Tax Godbotherers

[insider]

Our Dear Prime Minister seems intent on taxing the most vulnerable, the poor , the disadvantaged, indigenous, and mentally ill by his tax on cigarettes and alcohol.

These people are the most disadvantaged amongst us and all this will do is put pressure on the poor beset by debts to drug dealers, loan sharks and banks.

I've done some work with Voluntary organisations at the coalface,

Rich bastards like me and little Kevie can afford to buy fine wines, and good cigars.

Perhaps a tax on Godbotherers and their organisations would garner useful funds rather than flogging the poor.

Kevie walks solemnly every Sunday into church, let him pay $10 a hit as the poor will do for a pack of Wiinie blues.

gg

I don't think you understand the Governments Purpose of tax. Tax is used to curve social behavior. If people didn't drink or smoke to the point of nuisance, then they wouldn't tax it. If people didn't speed and have car accidents then they wouldn't fine you. Why would they want to tax people who go to church when are already in-line with the governments preferred social behavior. Aren't the poor the ones who get given your money? To spend on booze and cigarettes as you put it.

 

[insider]

No, but they will if I ever become PM.

Churches etc. are given money via donation during masses. That is not income, that is a gift, a charity, a donation. Can't be taxed.

 

[sails]

...A higher tax on cigarettes and alcohol would directly lead to less strain on our hospitals.
Every winter our hospitals are overflowing with emphysema and bronchitis patients, and no-one else can get a bed....

If a higher tax would simply fix the problem of these addictions and free up hospital beds, then I am all for it.

But my understanding is that smokes and grog are usually the last thing to go - other necessities such as food are more likely be sacrificed long before there is any decrease in addictive intake.

So, it is possible that the new tax may have a reverse effect with poorer people needing even more medical attention due to inadequate nutrition, etc. Only time will tell...

 

[Julia]

It is certainly NOT an increase in tax. Where did you get that crass idea from?

Duckman

Duckman, I'm hoping this was tongue in cheek from you?

It's a revenue gathering exercise much more than it's a reflection of our benevolent government's concern for our health.

If the tax on cigarettes were to actually be placed directly into the Health budget, and not general revenue, then I understand the contribution is approximately double the cost of treating diseases attributed to nicotine.

So no way is the government ever going to ban either tobacco or alcohol.
It's just worth way too much revenue to them.

To those of you suggesting people suffering from tobacco related diseases are taking up more than their share of the Health budget, it might comfort you to know that they are actually not even using up half of what they earn in taxes.

And no, I can't supply a link to this. It was in an interview with a Professor of Epidemiology on Radio National a few months ago.

If a higher tax would simply fix the problem of these addictions and free up hospital beds, then I am all for it.

But my understanding is that smokes and grog are usually the last thing to go - other necessities such as food are more likely be sacrificed long before there is any decrease in addictive intake.

So, it is possible that the new tax may have a reverse effect with poorer people needing even more medical attention due to inadequate nutrition, etc. Only time will tell...

Sails, sensible reasoning. My years working in the welfare sector would support what you suggest.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Taxes on cigarettes etc are an indirect tax. If you don't use them you don't pay it. These taxes should fund more than needed especially with health care.

 

[GumbyLearner]

Taxes on cigarettes etc are an indirect tax. If you don't use them you don't pay it. These taxes should fund more than needed especially with health care.

Snake

I was watching BBC World News the other night and there was a story about people stealing the lead from Church of England roofs. They are combating this by using semi-conductor and GPS technology to track thefts.

Apparently this has become a skyrocketing problem over the last 5 or so years.

My only question is... why do they need to invest so much money in this kind of technology?

Do such churches operate kitchens for the poor?

Never been to England, so I don't know!


Just a thought.

 

[Tink]

Taxes on cigarettes etc are an indirect tax. If you don't use them you don't pay it. These taxes should fund more than needed especially with health care.

Yep - watching the downhill slide in smoking over the years, I would be happy to see the downhill slide in alcohol too..

I hope they do take the same path...

 

[Julia]

Yep - watching the downhill slide in smoking over the years, I would be happy to see the downhill slide in alcohol too..

