# Abbott/Hockey tax cuts



## poverty (28 August 2015)

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...ave-a-go-income-tax-cuts-20150827-gj9dwr.html

This is an interesting one.  In theory I'm all for it.  I'm part of a single-income household and I feel like we pay a disproportionally high amount of tax as a result.  Lowering taxes, turning back the bracket creep, yippee.  But isn't the tax base already stuffed?  Don't we have a budget crisis with an aging population of baby boomers sitting in their $1million homes all looking to retire at once and jump on pensions?  How exactly do we lower taxes and pay for all of this friggen welfare?


----------



## Junior (28 August 2015)

poverty said:


> http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...ave-a-go-income-tax-cuts-20150827-gj9dwr.html
> 
> This is an interesting one.  In theory I'm all for it.  I'm part of a single-income household and I feel like we pay a disproportionally high amount of tax as a result.  Lowering taxes, turning back the bracket creep, yippee.  But isn't the tax base already stuffed?  Don't we have a budget crisis with an aging population of baby boomers sitting in their $1million homes all looking to retire at once and jump on pensions?  How exactly do we lower taxes and pay for all of this friggen welfare?




If income tax thresholds were indexed we wouldn't have this problem.  Politicians prefer to allow bracket creep and then make themselves out to be heroes once every few years by announcing major tax cuts.


----------



## sydboy007 (28 August 2015)

I'm waiting for Hockey to explain just how they're going to pay for the,

His budget forecast for CAPEX is so out of whack his forecast deficit is going to balloon around $10B from that alone.

Get rid of the CGT concession as 75% of the cost is benefiting just the top 10% of income earners.  If fails on equity and efficiency grounds.

Make NG only on new builds and quarantine the losses from other income sources.

Work with the states to move from pro cyclical stamp duties to more stable land taxes.


----------



## wayneL (28 August 2015)

Agree with the broad thrust if your argument Syd. One point: I've never been able to see the equitability of a land tax.

My fellow orange bookers were always gung ho for it but I have reservations.

Can you expand a little on that?


----------



## sydboy007 (28 August 2015)

wayneL said:


> Agree with the broad thrust if your argument Syd. One point: I've never been able to see the equitability of a land tax.
> 
> My fellow orange bookers were always gung ho for it but I have reservations.
> 
> Can you expand a little on that?




it's contained in the Abbott funded tax white paper

http://bettertax.gov.au/files/2015/03/TWP_combined-online.pdf



> Conveyancing stamp duties… have a high excess burden because they discourage the exchange of residential and business properties…









> Stamp duties are some of the most inefficient taxes levied in Australia… they are levied selectively on activities or products and are taxed on the total transaction value, rather than the ‘value added’ component. Such transaction taxes are more likely to discourage turnover of taxed goods, as taxpayers attempt to reduce or avoid paying the tax…
> 
> Because revenue growth is driven by property prices and numbers of transactions, stamp duties on conveyances are a highly volatile tax, with revenue collected from stamp duties on conveyances fluctuating by over 50 per cent in previous years. Stamp duties on conveyances add to the costs of buying and selling property and can discourage businesses from undertaking productivity enhancing purchases of existing land and capital. The outcome can be retention of land for relatively unproductive purposes…
> 
> ...




According the treasury



> Modelling also suggests that broad-based land taxes, such as municipal rates, have a low economic cost (Chart 2.9). This is because land is immobile (unlike other capital) and cannot be moved or varied to avoid tax. The model applies this assumption to both domestic and foreign ownership of land. Land taxes paid by foreign and domestic landowners are only redistributed to the domestic households, providing a benefit to Australian households and generating a negative marginal excess burden for a broad-based land tax shown in the chart




Of course, there are other reasons to support a broad-based land tax, including:

They would help to make infrastructure investments self-funding for governments, since any land value uplift brought about through increased infrastructure investment (e.g. new roads, trains, etc) would be partly captured by the government via increased land tax receipts. Accordingly, governments would be more likely to facilitate development, rather than act to restrict it in a bid to save on infrastructure costs.
They would penalise land banking and vagrancy, effectively increasing the supply of land in the process and bringing new homes to market more quickly.
That said, I do not agree that land taxes should only be applied to those that have not already already paid stamp duty on their homes – effectively limiting the tax to new buyers. Why, for example, should someone that purchased their home decades ago (like my mum, who has lived in her house since 1972) be exempted from paying land taxes?

A better solution would be to give home buyers a credit for the stamp duty paid, and then deduct the theoretical land tax that would have applied since the home was purchased.

