Yes Rumpy, I agree..Flo Bejeilki-Petersen (forgive my spelling if I am wrong) promoted a 25% flat tax for all with no deductions when she was a senator.....A good idea.
Useless Labor Party
- Thread starter idribble
- Start date
Yes Rumpy, I agree..Flo Bejeilki-Petersen (forgive my spelling if I am wrong) promoted a 25% flat tax for all with no deductions when she was a senator.....A good idea.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,222
- Reactions
- 17,310
I'd be happy if they just closed the loopholes.
Tax rate is set at whatever so that's the rate that should be paid. No workarounds and loopholes. If it's 30% then it's 30%.
So long as we have multi-national companies paying practically no tax on their Australian operations, I fail to see the need to be concerned about things such as GST or welfare spending. If we can afford to forego $ billions in revenue then we can afford universal healthcare and so on.
If Labor had a plan to fix the mess then they'd have my vote. Same with the Coalition. As it stands now, our governments are a little too close to big business and a lot too far away from the ordinary people for my liking.
Tax rate is set at whatever so that's the rate that should be paid. No workarounds and loopholes. If it's 30% then it's 30%.
So long as we have multi-national companies paying practically no tax on their Australian operations, I fail to see the need to be concerned about things such as GST or welfare spending. If we can afford to forego $ billions in revenue then we can afford universal healthcare and so on.
If Labor had a plan to fix the mess then they'd have my vote. Same with the Coalition. As it stands now, our governments are a little too close to big business and a lot too far away from the ordinary people for my liking.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,965
- Reactions
- 12,454
I'd be happy if they just closed the loopholes.
Tax rate is set at whatever so that's the rate that should be paid. No workarounds and loopholes. If it's 30% then it's 30%.
So long as we have multi-national companies paying practically no tax on their Australian operations, I fail to see the need to be concerned about things such as GST or welfare spending. If we can afford to forego $ billions in revenue then we can afford universal healthcare and so on.
If Labor had a plan to fix the mess then they'd have my vote. Same with the Coalition. As it stands now, our governments are a little too close to big business and a lot too far away from the ordinary people for my liking.
The loopholes come about because of the deductions businesses are allowed to claim, like interest on loans to their parent companies which pay less tax on that interest in other jurisdictions. No deductions, no tax advantage, money generated by sales in this country gets taxed here.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,965
- Reactions
- 12,454
Depends on the tax rate, make it 10% like the GST you and I have to pay (which we don't get back) and companies would adjust.
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
You do realise that turnover is the net sales generated by the business, not the profit?
So a business might have a turnover of $10M say and costs of $9.5m and you want them to pay 10% tax on their $10m turnover? So instead of them being able to use their modest profit of $0.5M to re-invest in the business, you want to tax them $1M so they end the year with an after tax loss of $0.5M in spite of having made a modest profit.
You can only tax profits not turnover as every company will have turnover but may not have any profits or just minuscule profits.
You may need to look at this short video and the one that follows it.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpPiyXoXNng
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,965
- Reactions
- 12,454
I'm aware of the difference between turnover and profits.
A turnover tax will favour the most efficient businesses, ie those with the lowest costs and therefore able to offer the lowest prices. The lower the prices of their goods, the less taxes the company pays. Good for the consumers, good for the economy and good for government revenue and therefore for provision of government services.
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,954
- Reactions
- 1,152
I'm for a turnover tax on the public service : the more they turnover back to the community instead of into their own pockets and their disgraceful salary sacrifice and superannuation rorts, the less super tax they pay on their underserved no risk stipends.
There are lots of suggestions made on tax reform but you are all off topic.:topic
This thread is about the USELESS LABOR PARTY and they will stay useless so long as they have Barnacle Bill as leader and a puppet to the unions.
But off topic on a serious note, we do do need tax reform and closure of legal loop holes .....As Kerry Packer once stated "Why pay tax when you don't have to".
This thread is about the USELESS LABOR PARTY and they will stay useless so long as they have Barnacle Bill as leader and a puppet to the unions.
But off topic on a serious note, we do do need tax reform and closure of legal loop holes .....As Kerry Packer once stated "Why pay tax when you don't have to".
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,965
- Reactions
- 12,454
Unfortunately the Liberals are looking equally useless when it comes to tax reform...
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,954
- Reactions
- 1,152
The thread is a moot one anyway, because the Labor Party are not governing.... it's News Corp and their lacky LNP's turn to stuff things up.
And you don't think the dorks in the senate have anything to with preventing reform?
We need a DD in March to root out the dead wood in the senate...We don't need obstruction for obstruction sake.