I hope they do take the same path...

Tink, there's nothing wrong with alcohol when used sensibly which is the case with most people.
Why should reasonable and sensible users of alcohol be slugged with an extra tax on the basis of the suggestion by government that the additional tax is to 'deter binge drinking'?

It's just as with the impost on the alcopop type drinks. That was supposed to be to 'stop teenagers binge drinking'. All that happened was that they switched to buying pure spirits and mixed their own, quite probably resulting in the consumption of even more alcohol.

 

[gav]

Tink, there's nothing wrong with alcohol when used sensibly which is the case with most people.
Why should reasonable and sensible users of alcohol be slugged with an extra tax on the basis of the suggestion by government that the additional tax is to 'deter binge drinking'?

And most people who own firearms are sensible too. Yet the govt still banned, collected and destroyed many firearms thanks to a fruit-loop in Tasmania.

I would much prefer to see rise in the tax on junk food, with the revenue being used to subsidise the cost of healthy foods.

 

[Tink]

Julia, I agree, when alcohol is used sensably its no problem, but unfortunately, I think Australia does have a drink problem culture and its all in the attitude..

This was an article from the Drug and Alcohol Australia the last time Alcopops was declined..

http://abc.com.au/unleashed/stories/s2523011.htm

 

[jono1887]

If a higher tax would simply fix the problem of these addictions and free up hospital beds, then I am all for it.

But my understanding is that smokes and grog are usually the last thing to go - other necessities such as food are more likely be sacrificed long before there is any decrease in addictive intake.

So, it is possible that the new tax may have a reverse effect with poorer people needing even more medical attention due to inadequate nutrition, etc. Only time will tell...

Well whose fault do you think it really is if they CHOOSE to buy cigarettes over food... I'd say they actually deserve what they get.

However... increasing the price of these goods should in the long term decrease the consumption in them. Even though they are addicted to cigarettes and alco... if 40-50% of your income is going towards it, dont you think people over time will gradually decrease their consumption of these goods.

Also the tax is required to internalise externalities that are associated with these goods. There are negative externalities associated with the consumption of these goods on other members of society like the reduced productivity, pollution, negative antisocial behaviour all costs which are not paid by the user of the product if it was not taxed.

I'd personally tax it even further if i was PM to the point of profit maximisation for the govt because that would be the most efficient amount of smokers/alcoholics in society whilst providing the highest tax revenue

 

[Krusty the Klown]

I don't think you understand the Governments Purpose of tax. Tax is used to curve social behavior.

I thought laws were supposed to do that?

Taxes are to pay for social services.

If people didn't speed and have car accidents then they wouldn't fine you.

That's why it is illegal by law, and not a tax.

The bottom line with booze and smokes is this - if the governments were concerned about the health aspects and health costs of these things then they would make them illegal - just like other prohibited drugs.

The reason they don't is the industry lobbies' political contributions and the loss of tax revenue that would make the government's job just that much harder.

Why would they want to tax people who go to church when are already in-line with the governments preferred social behavior?

Because we are not supposed to be taxed on behaviour. And you are assuming that all religious people are sober non-smokers. The biggest drinkers and smokers I have ever met are Catholic priests.

Churches etc. are given money via donation during masses. That is not income, that is a gift, a charity, a donation. Can't be taxed.

I don't have a problem with the donations being tax free, the donations are a small part of church revenues.

I believe churches and religious organisations should be taxed on all the business activities that comprises the bulk of their income. Fair's fair.

Residential and commercial rental properties, bank interest, capital gains from shares, dividends, business income (think Hillsong Church and the mass sales of CD's and DVD's, T shirts, books etc), schools.

If these organisations are serious about being good for society then they would have no problem in supporting it financially and not just morally.

 

[Trembling Hand]

I believe churches and religious organisations should be taxed on all the business activities that comprises the bulk of their income. Fair's fair.

Residential and commercial rental properties, bank interest, capital gains from shares, dividends, business income (think Hillsong Church and the mass sales of CD's and DVD's, T shirts, books etc), schools.