For example, if someone purchased a home in August 2010 and paid $30,000 in stamp duty, and their annual land tax bill would have been $3,000 per year had the new regime been in effect, then their credit would be $15,000, which can be applied against future year’s bills.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> iI do not agree that land taxes should only be applied to those that have not already already paid stamp duty on their homes – effectively limiting the tax to new buyers. Why, for example, should someone that purchased their home decades ago (like my mum, who has lived in her house since 1972) be exempted from paying land taxes?




On the other hand, why should someone be taxed simply to keep land they already own outright?

Depending on the rate of such a tax, I see a potentially significant issue for retirees and others on a relatively lower income who have based their plans on the basis of owning a residence outright and being able to live in it relatively cheaply on an ongoing basis.


----------



## sydboy007 (29 August 2015)

Smurf1976 said:


> On the other hand, why should someone be taxed simply to keep land they already own outright?
> 
> Depending on the rate of such a tax, I see a potentially significant issue for retirees and others on a relatively lower income who have based their plans on the basis of owning a residence outright and being able to live in it relatively cheaply on an ongoing basis.




Roughly 5% of properties are transacted each year.  SD revenue from this provides a significant % of state budget finances.  Why is it fair that the small number of people buying a house to say move closer to work or to cope with a bigger family have to pay so much in SD?  It's a very inefficient tax.  Look at the chart provided by treasury to see just how poorly SD is as a form of revenue.  The marginal excess burden of SD is estimated at $1.70 for $1 of revenue - see chart from my previous post

It would be easy enough to allow low income and pensioners to capitalise the land tax and pay it when they sell their property or via their estate after death.

SD revenue can gyrate up to 50% from peak to trough.  It's an extremely pro cyclical form of revenue.  NSW is a classic example of this.  Currently SD is providing massive levels of revenue due to the property boom.  Once that stops, the Govt will see a very fast fall in revenue.  WA is already facing this situation.  Land taxes are very reliable.  Revenue levels change very slightly year to year.  

NSW SD revenue in 2011 fell over $600M compared to the previous year, by 2013 was up $1.6B bu is now just $400M up on last years take.  Compare this to land taxes which is raised from commercial properties and the total revenue received changed by 5% at most - averaging about $2.5B per year since 2011.  Now that's the kind of revenue stability that makes a budget far easier to forecast.


----------



## sptrawler (31 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> Roughly 5% of properties are transacted each year.  SD revenue from this provides a significant % of state budget finances.  Why is it fair that the small number of people buying a house to say move closer to work or to cope with a bigger family have to pay so much in SD?  It's a very inefficient tax.  Look at the chart provided by treasury to see just how poorly SD is as a form of revenue.  The marginal excess burden of SD is estimated at $1.70 for $1 of revenue - see chart from my previous post
> 
> It would be easy enough to allow low income and pensioners to capitalise the land tax and pay it when they sell their property or via their estate after death.
> 
> ...




I see where you are coming from, also we should drop income tax rates, also self funded retirees should be taxed more.
Syd, its not all about you mate.


----------



## qldfrog (31 August 2015)

Smurf1976 said:


> On the other hand, why should someone be taxed simply to keep land they already own outright?
> 
> Depending on the rate of such a tax, I see a potentially significant issue for retirees and others on a relatively lower income who have based their plans on the basis of owning a residence outright and being able to live in it relatively cheaply on an ongoing basis.



In essence and once again, tax the savers to subsidise the borrowers: why should the jetsky on a personal loan be taxed with extra gst and not the 30y old 3 bedroom bungalow of a self funded retiree...
Smurf, your questions have too much common and economic sense to be valid in 2015, so now let's blow 40 billions of our/your money on
you name it: a NDIS, submarines, airplanes,boats (last 3 in an age of missiles and drones...) etc etc etc..
Our political establishment on both sides has reached  a low by any standard....


----------



## sydboy007 (31 August 2015)

sptrawler said:


> I see where you are coming from, also we should drop income tax rates, also self funded retirees should be taxed more.
> Syd, its not all about you mate.




If you can't actually contribute why bother posting

I'm talking about taxation from an efficiency point of view which is supported by the taxation review the Abbott Govt you voted for has produced.

Explain to me why it's fair something like 20% of state budgets comes from the roughly 5% of people who purchase a property each year?

Why would you not want to move towards a tax base that allows us to collect the same level of revenue from less plucking of the goose?  If treasury is correct then we raise raise the equivalent $1 of revenue from just 90c of land tax that $1.70 of SD ultimately provides.  So explain to me why I am wrong in accepting what the tax review white paper has suggested?

