THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER.

[cherk]

my personal income tax ( just did a quick calculation 46.45% i paid last year.) :-( Then after tax comes the cost of running my business, paying my staff etc .

 

WOW! Congrats and RESPECT !! I think if it was me ,I'd be chucking the accountant for some-one who knew how to deduct the business expenses,

 

" (after tax comes the cost of running my business, paying my staff etc . )" ......well and truly BEFORE any tax calculation.

 

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Then after tax comes the cost of running my business, paying my staff etc . Which is all earned solely by my efforts by the way..

It's ok, some of us know exactly what you mean.

 

Wow, if you're the ONLY one in your business contributing to the income of the business, why are you paying the employees at all?

I assure you that is a question you ask yourself often in that position.

 

I'm almost at the stage where I feel like joining a mate of mine who a few years ago said he was sick of this theft on and he moved to Malaysia.

I promise you it actually works. You should try a country that falls over itself to accomodate you and respects and appreciates that establishing a business is actually good for everybody, it's like entering the Twilight Zone.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

"Wow, if you're the ONLY one in your business contributing to the income of the business, why are you paying the employees at all?"

I assure you that is a question you ask yourself often in that position.

Umm, that was actually sarcasm...If you TRULY believe that you're the only one contributing to your business' income, sack the lot of the employees. By your reckoning it won't affect your workload, but it will improve your income.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Umm, that was actually sarcasm...If you TRULY believe that you're the only one contributing to your business' income, sack the lot of the employees. By your reckoning it won't affect your workload, but it will improve your income.

Lets just say for a theoretical example Ford or Holden, maybe even Toyota closed their Australian factories in the next year or so, would the workers gather together, throw their life savings in and start up a new car company afresh - or would they do nothing and just bitch and moan while gathering together at the dole office?

 

Of course probably the latter and the bitching and moaning will be directed at those big Corporate bastards without an ounce of self-analysis - I think you're familiar with that scenerio though.

 

 

[cherk]

It's ok, some of us know exactly what you mean.

 

.

What did he mean! ........not wot he said?

 

[skeptic36]

What did he mean! ........not wot he said?

O.k, what he means is that overheads such as rent, advertising etc. , even though you can claim them off your tax , the money still has to be earned to pay those costs

 

 

[Marty_d]

That's where you are wrong. Most people who earn good money (the 400,000 previously mentioned who have no way of avoiding tax ) are just like me and have no way of manipulating the rules. That's why I work till and including Wednesday to pay my taxes. Last year I paid just over 45% of my income in tax. I got a single tax deduction for the costs outlaid on going to a conference which cost me three times as much in lost wages (which I can not claim as a deduction).

It's great that you pay your taxes. If the people mentioned in the newspaper article did the same, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The fact remains that the more you earn, even with the taxes you pay, your net increases. Yes, you have business expenses, employees, the exchange rate, and probably a thousand other things to worry about. Other people who work hard worry about child care bills, groceries, power, rates, insurance, petrol for the car.

 

You mean a Billionaire businessman who employs thousands, tens of thousands indirectly, brings billions into Australia gets an audience ahead of an average punter who's proposal will most likely be niave in the greater scheme and 99% guaranteed to be egocentrical based? What a shock.Although that is true for quite obvious and logical reasons, intrinsically your thinking is wrong, go make an appointment with your Local Member and surprise yourself, their doors are always open and at the end of the day, they need your vote.

 

Each year I would write 10 to 20 emails I guess with various concerns or comments and either send them bulk to the 500+ Members and Senators or to Individual depending on the subject. I visited Rudd 2 times at his office with a phone call pre-appointment in 2012 and 2013 and had chats about things.

...and political donations don't ease open the doors at all.

 

Couple of years back my wife and I wrote & sent 70 odd letters begging the members of the Labor party to show some compassion to asylum seekers. Got about 5 replies, mostly repeating the party line, in fact the only one that seemed to be genuine was from Tanya Plibersek. I'm all for pestering pollies.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Couple of years back my wife and I wrote & sent 70 odd letters begging the members of the Labor party to show some compassion to asylum seekers. Got about 5 replies, mostly repeating the party line, in fact the only one that seemed to be genuine was from Tanya Plibersek.

