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
@JimmyF: I am the one who said consumer spending. So why did you change the goalposts? Deal with the clear phrasing I used.
Aussies pay too much tax, and for the most part it's people with half decent jobs paying 47% tax so that idiots can get welfare when they're just too dumb to live off their own earnings and savings.
@justworld: In terms of overall tax Aussies are relatively low, it's just ours is more focused on income tax than some other nations.
I do agree that your wording is disingenuous. You seem to spend a lot and invest a lot but because you seem to think this should not be considered when comparing tax paid. Are you suggesting someone on 1million+ that just buys IPs and shares should pay less tax than the person on 100k taking holidays?
I think of the ratio as total tax paid after bare essentials - well rounded, but cheap meals, a single hobby, a basic house etc.
I am on neither side of the argument but would like to point out the never born dont work and therefore have no work expenses.
All of this stuff is academically hyper explained in great deal across multiple tribunals, courts, tax office decisions and legislations.
Why do you even need to ask such questions except that you are too lazy to read or educate yourself.
If anything we live in 2024 where AI could even summarise the reasons for you in 30 seconds.
Why do you even need to ask such questions except that you are too lazy to read or educate yourself.
It's what social media has convinced people is a discussion - rather than 'lets throw a question out there and see how many people I can get inflamed replies from'.
These sort of posts achieve nothing as, most of the time, it becomes a circle jerk of individuals who all 'know the answer' but do absolutely nothing about it.
OP is asking for opinions, not tax law.
Something about debating. Healthy and thought provoking.
Because if you never ask you'll never get it
And you'll never ask if you never though about it first.
thought provoking.
I don't think people on these forums are interested in that kind of thing to be honest.
For those who are they should watch this documentary: Planet of the Humans.
Hey, just thought I would say, I loved your comments Ghost47. I don't usually praise people online, but I loved what you had to say above.
Here Here.
Can I claim the umbrella needed to keep myself dry when it’s raining during the 10 minute walk between my place and the train station, and for a new umbrella when the wind is strong and it breaks 🤷♂️
I claim umbrellas.
But then again, I work outside from time to time and am required to walk in the rain. Sure work provide me with a raincoat, but an umbrella does a better job at keeping me dry.
I’ve got an umbrella in my work bag and use it for work, so I claim it.
I agree that public transport should be tax deductible, but not private car transport. This would give people an incentive to use public transport, and the extra load on the public transport system would force the government to improve and expand it. Car traffic ruins cities, car noise/vibration/pollution reduces the quality of life of millions of people, car pollution causes disease, and car accidents ruin lives. A car-less society would be magical, like Venice.
Our governments are so short-sighted and lacking in ambition. The amount of money that has been spent on roads and private automobiles could instead have been used to create the most amazing and extensive public transport systems. We could be hopping into high-speed science fiction-styled rail carriages to get wherever we want in quiet luxury while reading a book, doing work or watching a movie. Instead, our eyes are glued to the road as we risk our lives and breathe toxic fumes in an expensive dangerous, tiring and stressful car trip.
Where you choose to live & work has nothing to do with the ATO.
Disagree as it will be abused.
Think of the epidemic of pickup trucks infesting our suburban streets.
Not just lifted up but some even with a snorkel … for business …It will be a never-ending list of deductible items.
Which, by the way will not amount to much.Paying far-far-far less income tax, in particular the nefarious PAYG variety, will be simpler and more cost effective. For income earners, that is.
Where exactly do you think tax refunds come from? They're not magical money from trees, they come out of the pockets of the tax payers.
Do you expect and do you want people to pay for everyone's fuel, tolls and everything else to do something everyone has to do?
If so, then it cancels itself out. You pay for everyone's daily travels and they pay for yours.. so there's no point.
Thank you for the dose of common sense. The ATO - ie. "Guvment" isn't a bottomless pocket.
Just get rid of all deductions and see what happens /s
I need to have sex to maintain my well-being and boost productivity. Visiting brothel should be tax-deductible. Sex is a human right anyway!
