Question Time Live: 24/02/2010

Nigel says:

03:22pm | 24/02/10

You’re right preciouspress they are serious issues.  The Government has been using the example of people who earn $200 000 or $300 000 compared with someone earning $32 000 per year.  Those ‘selfish’ high income earners already contribute up to ten times as much to the public health system each year through the compulsory medicare levy.  The Opposition is simply asking why should those people who contribute so much to the system be slugged even harder?

Sherlock says:

03:30pm | 24/02/10

Yeah, let’s tax those we believe to be rich! Nothing better than the politics of envy over breakfast TV. Labor have been running a class war against the perceived rich since the day it took office so why stop now?

It worked so well for Mark Latham.

Trevor Mueller says:

03:38pm | 24/02/10

I agree bring a double dissolution on health. Don’t leave us in limbo.

John A Neve says:

04:06pm | 24/02/10

Sherlock,
I did not want to buy into this debate, but I must.
Who’s rich and who’s poor, is not my concern, I would be very happy if we had a fair and equitable taxation system.

But as it is, the so called rich get away with murder. There can be no argument, that the rich are getting richer and the poor are going down the drain.

Tell me I’m wrong Sherlock.

Sherlock says:

04:19pm | 24/02/10

Well John

As a reward for a life time of study and the building of assets, I now pay more than 4 times the tax of an average Australian wage earner. I’m assuming that under your ” fair and equitable taxation system” I’d pay much less and the average wage earner would pay a lot more.

That sounds a lot more fair and equitable to me however I’d suggest the average wage earner might disagree.

John A Neve says:

07:47pm | 24/02/10

Sherlock,
I am disappointed you did not address my question, but I am used to being disappointed.

As to tax, yes under the system I would like introduced you would pay less. Most, if not all people would pay less, but the pool of payers would be larger. That is why the top end of down do not like the idea.

Evan Findlay says:

08:55pm | 24/02/10

So Sherlock your paying 4 times the tax than the average tax payer. Interesting, the average tax payer pays around 20%, so you are trying to convince us that you pay 80% tax on your income. Me thinks you are full of B.S. Typical Liberal Party voter, expects everyone to be as naive as they are and just as easily led.

Adam Diver says:

07:12am | 25/02/10

Cmon Sherlock how much money do you need to be happy? Seriously if you are into 6 figures a year why worry about extra tax you may have to pay and enjoy your life of luxury. If you can’t then whats the point of all your hard work and business acumen?

JR says:

07:56am | 25/02/10

Not too bright are you Evan.

Lets take this example.  If you earn twice as much as the average wage (lets call that 50 dollars a week).  Due to you earning 100 dollars a week you are taxed 50% of your wage (for the sake of argument), while someone earning 50 dollars a week are only taxed 25%, here are the figues.

$100 dollars a week - 50% tax = $50 tax
$50 dollars a week - 25% tax = $12.50 tax

4 x 12.50 = 50

That system sounds familiar.

Probably because its our system.

Please don’t vote.

Sherlock says:

08:45am | 25/02/10

Gee John

I don’t know how you’re going to increase the pool of taxpayers. With various rebates I think you need to earn about $13k before you pay tax and I don’t think you’re going to get much out of people who earn less than that.

Evan Findlay - your comment doesn’t even merit reply due to it’s total absurdity

Adam Diver - I’m not complaining about the tax I pay. However I think most people would like to pay less. I’ve got a number of friends at the tax office and apparently they don’t get to many cheques in the mail from people who feel guilty that they haven’t paid enough.

The point I was making is that the definition of a “fair and equitable” tax system may change depending on who you talk to.

John A Neve says:

09:09am | 25/02/10

Sherlock,
You disappoint me, you are thinking of tax as it is. Not as it could be, I told you I wanted a fair and equitable system. I repeat most people would pay less, in fact I believe all people would pay less.

Try thinking outside of the square Sherlock.
P.S. You still haven’t answered my question, too hard?

Sherlock says:

01:31pm | 25/02/10

John you said that the “the pool of payers would be larger” I’m just interested where these extra taxpayers are going to come from.

Your question? You mean are the rich getting richer? Certainly are as they have been since the beginning of time and will continue to do so. However the poor are getting richer as well. Maybe not at the same rate but getting richer is better than getting poorer.

John A Neve says:

02:54pm | 25/02/10

Sherlock,

As I have explained before on this site, a Financial Debits Tax, would reduce tax for the majority, possibly all taxpayers. But would catch every one, as a result the government would have a greater tax income.

Think outside the box Sherlock, you are all too busy proving that the opposition aren’t as smart as you and they are doing the very same thing. Our pollies love it, it’s called division.

Our current taxation system is corrupt and no one seems to care!!!

JR says:

09:56am | 25/02/10

How is it skewed in his favour? Are you kidding?

Lets say I earn 100 000 a year.
You earn 50 000 a year.

If we both payed 10% tax I pay 10 000 a year.
You pay 5000.

But here not only would I pay double tax if we are taxed the same percentage on our earnings, Im taxed at a higher rate than you.

I for the record do not have a problem with this system, I feel it makes for a far better society.

But dont claim it’s skewed in the favour of the more affluent.