We would be better off moving from taxing income and corporate profits.  Our budget is overly reliant on these taxes compared to the rest of the world.  Billions are wasted each year trying to minimise those taxes by individuals and companies.  You can't move land, you can't hide it, and you pretty much can't stop using it.  It's the least distorting tax.

So no SP, it's not all about you.  It's about how to equitably generate the revenue required to provide the level of first world services we expect and need to be competitive in the global economy.  

If you disagree with this, then how about putting the effort in to provide an explanation of why you do.

As for the impact on retirees, I've already stated it would be possible to capitalise the land tax for them which would be payable on selling the property or via their estate after death.

Your view seems to be that only the younger generation has to face the increasing levels of taxation.  We have 4 to 5 more decades of a falling worker to depend ratio, so without making the tax system more efficient, how do you suggest we go forward?  Just continue to let bracket creep and reduction in services to those under 60 to continually be cut while greater and greater levels of the budget go to the over 60s?

If we're not carefull it will soon turn into an aged based war between those left paying taxes, and the relatively untaxed over 60s.  We will have moved from taxing based on ability to pay to taxing based on your age.  How is that fair or efficient?


----------



## sptrawler (31 August 2015)

It has always been an aged based tax system, as the majority of people earning an increasing income, are in the younger age bracket.
As a worker reaches 50 their capacity to increase their wage diminishes. 
I don't disagree with your point of changing the tax base, however just changing the focus of collection from younger people to older people isn't the answer either.
Taxing land isn't unreasonable, but it does hit those who can least afford to pay it. 
Then saying they can basically just reverse mortgage their homes to the government, is just a re introduction of the death tax. 
Then you focus on retirees who are self funded, their lot has already been hit, with the reduction of the asset test.
There needs to be a reduction in level of tax on business and income tax, as this directly impacts on productivity, but to basically just shift the burden to the aged population will be just as counter productive.
Increasing the gst, which is a broad based tax, is the obvious starting point, then phasing in the  reduction of NG and CG tax offset, would be next. That wouldn't be as easy, as it will have a direct impact on the investment risk tolerance of people, which in turn will affect jobs.
Just focussing taxation on where wealth is, is fundamentally wrong in a capatalist system, it relies on wealth creation to increase endeavour and effort, through risk taking, participation, ingenuity and sacrifice.

As you say, it is wrong to place most of the burden on the generation that is working and earning an income.
It is just as wrong, to place most of the burden on those same workers, when they stop working.

Everyone has to share the load, not just run around scrambling to find someone else who has money to tax, that is inefficient.

Like I said the system has to encourage risk taking and investment, not punish it.

Same as the welfare system should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice and I do have a family member who has made that choice, which disappoints me incredibly.


----------



## McLovin (31 August 2015)

The problem, as I see it, is that people live longer now. We have one of the highest life expectancies in the world. In the generations previously retiring at 65 would afford you a few years on the pension and then that'd be curtains. Now we're very much looking at the prospect of people living for 25-30 years on the pension. That is, they are spending ~60%+ of their working life not working, and on state benefits. The system was never designed to have that sort of burden placed on it. It doesn't help that there is also a large glut of people entering retirement. Sort of like a perfect storm.

It can't last because working people in Australia already have some of the highest marginal tax rates. Meanwhile, retirees can draw a tax free (if you include franking credits, it's better than tax free!) income for life. And they are, naturally, the biggest consumers of the most expensive government service; healthcare. Which again comes at no cost.


----------



## sptrawler (31 August 2015)

McLovin said:


> The problem, as I see it, is that people live longer now. We have one of the highest life expectancies in the world. In the generations previously retiring at 65 would afford you a few years on the pension and then that'd be curtains. Now we're very much looking at the prospect of people living for 25-30 years on the pension. That is, they are spending ~60%+ of their working life not working, and on state benefits. The system was never designed to have that sort of burden placed on it. It doesn't help that there is also a large glut of people entering retirement. Sort of like a perfect storm.
> 
> It can't last because working people in Australia already have some of the highest marginal tax rates. Meanwhile, retirees can draw a tax free (if you include franking credits, it's better than tax free!) income for life. And they are, naturally, the biggest consumers of the most expensive government service; healthcare. Which again comes at no cost.




A couple of things McLovin, with the increase in obesity and inactivity, there is evidence that the next generation won't live as long as their parents, for the first time in history.

