[cobran20]

This just doesn't sound right. Looks like the US tax law has holes big enough to drive a tank through! Ours is probably not much better. The comments make for interesting reading as well.

link

[Easy Tiger]

cobran20, on 03 January 2012 - 03:27 AM, said:

This just doesn't sound right. Looks like the US tax law has holes big enough to drive a tank through! Ours is probably not much better. The comments make for interesting reading as well.

link

These a very real danger for these companies. They could be seized and the shareholders compensated their share of the taxable assets. I think that’s what Castro did to some US company. I read in the comments section calls for a flat tax. I support that. Zero income tax and 10% on every transaction including houses, and share trades. I still want a land tax to.

[staringclown]

1/3 of all people who earn zero or negative income and therefore pay no income tax are in the richest (asset wise) 20%. They can afford better accountants. Haven't got any company figures.

Attached File(s)

•  AssetsByQuintile.tiff (186.76K)
  Number of downloads: 0

[cobran20]

Easy Tiger, on 03 January 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

These a very real danger for these companies. They could be seized and the shareholders compensated their share of the taxable assets. I think that’s what Castro did to some US company. I read in the comments section calls for a flat tax. I support that. Zero income tax and 10% on every transaction including houses, and share trades. I still want a land tax to.

A lower, flat tax than the current brackets and zero deductions would make for an admin utopia. But an entire service industry (accountants, lawyers) that supports the current nightmare would be unemployed!

[wulfgar]

The system is dedicated to amaking the rich even more so.........how else do you get the insanely wealthy?

It's really a mining operation..................the market is squeezed for all they can get out of it.

The only thing they fear is you guys won't show up at work to do their labor.

[staringclown]

cobran20, on 03 January 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

A lower, flat tax than the current brackets and zero deductions would make for an admin utopia. But an entire service industry (accountants, lawyers) that supports the current nightmare would be unemployed!

The wealthy like flat taxes though. The marginal cost is much greater for lower income households than for the wealthy.

There is a baseline cost that soaks up far more of the lower income households dosh. (food, utilities, fuel and shelter) Land tax is more equitable IMHO.

[tor]

staringclown, on 03 January 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

The wealthy like flat taxes though. The marginal cost is much greater for lower income households than for the wealthy.

There is a baseline cost that soaks up far more of the lower income households dosh. (food, utilities, fuel and shelter) Land tax is more equitable IMHO.

A land tax would face the same issues if it was to be a flat tax rate on the land value.

I think the difference in land values will be smaller than the difference in net worth / income.

Also of course a land tax would reduce the value of land which would exacerbate the issue.

This has been my argument all along, a land tax is less progressive than income tax.

[cobran20]

tor, on 03 January 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

A land tax would face the same issues if it was to be a flat tax rate on the land value.

I think the difference in land values will be smaller than the difference in net worth / income.

Also of course a land tax would reduce the value of land which would exacerbate the issue.

This has been my argument all along, a land tax is less progressive than income tax.

The land tax amount to be paid would probably would be based on the size & location of the block of land.

[cobran20]

staringclown, on 03 January 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

The wealthy like flat taxes though. The marginal cost is much greater for lower income households than for the wealthy.

There is a baseline cost that soaks up far more of the lower income households dosh. (food, utilities, fuel and shelter) Land tax is more equitable IMHO.

A flat tax would encourage people to work harder and earn more as they would not be taxed at a higher rate when they increase their earnings. Overall I think it would be a good idea. Many eastern european countries use it and others like Singapore (for foreigners) as well. I think simplicity is good thing and a lot of money would be saved that is currently wasted administering and complying with an overly convoluted tax system.

[tor]

cobran20, on 03 January 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

The land tax amount to be paid would probably would be based on the size & location of the block of land.

No one is proposing different percentage values for different suburbs are they? Like Rose Bay is 12% of land value and Penrith is 4%?

I thought the idea was a set percentage against the land value (which would mean more desirable areas would pay nominally more).

[AndersB]

tor, on 03 January 2012 - 10:12 PM, said:

No one is proposing different percentage values for different suburbs are they? Like Rose Bay is 12% of land value and Penrith is 4%?

I thought the idea was a set percentage against the land value (which would mean more desirable areas would pay nominally more).

The same tax rate regardless of the land location would still be progressive of sorts as the higher value land would be taxed more $$.

Perhaps it should be called a flat earth tax?


(I know - it's a pun.... groan!)

[tor]

AndersB, on 03 January 2012 - 11:51 PM, said:

The same tax rate regardless of the land location would still be progressive of sorts as the higher value land would be taxed more $$.

Perhaps it should be called a flat earth tax?


(I know - it's a pun.... groan!)