Unfortunately I have exquisite taste and have to indulge on wagyu beef and Godiva once weekly otherwise i got into depression. Both drug/wagyu beef/godiva are essential to maintain my income and productivity!!
By that logic all (activities during annual leaves and vacations) should be tax deducible because it's done to boost work productivity when you come back from the break.
Where does it all end? I drink wine at night to prepare me mentally for the next day at work, therefore it should be tax deductible. And 2021 was a great year in the Barossa, therefore a 2021 Shiraz improves my work performance more than a 2019 as it was hot in 2019, so it should be tax deductible but not as much.
If we are going to subsidize transport we should be VERY careful about what transport we want to subsidize, lest we become a barren, inefficient land of highways and car parks like the US - with all the emissions that also entails.
I’ve got nothing against an individuals choice or need to drive, but it should be at the motorists cost. Subsidies should only go to efficient mass transit.
Costs of building roads, providing parking, traffic accidents and impact to population health, noise pollution, loss of prime land and usable space, the impacts of petroleum emissions on health, the environment it is extracted from, and the atmosphere is it pumped into… all of these costs are majority born by society - and not paid by the motorist. Rego and fuel tax simply doesn’t cover it.
Motorists are already getting a free ride. Some vehicles even have tax incentives to buy them!
If we are going to subsidise transport, it should only be for PT, and PT alone.
The fact that most disagree on this poll is absolutely insane to me. The government can’t even spend our tax money correctly and the majority in here want to allow the government even more? You ever wonder how public officials own 10 homes and get cushy jobs as advisors and CEO’s on ludicrous salary afterwards?
It amazes me some of the comments in here as well, how do most not even know? People are so brainwashed at this point, they truly will go along with anything.
Those statistics in the current poll are grim…
I thought we could at least have consensus on a really basic topic but it seems like people just fold even though they never consented. Sadly I have come to the realisation that is probably why in some relationships people just put up with unwanted sex. It's like the choice between the lesser of two evils when you go to vote, but the real solution is we don't continue to vote for bad policies that continue to grow government…
I thought we could get the message out, but if people don't even agree on something small like logical tax deductions; then how can we agree on more complex issues like jury nullification as a way to restrict excessive government. e.g. If we all agreed that what tunzafun001 did in the thread was not tax fraud, we can just state "not guilty", but we can't even to that point to save the people doing the right thing. In the past, if you ask your grandfathers/mothers about jury nullification they will tell you all about it, effectively government policies became dead letter law, for example, when they tried to prosecute people for drinking liquor or owning gold.
That guy from the ATO even had the balls to come back and state it wasn't arbitrary when it's 100% arbitrary. How come the ATO can change the enforcement arbitrarily to match the expenses of the government. That's arbitrary by definition but they always have some ATO officer come onto ozbargain and just lie to the public. That's what they just did. I could have checkmated them but I'm not that type of person, I'll just silently sit here and wait for them to read my comments in this other thread, basically exposing them for lying. I'm sure their supervisor is very unhappy that they are representing themselves as an ATO agent.
The Australian public is too far gone to save anymore. I've just given up, as long as I stay in rural Australia, live my life, play around with my AI, code on some open source projects I am passionate about, enjoy life. I won't really care about the cesspool of corruption still exists in Australia. It's not worth saving them. The only reason I would come out is if Australia is invaded and people start getting conscripted forcibly, by then I'll probably have some advanced malware developed and I wouldn't hesitate to use it against the enemy.
Maybe these forums are full of politicians or they're relatives or friends of politicians. If you think outside the box and question the system you're some sort of far right nut job.
Eh, I think that’s because you’re trying to fit this into an oversimplified binary: less tax, or more tax.
But there’s other nuances to the discussion… such as, maybe we can have tax breaks but we… maybe give them to OTHER activities instead of transport.
if they were deductible, then taxes would rise in other areas. there's no simple solution
Bus travel for work in Qld can be salary sacrificed so it's technically tax free but probably not in other states
Not for all employees…
for all employees just depends how proactive your employer is in trying to provide it to you
it's written in the tax laws
FBT-exempt employers may offer this. Employers who aren't exempt would have to pay the FBT which I rate as unlikely. But if there's a new tax law that applies to all employers please share it.
