When getting to and from work these expenses are incurred directly in order to earn income which is usually the criteria for any other expense.
So it's reasonable that they should be deductible, don't you think?
Public Transport, Car Parking, Petrol, Tolls and Car Wear and Tear Should All Be Tax Deductible
FezMonkey on 21/06/2024 - 15:31
Last edited 21/06/2024 - 15:45 by 1 other user
Last edited 21/06/2024 - 15:45 by 1 other user
Poll Options
- 263Agree
- 30Partially agree/disagree
- 268Disagree
Comments
No, there is an ATO Tax ruling that they are not.
Well if the masters have deemed it so, it must be correct!
it must be correct!
It is, unless you want to get caught in a tax scam and appear on a current affair…
Look up, you may see sarcasm or a joke flying over your head.
No problem, who watches A Current Affair anyway.
when have the ATO ever been wrong?!
Oh wait when you're making the laws and changing them as you go you can't be wrong.
when have the ATO ever been wrong?
It’s not wrong, it’s the law.
The ATO doesn't make the laws. The government does. The ATO is there to interpret and enforce and recover taxes
I'd be happy if the government/ATO hurried up and introduced standardised deductions for wage earners. Spend less time auditing personal tax returns and more time on unpaid super or the big end of town.
Maybe by 2030….
That would make it easier to audit the big end of town and imply that they are after said big end of town.
That would get both major political parties a rap on the knuckles from said big end of town.
Then their political donations dry up, all the advertising space gets taken up by ads saying they're terrible, they lose the next election and their replacements will conveniently revert everything to the way they were under the guise of aspiration or freedom.
They were going to do this back in the Gillard days, but that was reversed. I think the reasoning was that MyTax made things much easier to put in your tax return.
Can’t possibly see how people would abuse the idea
Public transport should be free … Reduce congestion on the roads. Imagine if every family has 2 cars (husband and wife). I have seen that previously where many houses have 2 cars or more …
Do you want to get stuck on the road for 1 or 2 hours? The chance is higher than winning jackpot or getting struck by lightning …
It practically is free. It's just that people value their time more than the money they'd save.
It's very much not practically free in at least VIC, SA, and QLD. It will be practically free soon for a bit in QLD though.
Of course, it is definitely a lot cheaper than owning and using a car, and the costs of public transport (for SA and metropolitan VIC) at least are relatively fixed.I personally think that bikes/e-bikes should be incentivised by the government. Bikes are a lot more cost effective, reduce traffic congestion, keep people healthier than if they just drove around, and they do less damage to road surfaces.
However, I do understand that there are also caveats such as the not insigificant cost of acquiring a bike (particularly a decent e-bike), the lack of bike lanes or bike trails in many areas, the lack of good infrastructure in many areas to support cyclists, and obviously the increased time it may take to travel long distances.
In VIC, for a full fare, the cheapest you can get is $2067 per year for high frequency (4+ days a week) use.
1 day's Public transport fees can feed a kid in Africa for a month.
^^ As someone who previously only took public transport and has now bought a car, the time I save is amazing
It practically is free. It's just that people value their time more than the money they'd save.
You can easily spend $50+ a week on PT if you commute daily. $200 a month is a lot for a lot of people.
It only covers a fraction of the costs. The tax payer picks up the rest.
"houses have 2 cars or more …", guilty
.
If your primary place of work could be at home then hell yes if they're forcing you back to the office.
This this this.
Public Transport, Car Parking, Petrol, Tolls and Car Wear and Tear Should All Be Tax Deductible
So it's reasonable that they should be deductible, don't you think?Nope, as its very open ended.
Why should someone who elects to drive a monster truck or lives so far away that it costs them $100/day in fuel get to claim that a tax expense compared to someone who lives walking distance?
How do we know that all your wear/tear claims are for driving to work?
I need a house and food to do my job, why can't I claim them too?
But I would agree that PT should be a tax expense, but it is already gov funded so kinda already is. Maybe if you buy a yearly ticket you can claim it.
Lets be honest though,
The tradies buying $150k Dodge Rams and F350's don't really need them yet they get to deduct them.
Totally can be honest about that, the tax laws around these 'utes' needs to go now….
