Being a cynical pr1ck, I believe that the Australian public have just been ambushed when seeing on TV news screen this morning, that Major Super fund Managers mooted that the GST should be raised to 15%, from the current 10%
Now they (Fund Managers) wouldn’t be trying to protect their portfolios from the Mining super profit tax, and slamming the average punter across the board instead, would they
I don't have much objection to GST or sales tax in principal. But it should be at a very low rate (perhaps zero) on items that are 'essential'. Such as (a very random list to illustrate my point) :
water, electricty, domestic gas
Childrens shoes
Milk
Fresh vegeatables
public transport
Maybe 15% on luxury items -
private motor cars over $50,000
fast food
'conspiracies monthly' magazine
To those folks that carped on against a potential mining super profits tax, don't let me hear one kn word when our personal tax (directly or indirectly such as a GST hike) goes through the roof in the next few years.
Bills have to be paid one way or another.
Kn idiots.
personally, I would be happy to pay 15, probably even 18% GST if they dropped income tax altogether.
and a whole heap of other hidden taxes.
That way, we would actually get all the money we actually earn and its then up to us what we buy, but meh what would I know.
I am more than happy to pay a bit more
Proviso is that the Govt:
(1)stops producing glossy brouchures
(2) drives their own cars
(3)stops fact finding missions when the "facts" they seek are available online and the people they need to meet can be teleconferenced
(4) stops giving $2million a year to an arts festival that runs for a week and largely comprises of long haired freaks doing stuff like riding a unicycle down the shopping mall or posing covered in paint. Due to its irrelevance to the majority of us, about 0.1% of people actually go to see it
(5) don't change the names of any more public utilities for no reason. Costs tens of millions of dollars and achieves nothing
feel free to add I'm too p!ssed off at them to type any more
That would mean in effect, that the lowest paid people in the community would be paying the same tax rate as the highest paid people. 25%.
i.e. a single parent on $25,000 would be paying the same rate as Twiggy F. on $millions a year;
and a pensioner on $10,000 a year paying the same rate as the premier on $400,000 a year.
Somehow I don't think that sounds either fair or reasonable.
Here's the present tax rates so you can do a more accurate assessment. It doesn't come out quite as fair as you suggest.
The idea might sound nice but it fall down at the lower income end.
Maybe they could look at making some alterations for pays below say $40,00 pa and then it might be workable.
Personal Tax Rates (including 1.5% Medicare Levy)
2009/2010
$0- $6000 ---0%
$6001- $35,000 ---16.5%
$35,001 - $80,000 ---31.5%
$80,001- $180,000 ---39.5%
$180,001 & Above ---46.5%
2010/2011
$0- $6000 -- 0%
$6001- $37,000 --16.5%
$37,001 - $80,000 -- 31.5%
$80,001- $180,000 --38.5%
$180,001 & Above --- 46.5%
I might be uninformed (and most of the time, I am!
), but I read a few years back (prob around 2000-2002, after GST was introduced), that if EVERYTHING you purchase was taxed between 3 - 5% that no other taxes would be necessary...no tax returns but also no big corps dodging taxes.
Not sure how this floats, but from memory I read that it would bring in more money for the government also...anyone with accounting knowledge keen to comment?
That would save me big$$$$
.... to remain compliant in the present system cost way too much, making it simpler & more transparent would be great.....This would also help tax the cash economy as the money will re enter mainstream economy at some stage(i think).... anyhow I have noticed less cash being offered since the gst was introduced.
An oldie, but a goodie
Keep that in mind every time Kev or his replacement decide to beat up the mining companies.
There is no doubt that they are the only industry in Australia that provided the conditions that we got used to over the last 10 years.
To continue the analogy, if they stop paying for the drinks you will either have to stop drinking or pay for them yourself.
And under the proposed new '40% plus' tax there is no doubt they will do just that.
That's 40% on top of existing taxes, not a flat rate of 40% total.
Thanks pugwash.
Hey! It says it's deductible from income tax. So it's 40% but other taxes are reduced because it is deductable, no? And they get a refund of the state royalties. So it's not 40% "on top of" other taxes.
Not to mention that that's probably all changed now.
I pity all the software developers who have hardcoded something like this in many, many places...
$TotalWithTax = $Total * 1.1;
Y2k all over again!
And to boot, the adds are tax deductible anyway.)
I think the government misjudged our nations intelligence. We can tell the difference between revenue and profit. We can tell the difference between rhetoric and fact.
Companies will fight it, it is a lot more than a billion. For some companies with iron ore and coal, it may cost more than a billion dollars a year. The government estimated it would earn $3 billion under the new tax in 2012/13 and $9 billion in 2013/14 (money that was all spent in the budget).
I will be very disappointed with Labor if they scrap the tax. It is on the table, so here's their chance. Change the model. Make it a REAL profits tax. Think about the interaction with companies tax. The mining industry has agreed it can pay more tax. The mining industry suggested moving to a profits based tax system. So lets do it, sensibly.
BTW, the JG interview with Laurie Oakes was interesting this morning. JG was the mind behind the governments immigration by water (how's that for spin) and ETS position. JG spent most of the time wiggling, wording and ultimately said nothing. Just like Elmer Fudd.
In England they hit up the banks for extra tax, coz they caused the gfc and then they bumped the vat from17.5% to 20%. So I can see the govt backing off the miners a touch so they will accept some additional tax. Then the govt will hit up the banks and the gst for the extra.
This one has me a wee bit bamboozled
Ok so there was something on television (known for it's hard hitting news articles),
Search as I may, I can't seem to find any other news articles on this.
Can someone please point me in the right direction
The reason it is so hard to find any authorative government publications on the overall workings of this is simple.
There aren't any.
Why would they want to put that up for scrutiny?
You can come to that conclusion by scanning through the only government publication on the matter, 40 pages of smooth talk and spin in the link which Pugwash put up;http://www.futuretax.gov.au/documents/attachments/Announcement_document.pdf
FORTY pages of sales pitch with almost zero information of how much the total tax take would be and how that figure would be calculated.
That's not an oversight.
Note how often the inference is made that the total tax take would only be 40%.
Note how often they use the expression that Australians "deserve a fair return" for their resources.
You can't argue with that can you? And I don't either.
However, I do argue with their definition of "fair".
The proposed tax is much more than fair and it is that which would scuttle the industry if the tax was brought in, in it's proposed form.
It won't wipe it out completely, but it will put a severe dent in it.
There are various articles on the internet about this but nothing from any government authority.
You can look at this link for a reasonable assessment of how the figures pan out.
www.smh.com.au/business/the-resource-super-profits-tax--what-is-it-20100511-usnu.html
They have used the company tax rate as 28% rather that the 30% which I used so their top rate is slightly lower.
I didn't use the lower rate because the present rate is 30% and going on the fact that the last time the government promised to remove "a whole raft of taxes" when they bought in the GST, and then took ten years to even partially fulfil that promise, I don't expect this would be any different, so best take it as 30%.
Thanks Mike,
Rather read about it before leaping to concussions.
Still only one groups opinion (the ones that would be getting the benifit from the increased super funding).
I find it interesting to read that they would recommend it with or without the RSPT being implemented