@Poor Ass: Under a ruling by the Australian Tax Office (ATO), the benefit applies for travel on bus only and is available via employers or salary packaging providers who have gained a ruling from the ATO and have an agreement with Translink.
@sumyungguy: As I said depends on how proactive your employer is providing it to you and if they are using a salary packaging provider that's great
I guess OP should be comparing it to people who "Work from home". They have the means to deduct tax from appliances from home and energy etc. So to take that extra time, mileage, cost and effort to physically travel to the work location should be tax deductible or subsidised. eg. getting a company car etc.
A better taxation system would be to simply:
- Have a fixed amount of your tax payable relative to your bracket unclaimable
- This would also apply to business
Would ensure minimum tax amounts are contributed by every person and business. No 1 could get away with paying 0, especially businesses and millionaires.
Public transport should be deductible for employees if you make less than x. Where x could be for eg. <80,000$k - the return should be capped, and proof required for where you live to where your work is and start/finish hours.
I knew an ex colleague who would rock up to work at 11 to claim tax deduction for travelling between to places of work. Start work at other place and then come into the office.
Looks like now ATO has banned traveling from work and home as a tax deduction. But I think they got around it by starting their work after spending the night at their significant others place of residence.
Technically not your home, it's your gf/bf home.
But a bit of a hassle to do a bit and then travel in, might as well just WFH for the entire day. You'll save more on travel than tax.
Technically, I agree. However, in practice, this would be an impossible tax loophole to control.
My high class escort habit is required so I stay calm for work
Well, the argument fits. Either yes we make excuses for so much to be 'work tax deductible', that this should be too.
Or we just copy some other countries where you can't deduct things like computers, etc, but lower marginal rate.We're stuck in the middle, no matter which way you go you'll be eaten by the opposite political side. We're here forever.
a set amount of deductions and no more would be best. it wont impact the lower class only impact the higher class who can afford fancy tax structures, accountants and lawyers.
Im all for it
That's a good idea too. Too much time trying to deduct peanuts. We can only dream, given the pollies are the ones with the fancy structures
Partialy agree. I think people should be able to do deductions for PT.
As a motoring enthusiast that drive to work , I actually want the cost of owning a car to increase. There are too many cars on the road and it's not sustainable.
Where will they make up the lost revenue? If they just raise GST or income tax will it make much difference?
maximum value of deductions on tax returns
GST increases to 15% just like it is in NZ
In return public transport is free and funded by the federal government from the extra 5% GST pool
Well as a business owner I can basically write all of these things off as an expense (with some limitations and restrictions). Rightfully so as it’s a cost of doing business. Seems to reason that everyone should be entitled to the same benefits, so when you see people here disagreeing it’s kind of weird to me.
How to fund it? Raise taxes on high income earners. Close off the many loopholes the rich exploit.
The rich will be deducting a private helicopter to work. While the kid working at Coles gets to deduct his $4 bus fare.
Yes, the kid should be able to deduct their bus fare directly related to generating income. Just like for all business transport deductions (people and goods), the kid deserves the same.
You think they deserve to be penalised because they are PAYG?
Kid will likely earn less than $18,200 so no tax payable.
Close off the many loopholes the rich exploit.
You say this while advocating for a new one?
@pulpfiction: Travel to work deductions.
Rich people will inevitably claim far more than the $4 Coles kid. It would be a huge tax scam.
@trapper: We're talking about travel for work. That's not a loophole. It's an allowed deduction. It's a cost of doing business.
Yes the rich will and do exploit this. Private business helicopters are expensed.
Getting to the point… maybe you think that should stop. Sure. That would be very hard to do without making all business travel non-deductible, but let's roll with it.
In the meantime, this benefit should apply to everyone. Not just the elite.