See I reckon this is your problem Marty, always looking to government like it's your sugar daddy (yeah, I know you and I both live in mendicant states where this attitude is ingrained). But the correct course of action if you really care about asylum seekers is to take a family of them into your house or to volunteer at the local detention centre, that sort of thing. You can demonstrate you are legit on these issues by spending your own time and money, not asking the government to spend everyone else's money on your behalf, otherwise the rest of us just figure you are just another agitator / activist.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

ICouple of years back my wife and I wrote & sent 70 odd letters

I gave your post a like for this, glad to hear you put some effort into your beliefs.

 

I

...and political donations don't ease open the doors at all.

Well gee whizz, another shock horror realisation moment - but the way you are putting it forward is that it's always a bad thing, did you ever stop for one second to think good comes out of it as well?

 

Lets say you are one of the rich ones, Party A hates Asylum Seekers, Party B loves and adores them and comes to you to help get those heartless Party A bastards out of power so they can care for Asylum Seekers - why is it wrong that you donate for a cause you want to see eventuate.

 

 

[Marty_d]

I gave your post a like for this, glad to hear you put some effort into your beliefs.

 

Well gee whizz, another shock horror realisation moment - but the way you are putting it forward is that it's always a bad thing, did you ever stop for one second to think good comes out of it as well?

 

Lets say you are one of the rich ones, Party A hates Asylum Seekers, Party B loves and adores them and comes to you to help get those heartless Party A bastards out of power so they can care for Asylum Seekers - why is it wrong that you donate for a cause you want to see eventuate.

I was surprised to see the like, thanks for explaining that!

 

While I'd love to see the situation you describe, both major parties can be described as heartless bastards when it comes to that issue, so small chance of it happening. In the context we were discussing it's far more likely that the donor has less charitable motives. A gas drilling company perhaps, seeking some support against the opposition of those annoying farmers and greenies. Maybe a consortium who see the potential money flow if only a new port were able to bypass some of that unnecessary environmental red tape (it's only a reef for chrissakes, "great barrier" or not...) Maybe even a water infrastructure company who saw not only the benefits of paying both sides but also retaining the services of a Liberal front-bencher as director at $2,000 per hour. Nah... totally altruistic!

 

See I reckon this is your problem Marty, always looking to government like it's your sugar daddy (yeah, I know you and I both live in mendicant states where this attitude is ingrained). But the correct course of action if you really care about asylum seekers is to take a family of them into your house or to volunteer at the local detention centre, that sort of thing. You can demonstrate you are legit on these issues by spending your own time and money, not asking the government to spend everyone else's money on your behalf, otherwise the rest of us just figure you are just another agitator / activist.

Which of my children should I evict to make room for them Gnu? My budget won't stretch to travel to Manus Island on a regular basis for volunteering. As for looking to the government like it's my "sugar daddy", I don't. I look to the government for leadership, compassion, and adherence to international law and its obligations to treaties it's a signatory of. Far from asking them to "spend everyone else's money on my behalf", I actually want them to stop throwing billions in bribe money to countries with insufficient capacity to accept refugees.

 

But thank you for telling me what my problem is, and what I have to do to be considered legit, and how "the rest of us" (bit ambitious there) will consider me if I don't.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

it's far more likely that the donor has less charitable motives.

And it just doesn't stop, you will only ever see it as an avenue for those 'rich bad people'.

 

Which of my children should I evict to make room for them Gnu? My budget won't stretch to travel to Manus Island on a regular basis for volunteering.

Sell up your 701, use the cash to build an extension and accomodate a refugee family and/or for volunteer work. Then I wouldn't see you as anything less than a Capitalist Hypocrital Lefty

 

 

[Marty_d]

Bex, you are an extremely funny bugger and I think we need to have this discussion over a couple of bottles of red. When will you be in Tasmania next?

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Bex, you are an extremely funny bugger and I think we need to have this discussion over a couple of bottles of red. When will you be in Tasmania next?

Sure but where's "Tasmania", I looked at a few maps of Australia but can't see it?

 

Happy to hear there's another Johnny Walker fan on the forums too!

 

 

[nomadpete]

Sure but where's "Tasmania", I looked at a few maps of Australia but can't see it?Happy to hear there's another Johnny Walker fan on the forums too!

Tasmania doesn't show up on GOOGLE earth either - it's never been out from under the cloud long enoughfor them to get a photo of it.

 

Peter

 

 

[SDQDI]

Watching you fellas go at it is nearly funnier than the original joke:thumb up:

[Gnarly Gnu]

Search for 'Van Demons Land'.