All these dual cab Utes picking up kids as they are tax write offs.
they should make it a law that business cars need to have business logo on sides of cars. would be fun
@askbargain: Yep, business logos is a start, plus need to be used for REAL business, not picking up the kids from school or out shopping by the wife, I mean admin lady.
The laws need to go that make monster trucks or dual cab 4wd as 'tools of the trade' and encourage smaller vehicles.
@JimmyF: I am pretty sure by tax law deductions should only be the portion that the vehicle is used for work. So if half the driving is picking up kids, shopping, weekends etc. then only 50% of costs (servicing, tyres, petrol etc etc) should be deductible, and if provided by your company then half should be attracting FBT.
@filmer: Most of these utes at the school pickup, are owned by sole trader/owner businesses, so they just fudge the usage as no one is checking.
logo on sides of cars
As a worker I don't want to have to advertise the company I work for on my own vehicle. I'd love to drive our small economical Swift around instead of my dual cab, but fitting a 6m length of pipe onto the roof of the Swift wouldn't work.
The small family company I work for isn't big enough / doesn't have the resources to buy extra vehicles for its employees, so we drive our own vehicles around. I think it's fair that I can claim the extra fuel and wear and tear on my vehicle carrying the tools needed for jobs to work. If an office worker had to carry their tools (laptop/computer etc) to different sites everyday then they should be able to claim it too.
As a worker I don't want to have to advertise the company I work for on my own vehicle.
We're not talking if you use your own vehicle while employed, we're talking sole traders who get a heap of tax deductions for buying a tool of the trade, aka dual cab 4x4, so the wife, I mean admin lady gets a 'work vehicle' that the company is paying for.
so we drive our own vehicles around. I think it's fair that I can claim the extra fuel and wear and tear on my vehicle
Again, a totally legal tax deduction if used in your line of work. Picking up the kids and going shopping isn't part of most peoples jobs.
If an office worker had to carry their tools (laptop/computer etc) to different sites everyday then they should be able to claim it too.
LOL yes because they can't just slip their laptop into their backpack like everyone else? No deal, its like saying they have to drive and claim that as they take lunch to work and its too hard to carry.
The FBT exemptions for utes have been significantly curtailed, however they either arent being treated correctly, or the exemptions that remain are being incorrectly claimed. The ATO could make serious money auditing this, and if the ATO ever starts offering commissions, I know what Id be targeting
@RMBC: They're about to, they're now searching statewide motor vehicle registries for vehicles registered in a company name. Half a second of data matching with the FBT boxes on previously lodged tax returns by the company and you have a form letter going out in the mail, etc.
It'll be a wide net, and anyone who doesn't have a log book is going to get a surprise.
Because they're self-employed and drive from work site to work site. Feel free to do the same as an employee, if you have to drive in the same pattern. There's nothing stopping you.
As for the price of the car, it's immaterial - you can't deduct the entire price of the car, only yearly depreciation, and that is capped as if your car were at the LCT threshold, so any further depreciation can't be claimed.
That's only true for vehicles classified as cars; most of these utes are not classified as such due to their load carrying capacity vs people carrying capacity; as such theyre considered commercial vehicles and not subject to the luxury car tax, gst or the depreciation limit
what's next? an iphone 15 pro max and m4 ipad pro because you need directions to get to work?
I pay via tap for my fuel using my phone, so yes totally should be a tax deduction!
if you carry bulky items needed for work then you can tax deduct driving to work and back home.
so
dont ask work for a laptop
ask for a full size tower computerif you carry bulky items needed for work then you can tax deduct driving to work and back home.
Only if you have a valid need to take them home every night.
OFC so you can wfh
So paid overtime?
