Flat Tax Rate. (2 Viewers)

[absolution*]

True, but it has been proposed many times in america... I don't think it's right to say something is wrong just because a major country hasn't taken it up yet.

I would. Why? Because OECD countries policy makers they are 1000 times smarter than you and me. If it was such a great idea they would have already adopted it. And youre forgetting.. the Aust economy is growing at a sustainable rate in line with inflation. There is no need for extra monetary stimulus.

 

[Beckiki_S]

True, but it has been proposed many times in america... I don't think it's right to say something is wrong just because a major country hasn't taken it up yet.

oh yes you're right on that. But you should compare countries to those it is most similar to.

 

[absolution*]

Yes my apologies for not being the ideal woman.

Serious question here, what kind of tax system do most of the Scandinavian countries have because they seem to be rolling in it... relatively.

By rolling in it do you mean, they have high quality of living ratings? Most, i beleieve have fairly liberal taxation systems, similar to Australia. However, the spending on social welfare and education is truly forward-thinking and advantageous. Australia should really take this on. High real wages --> high consumption ---> high growth ----> high quality of life.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Sure they are, and some american states are moving closer to a flat-rate tax..
It is however a major overhaul, and often contradictory to immediate rational thinking.

Australians have the highest disposable incomes in the world....

However I do agree that Australia needs to do more in the way of Higher Education investment, ALONG with reform. ( I don't have a problem with Nelson's reforms ).

 

[Beckiki_S]

often contradictory to immediate rational thinking.

i.e. irrational.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well... as an example, it's hard for some to believe that decreasing taxes will increase government revenue. But that's what happens lol

 

[absolution*]

Well... as an example, it's hard for some to believe that decreasing taxes will increase government revenue. But that's what happens lol

Doubtful .....................

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Lets ignore kennedy, regans tax cuts in america.

 

[Shuter]

Or to site an opposite example, increased taxes led to lower revenue i.e. NSW Stamp Duty Tax on selling homes.

It's hardly fair to say "America doesn't have a flat tax system therefore it's no good", you can't really compare them to Australia when their highest tax bracket is what? 29c in the dollar, 32c in the dollar? or similar compared to our 47c. The fact they have a lower highest tax bracket means that they are indeed more inline with a flat tax scheme, even though it isn't perfectly flat at the moment.

There is little incentive to be productive at the moment. My brother get's a $5000 performance bonus, approx $2400 of that gets taken in tax. After he saw that, he then thought why bother working that hard for a measily $2500 increase. Lazy workers leads to unproductive labour force leads to worse economy. If more incentive is given to work hard then this can only be beneficial.

 

[Xayma]

By rolling in it do you mean, they have high quality of living ratings? Most, i beleieve have fairly liberal taxation systems, similar to Australia. However, the spending on social welfare and education is truly forward-thinking and advantageous. Australia should really take this on. High real wages --> high consumption ---> high growth ----> high quality of life.

Their income tax is very high. However, they prefer that to the services. It depends on the culture of the people.

For example in Finland I think it was (well some Scandanavian country) anyones tax records are available over SMS. The newspapers publish reports of the big earners and how much tax they pay.

It wouldnt work in Australia.

American's also have alot more taxes than us. In total it works out near even.

 

[Vahl]

Or to site an opposite example, increased taxes led to lower revenue i.e. NSW Stamp Duty Tax on selling homes.

It's hardly fair to say "America doesn't have a flat tax system therefore it's no good", you can't really compare them to Australia when their highest tax bracket is what? 29c in the dollar, 32c in the dollar? or similar compared to our 47c. The fact they have a lower highest tax bracket means that they are indeed more inline with a flat tax scheme, even though it isn't perfectly flat at the moment.

There is little incentive to be productive at the moment. My brother get's a $5000 performance bonus, approx $2400 of that gets taken in tax. After he saw that, he then thought why bother working that hard for a measily $2500 increase. Lazy workers leads to unproductive labour force leads to worse economy. If more incentive is given to work hard then this can only be beneficial.