Secondly the health care cost for self funded people, as opposed to those on a government pension isn't free. Therefore the group in discussion do bear the cost of both private health cover and medicare, well I know I certainly do.
I am all for sensible adjustment to the tax on superannuation pensions, but I would like to see it conducted in an orderly investigated manner.
Not as it is now with a back of the napkin approach, as per Abbott dropping the assett test qualification and Shorten saying, tax earnings over an arbitrary figure, adjusted to suit polling requirements.
Workers should have every expectation, that if they are putting away money to fund their own retirement, there is going to be some certainty and clarity in the reward for it.


It is no difference, to the adjustments required in the NG and CG, payroll, stamp duty, etc taxes. 
What I am hearing though, is an emotionally driven arguement based on greed and bias, the system has to encourage investment and workforce participation.
If it doesn't do this our lifestyle will drop, as we are forced to increase tax to fund it, because investment won't be there to grow it.


----------



## sydboy007 (31 August 2015)

sptrawler said:


> It has always been an aged based tax system, as the majority of people earning an increasing income, are in the younger age bracket.
> As a worker reaches 50 their capacity to increase their wage diminishes.
> I don't disagree with your point of changing the tax base, however just changing the focus of collection from younger people to older people isn't the answer either.
> Taxing land isn't unreasonable, but it does hit those who can least afford to pay it.
> ...




this is what relatively high income taxes is leading to.  something has to change.  

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ionaires-who-paid-no-tax-20150429-1mw2zp.html



> Fifty-five of Australia's highest earners paid no income tax at all during 2012-13, not even the Medicare levy.
> 
> All earning at least $1 million, they managed to write their taxable incomes down to below the $18,200 tax-free threshold, although for most the exercise was expensive.
> 
> ...






> Around 9.5 million Australians paid tax in 2012-13, slightly down on the 9.7 million who paid tax in 2011-12. *The number of tax returns on which no tax was paid climbed from 2.9 million to 3.3 million.*




using a land tax, and revoking Abbotts captain picks on no changes to CGT / NG / Super taxes and using the transfer system to compensate the losers is the only way forward.

Older people are the only age group increasing their level of home ownership, and wealth, over the last decade.  Either claw some revenue from that via a land tax, or include it in the pension assets test.  

Our current tax system doesn't encourage risk taking, it encourages speculation.  Borrow as much as you can for property, claim 100% costs back on tax and halve you tax on capital gains.  The top 10% gorge themselves on billions of $$$ each year in CGT reductions - claiming 75% of the tax expenditure.

The Govt has backed from contributing to the debate.  It's heartening that business, unions, social service groups decided to engage each other in their own summit to bring some consensus on the way forward.

I recommend reading some of the policy choices they came up with:

http://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/National-Reform-Summit-statement.pdf

They have some viable recommendations on 


Productivity and workforce participation;
Fiscal policy;
Tax reform; and
Retirement policy

Maybe Labor will take up the challenge, maybe a Liberal Govt the removes Abbott and Hockey can take up the challenge.

If not, we'll continue to flounder till the debt markets force us into a very painful and destructive restructuring.


----------



## sptrawler (31 August 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> this is what relatively high income taxes is leading to.  something has to change.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ionaires-who-paid-no-tax-20150429-1mw2zp.html
> 
> ...




I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying it takes a lot more thought than we can afford it.

For example the land tax, superannuation pension tax, could be replaced with a death tax, as the U.K does. It would be much more efficient, than trying to guess what level of tax needs to be applied.

Just apply a % estate tax on the death of the individual, then the person isn't disadvantaged on their efforts to save and can enjoy the fruits of their labour.


----------



## sptrawler (31 August 2015)

Jeez we had a really good rapport going, until the last post, now we seem to have lost contact.

But realistically introducing a death tax is proven to be effective, it stops intergenerational wealth transfer, and the government gets the tax for supporting the baby boomers in later life.

The other options, make the baby boomers pay taxes, on their savings for retirement.

Then tax them, to reduce the quality of life, they have saved for.

It doesn't make sense.

Be careful what you wish for.IMO. 

Don't you love the cut and thrust.lol and knowing the government are 10 steps ahead of you, makes it really scary.lol
They just have to manipulate public opinion, to the desired outcome.


----------



## McLovin (31 August 2015)

sptrawler said:


> A couple of things McLovin, with the increase in obesity and inactivity, there is evidence that the next generation won't live as long as their parents, for the first time in history.