@JimmyF: well, if you WFH two days a week and 3 from the office.
then mon = office
tue = home
wed = office
thurs = home
fri = office ..you gotta keep taking it in and back, except for friday cos then that can roll over to monday
When I think of tax as being a subscription fee for living in Australia I question whether the value proposition is really all there especially when I consider all the other "hidden" taxes I pay outside of my income tax. Think the only tax you pay is your income tax? Nope. Fuel excise, land taxes, alcohol taxes, GST, Medicare Levy Surcharge (and if not that then PHI, because either way (profanity) you)… these — and more — are all other costs you have to pay to live in Australia. It's not good enough that I pay my income tax (which the gov will just mindlessly waste anyway on their shitty policies because free endless money, yay!, e.g. simping to the US and giving them $370 BILLION for EIGHT submarines to protect this entire continent from an imaginary attack from our largest trading partner LOL, giving money to NDIS carers charging $90/hr to take their patient to the movies, throwing money at FHB grants to pump the property ponzi even further etc.), I have to pay all these other taxes that are blended into everyday expenses if I actually want to checks notes go to work and checks notes live my life?? LMAO!!!!
Do I think these things mentioned should be tax deductible? Not sure really, I just think Aussies are screwed hard when it comes to taxes and the hidden taxes all around us are designed to screw us even harder.
OP, you'd best to learn how to minimise your tax obligations rather than wishing for a utopia in this country.
it's almost as if there's a cost to maintaining the country.
why should i pay more fuel excise if i drive less?
Obviously there is a cost to maintain things but I didn't know that giving the US $370 billion was part of those maintenance costs. Although I would like to see what the politicians got out of that deal, I have no doubt they'd benefit directly even if it means they land a cushy job in that area after they leave office.
I don't think I said people should pay more fuel excise if they drive less.
big number, small percentage.
I don't think I said people should pay more fuel excise if they drive less.
aren't you complaining about all the taxes you pay? suggesting that you shouldn't pay any tax other than income tax?
big number, small percentage.
It's still a large number that could've been put into other things like more schools or housing.
aren't you complaining about all the taxes you pay? suggesting that you shouldn't pay any tax other than income tax?
Oh I see what you mean now by your original question. Yes that's a fair point, the only way you pay these extra taxes are if you consume. The problem I have is that they're somewhat hidden from view, and you have a point in that it wouldn't make sense to add them into income tax if you don't consume.
@Ghost47: It’s already part of the the defense budget?
How are they hidden? The price you see already includes it.
@askbargain: In that case I think the defence budget is too large.
Maybe "hidden" isn't the best term to use. They are definitely there on the receipt, but I would think when people talk about taxes in general they mainly think about income tax first then these other taxes second (if at all). That's the case when I talk to people in general anyway.
@Ghost47: If the value proposition doesn't stack up, i.e. you get less benefit from living here than the taxes you pay, surely the only reasonable conclusion is you should live somewhere else? Somewhere with a better value proposition?
@larndis: Unlike some people I’d rather not abandon my aging parents or start over in a new country again. As a taxpayer I should be allowed to criticise issues I see in the system without trying to be convinced I’m wrong or prodded to consider leaving it entirely.
IMO this country could be a LOT better than what it is but politicians keep screwing everyone over to take care of themselves and their rich mates and a large part of the problem are people who choose not acknowledge the blatant issues that exist and instead say “well you can just leave”.
@Ghost47: Sorry, did I say there weren't any issues? Sounds like what you're now saying is that the benefits do outweigh the costs.
Posting on ozbargain is pretty unlikely to change anything though, do you get involved in politics? Write to your local members about things you're unhappy about? Offer support to your preferred candidate? Attend council meetings? Run for government yourself?
If you're not willing to get involved, or leave the country, then you accepting the way things are and YOU are, in your words, 'a large part of the problem'.
Sorry, did I say there weren't any issues?
It’s pretty obvious to me by constantly challenging me that you don’t agree with what I have to say.
Posting on ozbargain is pretty unlikely to change anything though, do you get involved in politics? Write to your local members about things you're unhappy about? Offer support to your preferred candidate? Attend council meetings? Run for government yourself?
I have written to MPs and local councils to try and oppose certain things yes. You are extremely naive if you think that just anyone can run for government or writing a letter will guarantee change. Imagine thinking someone can just go and write a letter and the entire status quo will change. Or someone can just go and run for government without any donations from rich people who will benefit from them. You clearly have very little understanding of how the world actually works. The 1% will do everything in their power to keep the poors poor and I’m not in the 1%, so if anything, complaining is really the only thing I can do.
If you're not willing to get involved, or leave the country, then you accepting the way things are and YOU are, in your words, 'a large part of the problem'.