However it would be less progressive than PAYG. Most proponents of land taxes are anti regressive taxation if I my memory is correct.

[cobran20]

tor, on 03 January 2012 - 10:12 PM, said:

No one is proposing different percentage values for different suburbs are they? Like Rose Bay is 12% of land value and Penrith is 4%?

I thought the idea was a set percentage against the land value (which would mean more desirable areas would pay nominally more).

Sorry, my error. I should have said based on the size only. The location determines the value to be applied against a fixed tax rate.

[Easy Tiger]

A land tax would be super easy to set up. It’d be something similar to the walk score on Google Earth.


Flat tax on everything would be good. How about we just chuck GST on EVERYTHING and scrap the levies and duties and other taxes. 10% income tax. 10% onto shares, onto housing etc. No exceptions either for charities or churches. No exceptions period. Not even at the airport for duty free.

Easy to work out for everyone.

[cobran20]

Easy Tiger, on 04 January 2012 - 05:09 AM, said:

A land tax would be super easy to set up. It’d be something similar to the walk score on Google Earth.


Flat tax on everything would be good. How about we just chuck GST on EVERYTHING and scrap the levies and duties and other taxes. 10% income tax. 10% onto shares, onto housing etc. No exceptions either for charities or churches. No exceptions period. Not even at the airport for duty free.

Easy to work out for everyone.

+1

[staringclown]

tor, on 04 January 2012 - 12:55 AM, said:

However it would be less progressive than PAYG. Most proponents of land taxes are anti regressive taxation if I my memory is correct.

Even with a flat asset tax it could be more progressive as the wealthy that are currently paying low or no income tax would be paying more. It would require a hefty income to to pay a 10% land tax on a property valued at a million. (Either that or liquidate some assets and pay it that way)

The increase in equitability happens when an improvement (say a new railway link is built) and the value of property rises in your area. The less well serviced areas are no longer subsidising your benefit. The windfall increase in the property value would be paid for over time by the increased tax.

Another improvement on the equitability side is well serviced areas become more densely populated. The tax burden would be shared across more households and would mean that lower income households could afford to live in better serviced areas. Less property would be left vacant/unproductive. There would be a shift away from property speculation as a means to wealth and the wealthy would have to undertake more productive activities like running or investing in a business.

There is also an argument put that income tax, payroll tax etc are barriers to employing labour.

prosper australia say it better than I can.

[cobran20]

staringclown, on 04 January 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

Even with a flat asset tax it could be more progressive as the wealthy that are currently paying low or no income tax would be paying more. It would require a hefty income to to pay a 10% land tax on a property valued at a million. (Either that or liquidate some assets and pay it that way)

The increase in equitability happens when an improvement (say a new railway link is built) and the value of property rises in your area. The less well serviced areas are no longer subsidising your benefit. The windfall increase in the property value would be paid for over time by the increased tax.

Another improvement on the equitability side is well serviced areas become more densely populated. The tax burden would be shared across more households and would mean that lower income households could afford to live in better serviced areas. Less property would be left vacant/unproductive. There would be a shift away from property speculation as a means to wealth and the wealthy would have to undertake more productive activities like running or investing in a business.

There is also an argument put that income tax, payroll tax etc are barriers to employing labour.

prosper australia say it better than I can.

Kerry Packer had an army of tax accountants & lawyers that configured his financial affairs such that he was paying around 10% income tax (it was on the news). The ATO took him to court years later and lost. Like I said, a (lower) flat income/company tax with zero exemptions/allowances/deductions would remove all these problems. Add a broad based resources tax (that includes a land tax) and you could remove taxes that reduce productivity & employment, like payroll, stamp duty. It's only the army of tax accountants & lawyers that would suffer.

[savagegoose]

but theink of all the out of work ATO public servants

[tor]

staringclown, on 04 January 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

Even with a flat asset tax it could be more progressive as the wealthy that are currently paying low or no income tax would be paying more. It would require a hefty income to to pay a 10% land tax on a property valued at a million. (Either that or liquidate some assets and pay it that way)

It would only cost twice as much as the median property in Sydney. And I bet that people living in million dollar homes earn more than double the median income.

Land holdings, I would suspect, are less variable than incomes. Therefore a flat land tax on value will be less progressive than income tax.

As usual I heartily support a land / consumption tax as a replacement to PAYG because I will be better off.

I don't think it would necessarily be "fair" because anyone on higher PAYG rates will pay less tax which will have to be made up from those currently paying lower rates (unless tax evasion is prevalent and only by the rich).

[Mr Medved]

I thought I'd throw this into the "rich pricks not paying tax" discussion.

http://www.vexnews.c...cover-the-loot/