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

http://www.politicalmontana.com/?p=491

[Marty_d]

Sure but where's "Tasmania", I looked at a few maps of Australia but can't see it?Happy to hear there's another Johnny Walker fan on the forums too!

Thought a man like you would know where to find a "map of Tassie!"

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Thought a man like you would know where to find a "map of Tassie!"

I fell out of my chair!!

 

 

[cherk]

• I fell out of my chair!!
   
   
  

• Jeeez.......did ya find it THERE !
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

[Marty_d]

Friendly secretary?

 

 

[eightyknots]

I was surprised to see the like, thanks for explaining that! While I'd love to see the situation you describe, both major parties can be described as heartless bastards when it comes to that issue, so small chance of it happening. In the context we were discussing it's far more likely that the donor has less charitable motives. A gas drilling company perhaps, seeking some support against the opposition of those annoying farmers and greenies. Maybe a consortium who see the potential money flow if only a new port were able to bypass some of that unnecessary environmental red tape (it's only a reef for chrissakes, "great barrier" or not...) Maybe even a water infrastructure company who saw not only the benefits of paying both sides but also retaining the services of a Liberal front-bencher as director at $2,000 per hour. Nah... totally altruistic!

This works both ways; for instance:

 

1. a large donation from the Global Wildlife Fund* or Conservation Fund for Nature* to the Green Party to get the government to 'lock up' native forests into State Forests so that they cannot be used by anyone, instead of managing the forest sustainably* by one of those annoying logging company that seeks profit for shareholders, pays company taxes and employs people (who also pay taxes).

 

2. a donation from the Australian Farmers Association* to to the National Party to persuade them to stop those annoying greenies from reducing the amount of water that can be taken from a particular river for farm irrigation.

 

* Sustainable forestry is deceptively simple: if it takes trees of a particular species 50 years to grow to maturity, then every year 1/50th, or 2%, of the trees are logged in a native forest. Within no time, a number of seeds germinate to fill the gap. The fastest growing tree survives. This can be logged again in 50 years time. In the meantime, this 2% harvest per year may continue indefinitely.

 

* The names of these organisations are fictional only.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Right on, 80kt. The Greens are the party which best addresses my political priorities, but they are a broad church. I totally disagree with their policy on forestry. Having grown up in a timber town I have seen the impact of their wide-brush approach; too much forest, originally was set aside for sustainable timber production, has been locked up in poorly-managed National Parks. Science has taken a back seat to the need for the Big Gesture.

 

If the LNP were to go back to actual liberals values, including saving the future for our kids, I might vote for them.

 

 

[Marty_d]

This works both ways; for instance:1. a large donation from the Global Wildlife Fund* or Conservation Fund for Nature* to the Green Party to get the government to 'lock up' native forests into State Forests so that they cannot be used by anyone, instead of managing the forest sustainably* by one of those annoying logging company that seeks profit for shareholders, pays company taxes and employs people (who also pay taxes).

2. a donation from the Australian Farmers Association* to to the National Party to persuade them to stop those annoying greenies from reducing the amount of water that can be taken from a particular river for farm irrigation.

 

* Sustainable forestry is deceptively simple: if it takes trees of a particular species 50 years to grow to maturity, then every year 1/50th, or 2%, of the trees are logged in a native forest. Within no time, a number of seeds germinate to fill the gap. The fastest growing tree survives. This can be logged again in 50 years time. In the meantime, this 2% harvest per year may continue indefinitely.

 

* The names of these organisations are fictional only.

If the forests were logged sustainably there wouldn't be an issue. I love wood. I build with it, make toys for the kids, burn firewood for warmth. And in some regards I agree with OK about the Greens being too broad a church and thereby including the nutter element. However I believe you can get more value out of old-growth forests by well thought-out tourism, for example the Tahune Airwalk in the far south of Tas, or a "flying fox" setup that I visited in South Africa, than cutting it down and using it for woodchips. Plant pine plantations by all means, they grow like weeds and can be used for structural framing/roof trusses etc, and use the valuable hardwoods for value-added products like furniture, flooring, kitchens and the like. But using 100 year old (or even 50 year old) trees for woodchips is just wasteful.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Decades ago we drove past miles of trashed forest in eastern Tassie. Large branches were pushed up into windrows ready for burning. We followed a truck load of big, straight hardwood logs. The timber mills of my home district could have converted it into high-value sawn timber. The truck turned into the Triabunna woodchip plant.