Better than you, the person crying about the people complaining about how the country could be a lot better than it is. I’m sure the irony will be missed there (and it’s also hilarious your location is Canberra LMFAO).
I’m flattered you think I should be Prime Minister though, after all asking those questions is an obvious sign that deep down you know what I’ve complained about is all very real and happening in this country.
It’s pretty obvious to me by constantly challenging me
the person crying about the people complaining about how the country could be a lot better than it is
Sorry, what?
It's not good enough that I pay my income tax
Income tax used to be much higher, it is always reduced and never increased. So yeah gov needs lots of hidden taxes to recover the money.
Increase the income tax, ditch a heap of the other hidden taxes. Remove lots of deductions and the world will be a much happier place. I mean we have over 100 people who 'earned' $1m in the year but paid no tax due to all these 'deductions.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-17/millionaires-paid-no-…
$370 BILLION for EIGHT submarines
and the money for scummo to cancel the french subs!
Income tax used to be much higher, it is always reduced and never increased. So yeah gov needs lots of hidden taxes to recover the money.
Hmm that actually makes sense lol. Offer tax cuts like they're doing something and then just introduce other taxes.. what a god damn joke.
Increase the income tax, ditch a heap of the other hidden taxes.
askbargain had a good point though, it's not really fair on others to raise income taxes if they don't use a lot of fuel or whatever.
and the money for scummo to cancel the french subs!
What can I say, politicians are wasteful fools.
Hmm that actually makes sense lol. Offer tax cuts like they're doing something and then just introduce other taxes.. what a god damn joke.
Just like us, the gov needs the 'income' to balance the budget, so cutting income taxes means they have to make it up elsewhere.
askbargain had a good point though, it's not really fair on others to raise income taxes if they don't use a lot of fuel or whatever.
Ditch the fuel tax completely, its not used for roads anyhow.
People should be taxed based on income, not how they spend their income. The tax scales need adjust to include high % rates, so earn over $250k a year, 55%, over $350k, 60%, over $700k, 70%.
There really isn't a need the average person needs a $2m paycheck. High tax rates will remove the greed we are seeing in business today.
What can I say, politicians are wasteful fools.
Its easy to spend other peoples money.
Just like us, the gov needs the 'income' to balance the budget, so cutting income taxes means they have to make it up elsewhere.
I wonder if — like a household — they could optimise their spending so as not increase other taxes? Probably just wishful thinking, when money comes easy you just blow it on crap without second thought. "Ah what's another $370 billion between mates to protect ourselves from an imaginary attack from China?! We're mates! You'll give me that job when I leave office though, right?"
Ditch the fuel tax completely, its not used for roads anyhow.
I thought it was? What is it used for if not roads?
People should be taxed based on income, not how they spend their income. The tax scales need adjust to include high % rates, so earn over $250k a year, 55%, over $350k, 60%, over $700k, 70%.
There really isn't a need the average person needs a $2m paycheck.
Someone's going to call you a commie for saying that lol. But yeah, I get with why people who earn a lot would want to keep all their money (I would too) but if you're getting that much per year and you work for even three years and you still aren't satisfied then there's probably other issues that need to be addressed.
Its easy to spend other peoples money.
It sure is.
I thought it was? What is it used for if not roads?
That is what they want you to think so you feel better about paying $40 in taxes when you put $80 fuel in your car.
The fuel tax goes into the general tax revenue, as they say here "Fuel excise is a tax and contributes to the revenue side of the budget.".
https://www.pbo.gov.au/about-budgets/budget-insights/budget-…
Someone's going to call you a commie for saying that lol. But yeah, I get with why people who earn a lot would want to keep all their money (I would too) but if you're getting that much per year and you work for even three years and you still aren't satisfied then there's probably other issues that need to be addressed.
Yeah I get that. But honestly we have CEOs being paid millions and millions a year, how many millions do you need? Is Gina Reinhart twice as happy now with her $30 billion dollars compared to pre COVID when it was only $15 billion?
Honestly what 'extra' can she do now that she couldn't do with $15 billion?