I say this as a business owner who tax deducts their train ticket to see a client while a person on the next seat cops the full fee. Classism at its finest.
Private business helicopters are expensed.
Not from the home to the office - but they sure would be if this was tax deductible.
@trapper: Yes this is deductible. They’ll need to take work items and staff with them. Falls under similar rules to a tradie and their Ute. Failing that, home office with travel to secondary office. This is also deductible expense.
Anyhow, I take your point that you disagree, and that’s totally ok.
@pulpfiction: The rules are here mate: https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/income-deduc…
@trapper: Yes. Which is in line with my comments above.
Edit: Have a read of these sections under "When you can claim trips between home and work" which are very easy to justify for non PAYG and aside from bulky items have no real basis for differentiation with PAYG employees:
- Home is a base of employment
- Transporting bulky tools and equipment
- Itinerant or shifting places of work
the deductions are the loopholes
Tradies and other 'contractors' are able to deduct all vehicle expenses…. And then charge a premium because they have to drive to jobs.
Not so far the masses.
Broadly, it's easy to screw the Pay G workers.
Better to just remove work related deductions completely in favour of a broad tax reduction. They're a drain on productivity that provides no benefits.
As others have said, it's arbitrary where you draw the line anyway.
Any changes like this will only hit lower, middle and low-upper class. The elites will continue to deduct all the things. We're focusing on the wrong end of the scale.
You can target the cuts as required. The ATO has all the data for typical deduction vs income - just return that proportion as a blanket cut. On average, people will be better off.
Sadly 70% of tax payers engage professional lodgement advice, such a waste of labour; this think tank proposes a $3K standard deduction
@pulpfiction: One problem among many: the more your tax system is gameable, the worse a tax system you have.
Removing deductions would wipe out the vast majority of small business (particularly sole proprietors) and PAYG who carry significant expenses.
In reality they would all move to a registered company and continue the deductions with increased company admin and reporting. The accountants would love it I guess.
Any changes like this will only hit lower, middle and low-upper class
You mean the classes made up by the rich to distract the working class.
Yes. Anyone but the rich.
I thought Oz bargain people understood finance but I see these poll results
PT is already heavily subsidised, so you're getting decent value there for your dollar already.
Its still expensive when you have a whole family catching PT. Particularly if you arent going long distances
just rent a CBD apartment and claim that cost as a work related expense.
bonus points if you can convince your mistress to move in.The problem with tax deductions are the richer you are, the more they help you. So they increase the income disparity rather than help it.
Thanks everyone for participating in the discussion. I didn't expect it to be so polarising actually. I certainly don't have it all figured out but thought it was worth posing to the group. I still think it has legs as a way to ensure a good distribution of tax breaks across the lower and middle income earners, on the assumption that they are more likely to live further from a CBD and incur more travel costs. Like the "being poor is expensive" parable.
There are some good points raised both for and against which would help to assess a fair application of it should it ever go further.
Cheers
This is Australia - only tradies get to make everything tax deductable … and not pay tax on all their cashy jobs. Don't worry, they make up for this by being cheap, competent and always turning up when they say they will. Better off spending years and tens of thousands of dollars going to University so that you can pay the maximum amount of tax possible in every part of your life.
alt. personal income tax should be replaced with company tax at 30% on revenue.
There shouldn't be any tax deductions, only refunds if a person pays too much. Minimizing tax is stealing. Remember, it isn't the government's money, it is the people's money.
And end middle class welfare. People who own multiple homes and are constantly flying everywhere are rich and should not be getting handouts, subsidies and special tax breaks.
@justworld:
and just like you with your word play, I never said consumer spending, I said it would be spent. Is not buying a IP spending money?
Think you might have trying that line with everyone with your 'consumer' spending, look how much tax I pay…. I spend $1 and $3 in tax, but lets ignore all the money I put into savings.
Money doesn't just 'magically' appear for you to buy a IP. You're a great saver, but enough with this I only spend $1 but pay $3 in tax dribble.