The Useless Labor Party have not come up with any alternative except lift taxes and re-introduce a Carbon Dioxide and mining tax.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,965
- Reactions
- 12,454
Sounds preferable to a GST increase to me...
With the GST at least one knows what tax you are paying, further more pensioners and low paid workers would have been compensated......The GST is also a tax revenue from tourist who visit Australia.
With that Labor Party useless Carbon dioxide tax it was open to exploitation....Companies could use it as an excuse to increase the the price on their products products and nobody could ever check the truth......The naive were well and truly conned and up the creek without a paddle.......The Labor Party's Carbon dioxide tax was a rip off....Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it is an essential part of plant life so why tax it?
Logique
Investor
- Joined
- 18 April 2007
- Posts
- 4,290
- Reactions
- 768
Certainly the Coalition's proposed GST increase is a game changer. Why abolish the carbon tax, only to increase the GST, what's the difference, it's still a tax grab by both sides of the house.
So why not place the following options on the table:
- increase the Medicare levy (..bet they don't)
- raise the tax bracket thresholds, if bracket creep is such an issue (..bet they don't)
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
Not in the least bit true. Mass retailers (for example supermarkets) work on the basis of high turnover and low profit margins. Companies like Coles and Wollies work on markups of just a few % on high volume items (which is mainly what they sell), because they turnover their stock multiple times per year. So if they have an item (bar of chocolate say) that they purchase 100 of at $0.98 each and sell for $1 each and those are sold and replenished 100 times per year, then their turnover from that item will be $10,000 with a profit of $200. And you are saying that their tax (attributable to just that item) should be $2,000?. That would force them to increase their costs to compensate. Effectively you would need to add 10% to their markup price for them to maintain the same profit.
You can't put a flat tax on turnover because turnover is dependent mostly on the nature of the business, not efficiency. In the above example, the supermarket only needs working capital of $98 (over and above coverage of indirect costs) to buy 100 of that chocolate item and turn it over 100 times per year (since sales are cash only) generating $10,000 in turnover. On the other hand what about a business that sells farm equipment. They might have a particular tractor that they sell just 5 of per year. That might cost them $14,000, so they sell it for $20,000. So they too have a turnover of $100,000 attributable to that item, but because they are low volume high markup, they could easily pay 10% tax on their turnover, as it would amount to $2,000. Since their gross profit was $6,000, $2,000 tax on turnover for them amounts to 33% tax of their profits, which is close to the current company tax rate. Worth noting is that their direct working capital needed to generate $100k revenue from that item is $14K, vs $98 for the high volume retailer.
There is just no way you could use turnover as a metric for tax as you would disadvantage high volume low cost retailers at the expense of low volume high cost producers.
A final example. A small high volume retailer trims his costs through efficiency measures and passes some of the savings on to his customers. As a result he increases his turnover from $10M to $12M and his profit from $1M to $1.1M. His tax should be based on the profit increase, not on turnover increase. You would penalise him on his efficiency success by taxing him $200K more even though he has expanded his business (and all that entails) and lowered prices to consumers. So he ends $70K worse off than before he started. He would pay $30K tax on his additional profit using the current company tax system, but pay $200K more using your method. So he pays $170K more in tax on a profit increase of $100K, meaning his extra effort made him $70K worse off that he was before he made the changes.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,965
- Reactions
- 12,454
If the government wants to tax my income, then why don't I get a deduction for my costs of living, the food I eat, the costs of transport to and from work, the rent I pay, power and water etc, ie the stuff I need to keep working and earning an income in order to pay tax ?
They are my "private" expenses according to the government, but we'll tax those as well via a GST.
If I was a business and my costs of living go up, then so should my price (salary). If business costs go up they don't get taxed more like me, they just get bigger deductions, so there is a fundamental inequity in the way business and individuals are taxed which should be rectified.
What we need is a Fabian style government where there is central control......lets have no private business..No corporate rorting.......The Government runs the show.....The Government takes over all the mining, manufacturing, agriculture and the banks... .no tax ..no worries.....No bloody unions.....work 10 hours a day for low pay....We all live in poverty in government run high rise units.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,965
- Reactions
- 12,454
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
I think you need to study Economics 000 and Business 000.
Noco ! What has happened to you ? Have you seen the light !
No, I ain't seen the light on the hill for 60 years....I think the Fabians took it and sent it back to Russia.
Shhhhh!!!!!....Don't spoil it for me Rumpy, I was hoping to get an invitation to join the Fabians so I can infiltrate them.
I think I am going slowly insane from all this political BS.