But honestly we have CEOs being paid millions and millions a year, how many millions do you need? Is Gina Reinhart twice as happy now with her $30 billion dollars compared to pre COVID when it was only $15 billion?
I agree. Sadly the only thing these people care about is money, it’s a genetic issue. They can’t change their ways. I’ve met people in their 60s who aren’t super rich but are extremely happy and satisfied with their lives because they understand there’s more to life than money, most CEOs are sad losers who‘ve chased money their whole lives with no loving family (look at Rupert Murdoch for example, marrying his fifth wife in his 90s after what he’s basically done to the planet with his toxic media companies).
@JimmyF: You simultaneously say it's easy to spend other people's money yet also clamour for higher taxes.
I'm not sure how many people you know who earn over $350k but why you want surgeons and psychiatrists to pay a higher rate of tax is beyond me. If you want to tax more, tax churches, mosques, private schools, polluting companies and estates, rather than taxing high wage earners.
You simultaneously say it's easy to spend other people's money yet also clamour for higher taxes.
That I did, it is easy to spend other peoples money, the gov does it every day!
I also said higher taxes on income while removing a heap of other hidden taxes.
I'm not sure how many people you know who earn over $350k but why you want surgeons and psychiatrists to pay a higher rate of tax is beyond me
People earning $50k don't want to pay taxes, but that is the way it goes. Why does anyone need to earn $500k a year!?
The Macquarie CEO got nearly $58m in pay for one year. The Kogan CEO got nearly $18m. The CEO of the Goodman group got $43m
No one needs this much money year after year. If you earnt $180k a year, you would have to work for 100 years to get what Ruslan Kogan got in a single year.
As I said, how much money is enough? Is Gina Reinhart twice as happy now with her $30 billion dollars compared to pre COVID when it was only $15 billion?
If you want to tax more, tax churches, mosques, private schools, polluting companies and estates, rather than taxing high wage earners.
Do both!
Private school funding is a joke, with most getting more per child than public schools and lets not talk about the tax and payroll breaks they get.
But if mega high income earners are taxed heavily there is less reason for them to earn this morning. So maybe businesses will focus on providing better service, hire more people etc.
and if they don't, then more tax paid means better services for everyone in the country. Better education, better health, better roads and PT etc.
If you want to look at a user pays model only cast your eyes to the USA and it is horrid.
Income tax is increased all the time. In real terms, the $180k bracket which came about in 2007 would now be $275k due to bracket creep but it's only been moved to $190k. That's an effective increase in income tax.
In nominal terms, the NDIS levy was an increase in income tax. The VIC state government has massively increased land tax the past few years. Taxes increase all the time.
Why you want people to pay more income tax when they are already paying a marginal rate of 47%, I will never know.
Income tax is increased all the time
Income tax hasn't increased, wages have. Bracket creep.
Why you want people to pay more income tax when they are already paying a marginal rate of 47%, I will never know.
They won't, but that doesn't meant it shouldn't happy. Why do CEO need $80m a year to do the job? Are they really adding the value of 1600 workers @ 50k each?
@JimmyF: No. You've missed the point - this is common with you - income tax has increased: the NDIS levy saw a 0.5% permanent increase in the amount of income tax everyone (other than poor people) pays.
And bracket creep means more and more of us are paying 47% marginal.
You're also hilariously good at evading and changing the goalposts. In your own post you talked about increasing income tax for people on $250k a year or $350k a year - so why now talk about CEOs on $80m a year?
Jesus, all you do is evade, change goalposts and manipulate.
No. You've missed the point - this is common with you
LOL no this is common with you I think, Income tax rates have not increased. Show me where the tax scales have increased?
income tax has increased: the NDIS levy saw a 0.5% permanent increase in the amount of income tax everyone (other than poor people) pays.
LOL NDIS isn't really what we are talking about for income tax, slow clap.
You're also hilariously good at evading and changing the goalposts. In your own post you talked about increasing income tax for people on $250k a year or $350k a year - so why now talk about CEOs on $80m a year?
Just giving examples of extreme pays that you said shouldn't be taxed more So you're totally ok with CEOs banking $50m+ in the bank a year because they're doing a great job, while everyone else is having to pay increased NDIS taxes as these people are just banking millions a year.
