though certain ideological lens.
        
        I wouldn't need to own my own house if I was provided one.
        
        The Wololo Wombat on 12/08/2022 - 19:03
        
        +2
        
        @monky: Why not rent for a few years and buy this one?
        
        Also, if, right now, you could literally provide housing for someone in the third world, for say, 5% of your income… why do you expect someone else to do the same for you (Gina's $$ funding, through tax, your house)
        
        You are the Gina R to the third world.
        
        monky on 12/08/2022 - 19:18
        
        @The Wololo Wombat: It's a nice house for sure, but it's beside the point I was addressing.
        
        I don't mind gesturing (disingenuous or otherwise) how you see my moral position on taxing ultra-wealthy individuals to make society better, but I really don't have any more time to wax Marxist theory with you on OzBargain of all places, maybe some other time.
        
        Congrats on the new job btw, hooroo!
        
        The Wololo Wombat on 12/08/2022 - 19:26
        
        +2
        
        @monky: Thanks mate! I enjoyed the chat.
        
        I sniffed the Marxism from you're first post and decided to engage. I think the heart of a Marxist is in the right spot, but I've seldom met a Marxist who was generous to those substantially poorer than themselves… and that feels hypocritical.
        
        Maybe more people would listen to your cause if you practised what you preached…. I challenge you to sponser a child or two… or help out at a homeless shelter on a regular basis (perhaps you already are).
Cheapsize on 12/08/2022 - 15:04

+1

How does one tax wealth.. I mean are you paying tax every year on what you own? Then we have depreciation .. other than growing assets who would pay tax then?
If Australia can effectively tax all entities then there's a case for reducing tax across the board or simplification. Close the loopholes.
DeToxin on 12/08/2022 - 15:07

+2

The question is not written correctly. 90-180k is not really "high income" when people imagine someone being "rich" and not paying enough tax.

I wouldn't mind the tax rate for that income bracket being lowered a bit if people earning 200/300/500k/1M+ paid their fair share.

My problem is that the really wealthy people in Australia have the tools and mechanisms available to them to correctly manage "tax avoidance" which is really just a phrase used to describe the legal loopholes that are made by politicians to enable their corporate buddies to evade tax legally.

So if you change the poll to be more objective, like "people earning more than X pay too much tax" then I'll vote.
velcrochicken on 12/08/2022 - 15:23

The facts are not everyone can have a high income, people still need to clean, cook, look after the elderly, teach our kids. All these jobs are usually paying under 100k a year. I love the stupid argument that you shouldn't be punished for working hard and earning a high income, the same could be said for the staff cleaning the elderly after they shit themselves, why should they be punished for working in an industry that we all will need eventually
These jobs would not be survivable without paying lower tax rates.
Higher income earners also have far more ways to reduce there tax bracket.
- SlavOz on 12/08/2022 - 19:35
  
  -5
  
  If we truly needed aged care, the government wouldn't have to force us to give up our taxes and pay for it. How come we don't have a nationalised internet provider or plumbing service? It's because the free market already provides these things, in other words there is ample demand for it that people are willing to pay.
  
  The fact is, most people don't care what happens to them when they're 80. It's a long shot that you'll live to that age, and most people like to believe they'll have enough wealth to take care of themselves or their family would be willing to do it. Society would not fall apart without it. We can function without aged care. We can't function without most of the jobs high-income earners do.
  
  That is why they earn more than the ass wipers.
  - Awoke on 12/08/2022 - 20:11
    
    +1
    
    My feelings the same. Aged care is just government welfare. On that matter, welfare, and I mean all welfare including family tax benefits and pensions should all be on indue cashless cards.
    
    Sick and tired of government handouts being spent on things that aren’t necessities. Add to that toll cash backs as far as im concerned.
  - [Deactivated] on 12/08/2022 - 22:27
    
    most people don't care what happens to them when they're 80. It's a long shot that you'll live to that age
    
    Most people care a lot. More than half of Men who are 50 will live to 83.3 and Women to nearly 87 in Australia. Hardly a ‘long shot’.
    
    The free market provides most aged care, it’s why there’s so much neglect in the system. The worst of both worlds, government funding for private providers.
    
