millionaires who pay next to no income tax

ROFLMAO. I guess I was OTT.

 

Only public listed companies are obliged to list public accounts. Many charities supplement their efforts with reports that show how they discharge their responsibilities for their cause and share this information with benefactors. They may report and benchmark cashflows and what they have achieved.
But they often dont disclose their assets - Assets dont produce income in many cases or may be in use in producing the outcomes. I know a (very large) church that wanted to adopt what I will call value based reporting since they arent bound to use accounting standards and wanted to value all its assets - I gave advice that said NOT to. The value of their buildings are meaningless... They arent selling their churches.

Depends. It costs money to produce effort. Woolworths makes 2 cents in the dollar in profit. It gives a large chunck to shareholders. Is that efficient ? Other companies make several % per dollar of revenue. Some charities invest in research with very long payoffs. Nobody wants to commit the $. IMO giving to some cold caller on the phone is NOT a efficient way to assist. The caller takes a cut and that is inefficient waste.

Personal choice. I did this last week. I arranged for someone to have a essential medical op at no charge by a client medical pro who was generous of their time. Thats human kindness. They said it was Professional Karma.

Bias against / for religion is root of all evil IMO [eg ISIS]. That doesnt make religious causes evil [Islam is a good kind faith]. Many religious organisations do great work that is unbiased. The salvo's dont ask what religion you are when your home is destroyed in a bushfire.

People did these things not the institutions. Many institutions then failed the people affected. When the Royal Commission ends you will see they will have to pay. It wont make it right though.

Most charity in Australia is NOT made by donation. It is made by generous actions, giving time, effort or resources. None of which is reported or publically acknowledged. Many employers and companies have benchmarks they commit to such causes. Those who give usually just ask for confidentiality. I have seen many examples of this and its staggering how kind some are. And some public leaders are ********s. (I see we are back to censoring words like ar5eh0les....LOL)

Some age pensioners more generous than millionaires. There is no reporting at all on human decency.

 

I respect your views and especially your kindness, but still too opaque, un-secular, unregulated, inefficient, predatory (work for dole) and corruptible in my opinion.

 

I wonder if these millionaires indirectly own the tax agencies who manage their affairs? There has to be something dodgy here. ie; somehow they get much of that money back - under the table.

 

There is no reporting at all on human decency. Good examples:

The One Campaign to end African Debt
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
The Global Fight v's AIDS / HIV

Just because charity isn't well spent in one opinion should it mean charity is wrong. Never. We become wolves when we do that.

 

Millionaire is a term used to describe asset wealth.
Income is what we pay tax on.
Some wealth taxes exist. Duty, land tax, rates, GST etc.

Most multi-millionaires structure to avoid earning income to defer and limit tax. That is not illegal. Not even dodgy. If you won $40m in Oz Lotto you would be barking fn mad to invest it all in your own name. That's all they are doing.

 

At the risk of repeating myself, what do you make of this sandwich ?
Double Irish With A Dutch Sandwich Definition | Investopedia

What about the entire world except tax haven's who think it is dodgy and trying to declare it illegal.

 

Someone who doesnt LMFAO... Mr Sad and gloomy.

 

Happy easter holidays.

 

Why are you even on these forums ?
All you seem to do is get outraged over anything tax related

 

I think I am suitably justifying myself, just that the views are a bit different than most of the member's.
But your point is duly noted, I think I have said most what needed to be said. Will try not to comment on tax related issues. Thanks

 

Are you in the armed forces ?

 

I was

 

I assume this question is really, why do so few cents per dollar reach the cause, or direct service provision?

Large charities can not be run completely by volunteers and donations in kind - it's simply not possible. When I give a grand to the local sports club I assume that almost all of it will be used for the cause. When I give a grand to the RSPCA I assume that a large part of it will be used for overheads, like to pay staff, office expenses, fundraising expenses etc etc.

If you can find that needy person directly then go ahead, but most people can't. Let's say I have a grand to pay for a medical or educational expense for the needy. I wouldn't have a clue what individual needs it or how to ensure they actually spend it on that need and a grand certainly wouldn't be enough to pay for that need. Most people wouldn't have a grand either. So a charity collects donations from many people and meets the need - of course there are some administrative expenses along the way.

 

Interesting debate folks. If I can drift a little off track. For me it all comes down to the question of why we take such decisions as individuals, as businesses, as governments. Fundamentally it is the individual drops that make up the ocean. If most of the drops are warm the ocean is warmer. If most of the drops are kind and charitable .............. Cause and effect I guess?

IMO. Whether someone legally reduces tax or not won't determine the future well-being for themselves or the country. It is the generous or selfish motivation in varying degrees behind the individuals actions that either ease or agitate our conscience. Generally people suffer due to selfishness, etc and are rewarded with contentment for charitable deeds based on the desire to help others.
Personally I do reduce tax as much as possible and donate regularly (but not always) to tax deductible charities and I have often thought whether it (being tax deductible) really makes any difference to my wellbeing and ultimate financial position. Giving to get a tax deduction could be extremely selfish in some instances if the motivation is purely to increase ones wealth, pride and status.
I have justified it by thinking that I can give the charity a little more if I can claim it as a deduction but something inside me at times questions this argument. Despite this niggling point, donating time and money, providing employment and housing to my community has provided much satisfaction and contentment in my life so I figure I am on the right track.
As others have said we sure do live in a fortunate country. It is gladdening that there are many in this country who dig deep for the needy. I certainly hope that most of the donors give out of a sincere volition to predominately help another human being in their time of need and suffering rather than merely another opportunity for reducing their tax burden!

 

I don't think it's a meaningful statement to say 'it's currently legal so therefore I'm fine with it'. How could progress ever occur with such rationale? Why would laws be amended? Laws could never be changed because there would be no impetus to do so. Beyond that, look at the entire purpose of the GAAPs.

It should be obvious, yet apparently isn't based on comments in this thread, that taxation has an impact on the economy and society in general, beyond the ink on the paper. When laws are made, they must be monitored to ensure any negative impacts are remedied. When they are made, they need to be equitable.

The other major issue is as follows; interest groups. If it was simply that these entities/industries received the tax benefit but were incapable of materially influencing the taxation structure itself, then the issue would be relatively neutered. But when they have the capability of influencing the laws that are created, which can be created for their benefit, then we have a problem. You could say, 'well all you need to do is get more people involved to have more influence than those other guys', and yes, that's true.... and all we would need is 12 weekends every weekend to have enough time to protest against each bulls%&$ thing in politics. Instead, maybe it's a matter of putting some pressure on politicians, who are elected to represent the people, without requiring inequitable amounts of time investment every damn time there's a powerful lobby group pulling some crap.

To be clear, I haven't commented on the actual things put forward in the OP: I simply don't have enough information to gauge if they have been dodgy, or manipulative, or have been absolutely upstanding corporate citizens and have been a benefit to society. But this notion that as long as it's legal it must be okay? Absurd. Turn your brains on people.

 

Same sex marriage is currently not legal. But people are lobbying for the laws to be changed. Similar with these tax issues which allow large companies to not pay tax.

But you are right about the lobbying with big business supplying donations and their leaders influencing politicians and thereby the laws. Look at all those annoying gambling advertisements now (the ones with the funny voices) - lobbying by packer certainly changed the laws.

 

I thought the sole purpose of human existence is procreation.

 

If the is the case i have served my purposes.

 

Hi Terry, I'm sure you have been good for a few other things as well.