Jesus, all you do is evade, change goalposts and manipulate.
Not at all, I answered your questions, you changed the goal post, making it about NDIS, not income tax rates. I never said NDIS, you did.
Yes tax rates should be ramped up when you start earning above $500k, no need for people to earn that much year after year without paying their fare share of taxes.
If people don't pay taxes, you lose those free services.
There is no model that you don't pay taxes all while having good roads, health, police, fire, medical services, PT etc. You think they are really 'free'?
Go for a visit to the hospital in the USA and you walk out with a $5k bill. Have a baby and you get a $100k bill.
Sounds like an amazing model to have compared to us.
@JimmyF: "LOL no this is common with you I think, Income tax rates have not increased. Show me where the tax scales have increased?"
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart…
https://www.visionaustralia.org/news/2019-08-23/government-c…
"Yes tax rates should be ramped up when you start earning above $500k, no need for people to earn that much year after year without paying their fare share of taxes. If people don't pay taxes, you lose those free services."
Firstly, I get nothing for free. I'm forced to pay taxes into medicare and private health insurance which I don't even need - in what sense is that getting something for free? I'd be happy to privatise it all.
Second of all $500k is not that much and well within the reach of anyone who's smart and capable. I'm still fairly young so I'm not there yet, but I'm not far off and I anticipate by my late 30s I'll have gotten to that mark. It's not for you to say whether others need their money or not, especially when your alternative is those people giving their money away to recipients who didn't earn it in the first place.
As for the USA, I lived there, and it's completely fine if you have a good job with insurance. Their healthcare system is way better than ours if you have private health. If you don't, that's your problem and you can deal with it.
Firstly, I get nothing for free. I'm forced to pay taxes into medicare and private health insurance which I don't even need - in what sense is that getting something for free? I'd be happy to privatise it all.
LOL you do get lots of tax payer services for 'free', everyone does.
Second of all $500k is not that much and well within the reach of anyone who's smart and capable
Only 10x the min salary….. I never said they couldn't earn more, its just tax more.
As for the USA, I lived there, and it's completely fine
Ahhh this explains lots of your views…. Carry on then… but as they say, if you don't like our taxes etc, you are welcome to move back.
@JimmyF: "LOL you do get lots of tax payer services for 'free', everyone does."
It's not for free if I pay $150k+ in tax a year though is it? I'd rather not pay the $150k and just pay on a user-pays basis. Would be much much fairer.
"Only 10x the min salary….. I never said they couldn't earn more, it's just tax more."
Min wage is literally for high schoolers at Macca's, and otherwise, people with absolutely 0 skills. Why stoop so low to use that as a comparator?
Min wage is literally for high schoolers at Macca's, and otherwise, people with absolutely 0 skills.
Min wage in Australia isn't the same as min wage in the USA.
It's not for free if I pay $150k+ in tax a year though is it? I'd rather not pay the $150k and just pay on a user-pays basis. Would be much much fairer.
If you are paying $150k in tax, you are earning $400k+ a year.
Your claim will be fairer, shows you don't really know the meaning of 'fair' as what you are saying won't be fair to all.
@JimmyF: "Min wage in Australia isn't the same as min wage in the USA."
It's still min wage. It's what you get if you're either very young and working a first job, or if you're a complete deadshit.
It's still min wage. It's what you get if you're either very young and working a first job, or if you're a complete deadshit.
LOL if you think they are remotely equal.
You don't see how min wage workers begging for tips….
But you seem like a nice guy, maybe you should move back to the states, they need more people like you and we need less.
@JimmyF: You'd miss my tax dollars too much buddy. Without people like me you'd go without healthcare and all the other shit that others pay on your behalf.
"LOL if you think they are remotely equal."
They're not equal; everyone starts out in their teens doing a min wage job - the difference is that 99% of people outgrow them by the time they turn 20, because they actually have marketable skills. However, I notice you taking great pride in going to bat for the few who don't.
You'd miss my tax dollars too much buddy. Without people like me you'd go without healthcare and all the other shit that others pay on your behalf.