If these organisations are serious about being good for society then they would have no problem in supporting it financially and not just morally.

Just another example of the religious hypocrisy gladly swallowed by the followers. They teach spiritual wealth while their actions are about financial greed.

Then criticise big biz.

 

[Julia]

Also the tax is required to internalise externalities that are associated with these goods. There are negative externalities associated with the consumption of these goods on other members of society like the reduced productivity, pollution, negative antisocial behaviour all costs which are not paid by the user of the product if it was not taxed.

I

Planning a career in the jargon industry, jono???

Where on earth are you getting stuff like 'internalise externalities"?

 

[Krusty the Klown]

Just another example of the religious hypocrisy gladly swallowed by the followers. They teach spiritual wealth while their actions are about financial greed.

Then criticise big biz.

One thing I actually forgot to mention is that when a church gets paid a fully franked dividend, they get tax CREDITS, even though they pay no tax!!

So they receive $100 in dividends like every other shareholder but then they get approximately $30 extra. It's not a tax refund its a tax bonus.

So Australian business is actually paying taxes TO these religions.

 

[Julia]

One thing I actually forgot to mention is that when a church gets paid a fully franked dividend, they get tax CREDITS, even though they pay no tax!!

So they receive $100K in dividends like every other shareholder but then they get approximately $30K extra. It's not a tax refund its a tax bonus.

So Australian business is actually paying taxes TO these religions.

That's true, Krusty, but the same principle applies to any individual who does not pay tax for whatever reason, e.g. retirees in pension phase.

 

[Krusty the Klown]

That's true, Krusty, but the same principle applies to any individual who does not pay tax for whatever reason, e.g. retirees in pension phase.

Yes, but most individuals who are in this situation have actually paid tax in the past, so have contributed to the financial upkeep of their society, so I have no problem with that.

The issue I have are organisations that conduct huge business enterprises and do not have to pay for the social infrastructure that supports their business.

Seriously, is religion going to cease to function because they have to pay tax?

Let's say 30% of income, companies seem to be able to do it. Churches all own their own land by now anyway. Catholic priests take a vow of poverty, so the Catholic church saves alot in that they don't have to pay wages.

Although, I must say how shocked I was, when in my professional capacity, I came across a local pastor who earned $100K p.a. from his church for doing his job plus a free house.

P.S. Arguments about big biz shirking their tax responsibilites through tax minimisation are for another thread.

 

[sails]

Well whose fault do you think it really is if they CHOOSE to buy cigarettes over food... I'd say they actually deserve what they get.

However... increasing the price of these goods should in the long term decrease the consumption in them. Even though they are addicted to cigarettes and alco... if 40-50% of your income is going towards it, dont you think people over time will gradually decrease their consumption of these goods....

Not promoting this as a good idea by any means. I'm neither a smoker nor alcoholic, so have no axe to grind. The discussion was previously about smoke and grog causing overcrowding in our hospitals. My comment was only to point out that those addicted are probably more likely to damage their health further by cutting back on life giving essentials before any thought of giving up their addictions.

It would be great if it worked and helped excessive users to cut back - I'm all for that.

But, is it a sneaky tax where the govt. knows they will rake in higher revenue due to the fact that most won't give up? Just a thought...

 

[insider]

I thought laws were supposed to do that?

Taxes are to pay for social services.

That's why it is illegal by law, and not a tax.

[

Well DUH! But the end result is that taxes are an "effective tool" to curve social behaviour. There is nearly no difference between fines and taxes. One is broad the other is more personal. An example, over a life time the average person would've been fined one way or another for doing everyday stuff. Travelling 3 k an hour over the limit... big deal everyone does that up hill down hill where ever... Use the road more and you'll be taxed/fined more often. The gov. expects to make a certain am,ount a year... Anyway time 4 dinner

 

[Duckman#72]

Duckman, I'm hoping this was tongue in cheek from you?

Totally Julia.

I must admit, I'm scared. The ability to use Rudd's "weasel words" seems to be too easy. No one other than you, even seemed to question them. That is a sad reflection on society.

Duckman