Life expectancy keeps rising every year. Unless I've missed something.



sptrawler said:


> Secondly the health care cost for self funded people, as opposed to those on a government pension isn't free. Therefore the group in discussion do bear the cost of both private health cover and medicare, well I know I certainly do.




Well there is no Medicare levy on SMSF's in pension mode. There's no tax at all. Also the overwhelming cost of providing healthcare to people with private insurance is still borne by Medicare. Considering the exponential growth in healthcare that is anticipated as baby boomers move into old age, I can't see how the current system is _at all_ sustainable. The two graphs below paint the picture, the cost/person in the second graph I think is particularly poignant given the demographics we have in Australia..










sptrawler said:


> Workers should have every expectation, that if they are putting away money to fund their own retirement, there is going to be some certainty and clarity in the reward for it.




Yes they should, but that needs to be weighed against their expectations of the provision of government services. At the moment I don't see any of that.



			
				sptrawler said:
			
		

> But realistically introducing a death tax is proven to be effective




Death taxes are pretty easy to get around.


----------



## sptrawler (1 September 2015)

McLovin said:


> Life expectancy keeps rising every year. Unless I've missed something.
> 
> 
> 
> Well there is no Medicare levy on SMSF's in pension mode.




Well I'm in pension mode and pay medicare levy, either you're wrong, or the tax department is wrong,

I know who I would think has their facts right.

No offence meant, but they can inflict a fine on me.

Maybe you've missed something.

This is what makes me angry, shoot from the hip, copy and paste crap.

I actually had you up there, as someone who knew what they were talking about. $hit I'm angry.
I'm really pi$$ed with this house extension, not only do I have crap tradesmen, I've got my gurus on asf proving themselves flawed.lol


----------



## McLovin (1 September 2015)

sptrawler said:


> Well I'm in pension mode and pay medicare levy, either you're wrong, or the tax department is wrong,
> 
> I know who I would think has their facts right.
> 
> ...




You're over 60? Get yourself a better accountant or ring the tax office yourself and ask them.


----------



## sptrawler (1 September 2015)

McLovin said:


> You're over 60? Get yourself a better accountant or ring the tax office yourself and ask them.




I'm not over 60, get your facts straight, before you run off at the mouth.

Your supposed to be the knowledgeable one.

Also regarding life expectancy, the next generation haven't died yet.


----------



## Junior (1 September 2015)

sptrawler said:


> I'm not over 60, get your facts straight, before you run off at the mouth.
> 
> Your supposed to be the knowledgeable one.
> 
> Also regarding life expectancy, the next generation haven't died yet.




From age 60 onwards you will pay no income tax, and no medicare levy on your pension income.  Your SMSF will pay zero tax on earnings, and be refunded all franking credits.

Although, I'm pretty sure you already know this.


----------



## sptrawler (1 September 2015)

Junior said:


> From age 60 onwards you will pay no income tax, and no medicare levy on your pension income.  Your SMSF will pay zero tax on earnings, and be refunded all franking credits.
> 
> Although, I'm pretty sure you already know this.




Thanks for that Junior and appologies to McLovin, going through a tough time ATM. Best not to post.


----------



## Junior (1 September 2015)

sptrawler said:


> Thanks for that Junior and appologies to McLovin, going through a tough time ATM. Best not to post.




Haha no worries trawler.  Mine was a grumpy pre-coffee post as well.

Keep at it, hope you push through the tough times.


----------



## sydboy007 (1 September 2015)

sptrawler said:


> I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying it takes a lot more thought than we can afford it.
> 
> For example the land tax, superannuation pension tax, could be replaced with a death tax, as the U.K does. It would be much more efficient, than trying to guess what level of tax needs to be applied.
> 
> Just apply a % estate tax on the death of the individual, then the person isn't disadvantaged on their efforts to save and can enjoy the fruits of their labour.




How would a death tax work when most wealthy people have various trust structures?  In a discretionary trust just how much does the dearly departed actually own?

Considering how the issue surrounding trusts and legalised tax avoidance, I doubt any Govt would have the ticker to sort that mess out.

I'd also say that even if a death tax was brought in tomorrow, it would take a considerable amount of time to generate much in the way of revenue.  You'd also have the same complaints you're making where people made their plans under the old rule sand it's not fair to be taxing them any more, though what they really mean in I don't like my inheritance being reduced by tax.

If the ATO came to you and said, based on your income level and proposed government spending you're tax bill is $10000 for the year.  We have various taxation methods to use that determines how much tax you need to remit to us.

