millionaires who pay next to no income tax

A lot of generalizations:

• Stuff in head = Information = knowledge.
• Mental capacity is finite.
• Wealth building is the sole purpose of human existence.

 

I have no idea what your posts are saying but peace brother/sister. Whatever tickles your fancy. Good luck.

 

Just trying to ascertain if you were going to "exploit the system" by claiming your legally allowable deductions.

 

Lol.

There is legally allowable deduction and then there is:
an incestuous structure of company, unit trust, discretionary trusts, wherein the expenses go to maximum earning entity (who claims NG) and incomes are distributed to say grand mother's second cousin's brother in law via sweat equity units who has a registered charity and does not pay tax and then the company claims the money back for doing paper laundry on bed sheets (a la Eddy Groves).

Don't get me wrong, I am not against claiming deductions or for that matter lower tax rates for companies. Economy will not function without deductions. It is these exotic convoluted structures which dent the fairness of the system and the whole society pays the price.
Edit: Swapped minimum with maximum.

 

Your argument is that you should be able to minimise tax using legal means while other tax payers shouldn't be allowed because they have more revenue or a larger than you.

If you had say $50k between yourself and your spouse, but your spouse wasn't working I guess you wouldn't invest in the spouse's name to save tax?

 

No, my argument is neither personal nor related to amount of revenue and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. It is simple:

• Have an income or profit, pay your fair tax.
• Choose to speculate on property via low yielding investments, do not expect the tax payer to foot the misadventure via NG.

Again personalizing the debate. Define work (I am guessing you mean paid work). Our investments do not redistribute the income with a view to minimize tax.

 

If you are happy to pay more tax than you could be that is generous of you. (a better way may be to structure your affairs to save tax and make a donation (tax deductible perhaps) to your favourite cause.


I think we should tighten up the laws to prevent double dutch sandwiches and the like, especially for the big companies. ButI also think that everyone, including companies, has the right to minimise their tax within the law.

 

I will never pay a cent to a charity. I have seen first hand the mis-allocation of people's trust and money. Have a read of any charity's balance sheet (if you can get hold of one) and perception of government's supposedly mishandling of tax will change. Seldom will 30 cents in a dollar reach the intended cause. IMHO government is more transparent and better informed to utilize the tax dollars then charities.

• Not just the big companies, even individuals and NG and CGT is a good start, even though not popular.
• Even within existing law, profits and ethics can co-exist.

 

hahah...what ya smokin...I'll have one please.


I worked for gov for a few years and I know first hand, they waste hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars on absolute nonsense.

 

I agree with you about the charities.

 

try Shane Warne for immediate relief. Long term google NKF, Singapore

 

I'm not doubting there are charities that do the wrong thing mate. But I certainty don't believe that government is much better. The fraud/wastage is rampant. Everyone looks after their own tuchus.

You think gov really gives a crap about the people?? pl-eeeeeeeeeeease.

 

• With Govt, I can see what my tax dollars are doing. Charities not so much.
• Charities : Single focus. Governments: Multiple. At least govts try to redistribute tax most appropriately.
• A crap about the people: Travel to Asia, Africa, South America, you will realize the difference. I see good governance, services, transportation, medical facilities, infrastructure, education, fast judicial recourse, social security, quality of life.There is always scope of improvement, but by and large (against international standards) an equitable society and good, secure quality of life. Which charity will do all that ? If I do not like certain aspects of governance at least I can try to vote the other mob in. Try that with charities.

 

No argument there at all. I have always believed Australia is a fantastic country in many regards and I believe hands down probably one of the best places to live in the world.

But I don't believe the gov really cares about the individual person. They do whatever they have to do to try and stay in power, and what suits their needs. Its the Australian people, the hard workers, the mostly peaceful nation that have made Australia what it is. Not any political party imo.

 

I see a contradiction between your first paragraph and second, but if that's your opinion so be it. You have put up with a lot of mine.

 

I know it can be seen as a contradiction

But I think politicians are not really representative of the average person in society. They have their own agendas. But of course its only my opinion.

 

Our government waste billions of dollars on over staffing BS departments with no justification on the spending not to mention all the wasted money on programs/schemes/research/branding/rebranding/entertaining/policy/elections/referendums/

 

Thats one view based on what you have seen and believe. I have been involved with some well known medical charities and see a different perspective. They are run by well experienced and educated people who generously give their time. They achieve great outcomes with the money received and implement terrific outcomes. Examples Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Salvation Army.

Yes sometimes some charitable projects cost money to implement. A example being the McGrath Foundation. The pink products they sell cost money some gifted, some discounted, some paid. Sometimes professionals are paid to implement outcomes. But it is managed so that the end game is $ and that feeds into more breast care nurses.

I have seen some generous and amazing charitable gifts by people who seek to remain anon and who dont even ask for a tax receipt.

Charitable financial reports don't measure what they deliver. Its one of the failures of standardised accounting processes that measure costs rather than value. Using the financials from Red Cross doesnt measure the value of the blood donor bank and its terrific work that saves lives every minute of every day.

 

Since you are involved with accounting, I am guessing you have far more access to the balance sheets of these charities. I hope you can clarify some questions:

• Since there are tax reliefs available to charities for a good cause, why are their balance sheets (in spite of shortcomings) not publicly available ?
• How many cents per dollar reach the cause ?
• Why should anyone go through a charity when you can directly say pay a medical or education expense for the needy ?
• How is a charity more efficient than government in delivering the terrific outcomes ?
• How is the religious affiliation of a charity reconciled against secular fabric of our democracy ? Historically charities are synonymous with proselytizing as the social cause and vulnerable recipients are perfect mix for it. Where is the oversight ?
  
• Salvation Army: How was pedophilia cover up reconciled in the profit and loss balance sheet? Profit due to cover up or one time capital expenditure or recurring expense to transfer the offender regularly.

 

I am sure Paul will be able to answer those questions based on his inside knowledge. He also knows how long a piece of string is too as he has a piece on his desk next to his ruler.