    A free market requires an informed consumer with agency, something many people lose as they age.
    - SlavOz on 12/08/2022 - 22:53
      
      -2
      
      More than half of Men who are 50 will live to 83.3 and Women to nearly 87 in Australia
      
      Yes but the average person doesn't really believe that, so they don't plan for it. Life expectancy is a big IF. You could die in a car crash tomorrow, or we could all be nuked by Kim Jong Un. And if you do make it to 80, you haven't really got much reason to live anymore.
      
      The worst of both worlds, government funding for private providers.
      
      Absolutely spot on.
      
      A free market requires an informed consumer with agency, something many people lose as they age.
      
      I would assume most people in aged care are having their affairs managed by family. If they're not, we have an even bigger problem on our hands as a society as we are clearly heading in the wrong direction.
      
      I do feel terrible for some of these people. They have no idea where they are and think that the hospital is some sort of torture chamber that someone has trapped them in. They're having needles shoved in them as they fight and scream for help. It reminds me of I Am Legend where the protagonist eventually realises he's the bad guy.
      - [Deactivated] on 12/08/2022 - 23:04
        
        @SlavOz:
        
        Yes but the average person doesn't really believe that, so they don't plan for it. Life expectancy is a big IF. You could die in a car crash tomorrow, or we could all be nuked by Kim Jong Un. And if you do make it to 80, you haven't really got much reason to live anymore.
        
        Taxes aren’t a problem if you plan to die before the ATO catches up with you. Of course people can die any time, but odds are most will still be living full lives in their 80’s, especially if they make it out of their 20’s. It’s pretty dark to think people in their 80’s don’t have a reason to live, there are happy, healthy people in their 90’s plus.
        
        I would assume most people in aged care are having their affairs managed by family. If they're not, we have an even bigger problem on our hands as a society as we are clearly heading in the wrong direction.
        
        Not everyone’s going to have a family and their families are not well informed, I have heard all too many bad stories as recently as this week about families not being told things. It’s not easy to just move to another provider unfortunately either, just getting care is nearly impossible because staff are poorly paid so there’s a shortage, despite qualification requirements being abysmal.
        
        It reminds me of I Am Legend where the protagonist eventually realises he's the bad guy.
        
        Not in the ending they replaced it with for the cinema release :/
        
        SlavOz on 13/08/2022 - 09:28
        
        -1
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        It’s pretty dark to think people in their 80’s don’t have a reason to live, there are happy, healthy people in their 90’s plus.
        
        Happiness in old age comes from appreciating the memories and legacy you've built. Watching your kids grow and have their own kids etc. It's not the same kind of happiness you or I feel when waking up in the morning and knowing there are endless possibilities out there for us. We could change jobs, move to another country, meet a partner, enjoy a binge of junk food, ride a roller coaster etc. You can't do any of that on your 80s. You're in pain and your bodily functions barely work.
        
        Most surveys indicate that people have no desire living past the age of 85-90. Some want to go even sooner. The worst thing that could ever happen is outliving your lifelong spouse or your own kids, and that becomes a nearer possibility every day.
        
        I think we like to pretend old people value their lives because we want to believe we'd be the same way, but it's just our lack of perspective talking.
richrichie on 12/08/2022 - 15:24

+2

I don't know much about taxes in general, but how does this work in the context of a family?

Let's say we have a couple that are earning $100K each, they will have about $75K income each after tax and medicare levy (about $150K combined between the two of them).
Comparing that to a single income family who also earn $200K, they will have about $135K net income after tax and medicare levy.

So, in theory, those with single income in general will have to pay more tax, despite the household income is essentially the same?

Is my calculation above correct, or will there be a different calculation for single income family?
- Mr Haj on 12/08/2022 - 15:34
  
  Yes someone earning 200k pays more tax per dollar earned than someone on 100k
  - richrichie on 12/08/2022 - 17:24
    
    +1
    
    Isn't this a bit unfair to single income family then? Overall, their family is not earning more, but taxed approximately 8% more each year (based on my example above)?
    - Elijha on 12/08/2022 - 20:24
      
      +1
      
      What if the single income family has 1 child and the double 5 children?
      
      You are correct we don’t tax income based on the size of your family or how many mouths you have to feed.
Mr Haj on 12/08/2022 - 15:30

+1

3.6 per cent of Aussies account for more than 31 per cent of tax revenue.

How much do you think they should pay? 3.6% of Australia's tax revenue? They probably earn ~20% of our nations income.

Unpopular Opinion High Income Earners Pay too Much Tax

Poll Options

Comments

New Forum Topics