For example, if paid via a land tax you will need to pay $10000

You could pay it via stamp duty, but due to the inefficiency of the tax you will need to pay $17,000 for the Govt to receive the $10000 in revenue.

A cheaper option would be to tax you via the GST, meaning you'd need to remit just $12,000.

Which option would you like to choose?

I'd prefer the tax system to be made a lot simpler and especially a lot more efficient.  The latest tax white paper has recommended removing CGT concessions.  Various policy groups have recommended major NG reforms, with debate on totally removing it to quarantining it to the asset income and new housing builds.

There has been much analysis and thought on this.  I am not plucking ideas out of my ass so to speak, but thoughtfully reading what those smarter than mean in this area have proposed and weighed up the various option proposed.  Simplicity, efficiency seems the best way forward.  It takes half a forest to print out our tax code these days.  Crazy.

Over the 2012-13 financial year $12.8B was collected in stamp duty, the ABS estimates that as at June 2013 there were 9,226,900 residential dwellings.  *Based on this dwelling count, land tax of ~$1400 annually per residential dwelling would cover the cost of this foregone revenue.*  Keep in mind that stamp duty is collected from any property transaction so revenue would be higher when you include land sales and sales of other property types.  This would potentially allow for a reduction in the overall land tax rate per household.

I don't think $1400 is an onerous tax to be paid, especially if it was raising extra revenue so that income and corporate taxes could be cut, and some of the extra revenue used to fund increase benefits for the poor and pensioners.  I'd prefer a tiered system.  Provide a tax free limit - say the bottom 15% of land valuations are tax free.  Then have a rate for next 16-80%, with a slightly higher rate for any value over that.  Should help to alleviate the tax minimisation of the ultra wealthy.

Due to the efficiency of the land tax compared to SD, that $12.8B of SD converts into just $7.52, but would increase to 14.22B via land tax.  It's the closest thing to free money we have.

Fairness is in many ways a political issue, and can be handled via the tax and transfer systems, as it has been in the past with the GST and Carbon tax.  taxing land and consumption, while lightly taxing profits and income, seems to match your argument for rewarding hard work and risk taking.


----------



## sptrawler (1 September 2015)

sydboy007 said:


> How would a death tax work when most wealthy people have various trust structures?  In a discretionary trust just how much does the dearly departed actually own?
> 
> Considering how the issue surrounding trusts and legalised tax avoidance, I doubt any Govt would have the ticker to sort that mess out.
> 
> ...




The biggest problem I can see with the land tax idea, is getting the politicians to vote for it, several politicians have numerous houses. The actual tax  could be easily collected with rates, and has a lot of merit,.

Removing the CG discount alone, would take a lot of steam out of the property market, as most are in it. for the CG.

NG could be more difficult I think, as removing all the encouragement for risk taking, could have a huge impact. Just my opinion, which according to the missus, isn't worth much.

As you say with death taxes, trusts would need sorting.lol


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 September 2015)

I can't confirm how true (or otherwise) it is but I just saw a Facebook post which says that Gina Reinhart's wealth grew by $19 billion last year.

Now, if that were subject to a level of taxation comparable to what ordinary workers pay then we'd have quite a few extra $ billion coming in from one individual alone. Then there's the others.

I'm not opposed as such to any particular tax that has been put forward but it's time to close the loopholes and stop the excuses which see a fortune of potential tax revenue given away each year. Only then does it seem fair to worry about households.


----------



## sinner (1 September 2015)

Smurf1976 said:


> I can't confirm how true (or otherwise) it is but I just saw a Facebook post which says that Gina Reinhart's wealth grew by $19 billion last year.




Take a quick squiz at Google, search "Gina Reinhart wealth rises" or "Gina Reinhart wealth drops" and note that the articles correlate perfectly with the Iron Ore price.

The problem with most journos in this case is they don't understand market cap is a valuation, not a wealth/worth.

Even if they work at the AFR...

http://www.afr.com/news/economy/tra...n-australia-into-a-new-greece-20150719-gifyxh



> Ms Rinehart, whose family have accumulated vast wealth from iron ore mining, has seen her fortune dwindle since commodity prices began their inexorable slide last year. The Australian mining mogul has seen her estimated wealth collapse to around $11bn from a fortune that was thought to be worth around $30bn just three years ago.



i.e. it went from $11bn plus $19bn to $30bn and then back to $11bn, just like the iron ore price.

Alas for the journos and those fooled into making facebook memes based on those journos articles, sanity prevails once again and we pay tax on the cashflows, not on valuations...

I don't like Gina Reinhart at all, but facts is facts.


----------