I highly doubt it. I'm happy to give it a try for a few year to see if the country makes it without your tax dollars
They're not equal; everyone starts out in their teens doing a min wage job - the difference is that 99% of people outgrow them by the time they turn 20
Because in the USA you can't live on min wage, maybe that is why they have to seek a better job, which only finally pays what our min wage is.
However, I notice you taking great pride in going to bat for the few who don't.
Typical yank view, which is everything wrong with the USA, shit on the little people, then stomp on them as you try to get a leg up.
Now do the income tax brackets just a few years earlier. Everyone loves to choose 2007 as a comparison because it seems to be the only point in time we were paying less tax.
Edit: The top 20% specifically were paying less tax. These earners are still better off (2024) than higher periods while median earners are about the same.
Income tax used to be much higher, it is always reduced and never increased. So yeah gov needs lots of hidden taxes to recover the money.
Bracket creep has entered the chat.
I think the problem with reducing the hidden taxes is that once removed, the price will likely stay the same and profits will soar - it wont make it any cheaper.
It's a shame everyone voted against the mining tax back in the day…
It's a shame everyone voted against the mining tax back in the day…
Not sure it was everyone, just a few key players who made lots of noise as they needed to grow their billions!
Australia gave its future away for sure.
OzB needs a love button.
Gee, that's legit the nicest thing I've been told on these forums!
I seriously doubt the value proposition sometimes. For every dollar my household spends on any consumer expense other than taxes, we spend about $3 on taxes…which is a little ridiculous.
75% of your expenditure is taxes? Is that possible?
Yes, when you don't spend lavishly and are good savers.
@justworld: But savings are not taxed? Interest earned is.
So while you claim is valid, it is tossed out the window when you spend your savings.
@justworld: Yeah, but your claim above is very misleading…. every dollar your household spends on any consumer expense other than taxes, you spend about $3 on taxes. Making it sound like you pay a lot of tax.
But it isn't really true, as you are putting money into 'savings' and at some point that savings will be spent on a consumer expense.
@JimmyF: We do pay a lot of tax. Even if you spend moderately, most households have an inverted ratio - they spend more than they pay tax.
Where's the misleading bit?
The savings is never spent. Just goes into shares/property and stays there. We are aiming to FIRE in our 40s.
Where's the misleading bit?
As I said, at some point that savings will be spent on a consumer expense.
We are aiming to FIRE in our 40s.
Which you are aiming to do.
So your claim of spending $3 tax for every dollar you spend is misleading as you are not taxed at 75% like you seem to give the impression on, you are just not spending money today, but you WILL at one point spend that money.
@JimmyF: I never claimed to be taxed at 75%, which is higher than the max marginal rate, anyway. I claimed that for every $1 we spend we pay $3 in tax, which is true.
The savings will never be spent on a consumer expense. The investments (savings) generate income, but the actual principal will never be spent. It will be there forever. The goal is to have enough saved that you can live off rent and dividends. Don't touch the principal.
I claimed that for every $1 we spend we pay $3 in tax, which is true.
Its a misleading statement as you leave out your 'savings', which is money you earned and all part of what you pay TAX on.
So if I don't spend any money next pay, I don't go around claiming I'm taxed at an infinite amount.
@JimmyF: Except you won't be not spending money next pay, since you have expenses, same as we do. And I explicitly stated the ratio was expenses to tax, not income to tax, so where's the misleading bit? I could not have been more accurate about what I was comparing. And you keep shifting the goalposts.
And I explicitly stated the ratio was expenses to tax, not income to tax, so where's the misleading bit?
As you plan to spend the money at a later date. That is why.
@JimmyF: No, I've made that clear. The savings go into shares and investment properties. None of that will be spent. When we fatfire in our 40s we will be spending the dividends/rent, not the principal. The savings go into principal, and that will never be spent.
No, I've made that clear. The savings go into shares and investment properties. None of that will be spent
So how do you plan to BUY IPs without spreading your savings…..?
@JimmyF: Purchasing IPs is not consumer spending which is what I have been referring to all along. Refer to first post. Neither is investing in shares considered consumer spending. Saving/investing is the opposite of spending.
You are trying to straw man me, but fortunately, I figured some genius would try to do that so I made it very clear from the start.
I've never found a good PT who has helped me gain weight. Terrible.