[Bernard L. Madoff]

tor, on 10 July 2010 - 09:53 AM, said:

People that don't share those views and are skilled and hardworking are mostly going to just stop once they hit a certain level of wealth because what is the point in going any further?

Thats me, no further ambition. But I augment via trading activities but thats risk = reward .

[Bernard L. Madoff]

Quote

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings) .
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him.

But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[Bernard L. Madoff]

Can someone please explain this;

Switzerland.
7.6 million people and $178.5B in tax revenues.

Thats $23,486 per head of population yet they pay less income tax.

Quote

For example, in the Canton of Schwyz, the top rate, inclusive of federal, cantonal/communal tax is approximately 22%.

http://www.lowtax.ne...etx.html#income

Quote

Personal income tax rates are progressive, rising to a maximum of 11.5% for incomes over SFR664,300 at federal level, and approximately twice that at cantonal level.

SFR664,300 = $701,000AUD

Australia.
21 million people and $312B in tax revenues.

Thats $14,857 per head of population yet we pay more income tax.

[tor]

Bernard L. Madoff, on 10 September 2010 - 09:17 AM, said:

Can someone please explain this...

Nazi Gold and Credit Suisse.

[Dose]

AGE: State Sanctioned Larceny - a renewed attempt to get stamp duty reduced

Quote

Of all the oppressive and inequitable ways in which state politicians raise money, I would rate the exploitation of problem gamblers in pokie dens as the worst, and stamp duty on home purchases a close second.Advertisement: Story continues belowLast financial year, John Brumby's government collected about $3.6 billion in duty on property transfers. Based on current stamp duty rates, anyone buying a house in Melbourne at the June quarter median price of $559,000 faced an additional bill of $28,610 to cover Brumby's share.

Most victims of this fiscal larceny are middle class. Many are mortgaged close to their financial limits just to cover the house purchase. Stamp duty adds tens of thousands of dollars to their mortgages - and years to the length of time they must toil to pay it all off.


Many of these people are also second or third-time mugs. Sometimes, through no fault of their own, people have to move house - to cater for extra children, perhaps, or to scale down after a divorce. On each occasion, the state helps itself to an additional five-figure slab of their savings.
<snip>In his comments this week hosing down expectations of stamp duty relief, Brumby protested that the state already had a narrow revenue base. ''The question is, how do you pay for it?'' he said.

Let me offer a couple of suggestions. I have written before of a potentially large revenue stream available to any government with the courage to convert suburban freeways into state-owned tollways. The current situation, in which some are tolled and some aren't, is illogical and discriminatory.

Modest tolls on freeways - lower than those on private roads such as CityLink - would be a far more decent, equitable and sustainable way to raise money than preying arbitrarily on gambling addicts and home buyers. The tolls could also act as a congestion tax, perhaps levied at higher rates in peak times. A logical starting point would be to toll the new Frankston bypass.

Another alternative source of cash - admittedly a challenging one politically - could be to persuade the Gillard government to think again on its Henry tax review options and consider a small increase in the main source of state revenue, the GST.


In the meantime, by insisting there are no practical alternatives to his punitive rates of stamp duty, Brumby presents a gift-wrapped political opportunity to his opponent, Ted Baillieu.]

Call me a cynic but I'm noticing an increase in attempts to politicise Stamp Duty.

Beyond a significant factual error (ie. Stamp duty is NOT part of the mortgage; banks will not finance the tax) I'm confused by the writer's proposed solutions which increase unavoidable taxes (ie add tolls to paid roads, increase GST) as a means to decrease this unfair form of government "larceny". -Wouldn't increased government larceny, by definition, be an increase in GST?

I like stamp duty. It is a significant tax people can minimise by simply modifying their behavior. [size="2"]

Will be interesting to see if Baillieu takes the bait. Speculators would win, and as Brumbles correctly noted, how will they pay for it?

(Edit: repeated attempts to get that [size=2] out of the post! )

This post has been edited by Dose: 14 October 2010 - 08:41 PM

[tor]

tom, on 08 July 2010 - 09:30 AM, said:

...I guess a long way off in the future as sensor technology gets better we will not need to drive our cars either, but until then I reckon the ATC guys are safe.

Just re read this thread, ATC guys may not be as safe as they seemed a few months back

http://www.news-rela...ithout-drivers/

[Bernard L. Madoff]

Pity there are no roads in the sky, just 3 dimensions to dodge other users and thunderstorms. Interesting that we are ramping up surveillance and services as low experienced pilots with high automated technology are creating some airshows at non-controlled airports.

[Mr Medved]

"I have written before of a potentially large revenue stream available to any government with the courage to convert suburban freeways into state-owned tollways."

This f-wit should read section 92 the Australian Constitution:

On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce,
and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal
carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.

The freeways are already 'state-owned' by the Commonwealth, and if they are on public land they cannot be levied (by law, not necessarily by practice).

Stamp duty is a dumb tax but at least it increases the overhead on property speculation.

[tom]

Mr Medved, on 15 October 2010 - 03:36 AM, said:

"I have written before of a potentially large revenue stream available to any government with the courage to convert suburban freeways into state-owned tollways."

This f-wit should read section 92 the Australian Constitution:

On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce,
and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal
carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.

The freeways are already 'state-owned' by the Commonwealth, and if they are on public land they cannot be levied (by law, not necessarily by practice).

Stamp duty is a dumb tax but at least it increases the overhead on property speculation.

Not sure if the purpose of that was to prevent state to state tariffs rather than road tolls? Though it would be easy to argue you point anyway that by putting a toll on a freeway that is required to get product to a market in another state it is a tariff. You could for example put a small toll road at each of your states borders and charge semi trailers several thousand dollars to cross. So I can see what you mean what is the difference? in principal at least it is the same if not in outcome.

I hope NSW labor do not read this post this will be the next move introduce state to state protectionism. Doing that would certainly bring our dollar back to earth. Suddenly we would be looking like India.

[Ugg]

I have a question that I think I know the answer to, but the answer wasn't obvious to me (and should have been).

Say I am 10% Gold and 90% Aus cash.

If the Aus$ drops 50% but gold stays constant relative to some global value, the gold price in Aus$ doubles, but my 'global purchasing power' has taken a 45% hit.
However according to the tax man I am now 10% richer measured in Aus$.
The tax man will then step in and tax me on that 10% and ignore the 45% decline.

Is that correct? That makes me a little cranky. Then again the tax man misses out if the gold price drops in $Aus because the Aus$ has strengthened relative to other currencies. That is, in this scenario my global purchasing power has improved but the tax man thinks it hasn't.

Just thinking out loud...and getting my head around the importance I place on a global view versus a local Australian view. A tad slow off the mark.

This post has been edited by Ugg: 23 September 2011 - 01:42 AM

[savagegoose]

its only a CGT tax event when you maKE THE GAINS, or declare the gains made. theres roll over of capital gains to other assets allowed as well. hold asset for a year then CGT is halved , etc yeah it sucks but what you gonna do

[Mr Medved]

savagegoose, on 23 September 2011 - 02:25 AM, said:

yeah it sucks but what you gonna do

Sell it overseas or buy something with it without a CGT event.