America may have a low tax rate but it has appalling public services, eg little health cover for the elderly, no prescriprion drugs scheme, substandard education for a western nation etc.
Service delivery is more important than having low tax rates. Even if lower tax rates or a flat tax rate could boost growth it is not worth it as it will create greater inequality in our society and lead to less incentive to work for the majority at the bottom of society, as I said above:

Well, genius, in fact lower taxes in this instance reduce economic activity through limiting the real drivers of growth in an economy such as Australia. That is: Education and research which are by necessity mainly provided by the government as this is a fair and efficient means of achieving a high standard.

Any level of flat taxation would in effect lower the governments absolute revenue either through less taxation from the wealthy in the case of a low flat taxation system or through less stimulus for growth from the lower income earners consumption if a high absolute tax threshold is set. Lower consumption means less income for capital owners(the wealthy) and thus less capacity to pay taxes etc. You are mad.

...........................
Cutting taxes does mean decreased revenue in both the long run and short run. Despite the current account implications, inflation and forex implications, you need to understand that Australia is a knowledge economy. Services barely operate with the current tax intake, reducing the intake compromises the ability of Australian governments to provide the necessary education services and support services( such as health) that contributes to Australia's wealth and growth. Therefore cutting taxes will mean less revenue in the long term as Australia will have difficulty if our strengths are not invested in.

Lower taxes = higher growth works in huge economies such as the US which are not as dependant on international changes in the business cycle. + the US has a large working poor with which to produce its products and promote growth etc.

If you believe that absolution is wrong then why do you not prove this in a logical way

There is no justification for inequality

 

[Not-That-Bright]

America may have a low tax rate but it has appalling public services, eg little health cover for the elderly, no prescriprion drugs scheme, substandard education for a western nation etc.
Service delivery is more important than having low tax rates. Even if lower tax rates or a flat tax rate could boost growth it is not worth it as it will create greater inequality in our society and lead to less incentive to work for the majority at the bottom of society, as I said above:


There is no justification for inequality

Oh... so if the american health cover scheme is so crap, then why is it so much better than say ENGLAND.
Why is the life expectancy longer?
Why are the waiting lines for service smaller?

 

[absolution*]

Oh... so if the american health cover scheme is so crap, then why is it so much better than say ENGLAND.
Why is the life expectancy longer?
Why are the waiting lines for service smaller?

You can hardly say that the american health system is an example for other nations to follow. Seriously, where do you pull this shit from?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

You can hardly say that our health systems better in any way.
Find some comparisons between the performance of the american and canadian health system..

 

[absolution*]

You can hardly say that our health systems better in any way.

I didnt mention our health system. Debate the point i made.

 

[absolution*]

Do i smell dissent?

 

[Vahl]

Oh... so if the american health cover scheme is so crap, then why is it so much better than say ENGLAND.
Why is the life expectancy longer?
Why are the waiting lines for service smaller?

Brittish:
Life expectancy at birth:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
total population: 78.27 years
male: 75.84 years
female: 80.83 years (2004 est.)

US:
Life expectancy at birth:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
total population: 77.43 years
male: 74.63 years
female: 80.36 years (2004 est.)

As you can see, UK life expectancy is higher than the US, as is
Canada:

Life expectancy at birth:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
total population: 79.96 years
male: 76.59 years
female: 83.5 years (2004 est.)

Check your facts )

http://www.cia.gov./cia/publications/factbook/index.html


........................

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Ok I was wrong about life expectancy...
But I was just going by some of the major killers.

Among women with breast cancer, there's a 46 percent chance of dying from it in Britain, versus a 25 percent chance in the United States. America has the best breast cancer survival rate in the world.
In Britain 57% of people diagnosed with prostate cancer will die,
In america it's 19%.
Three-quarters of Americans who've had a heart attack are given beta-blocker drugs, compared to fewer than a third in Britain.
American patients are more likely than British patients to have a heart condition diagnosed with an angiogram, more likely to have an artery widened with angioplasty, and more likely to get back on their feet by way of a bypass.

Having a diagnosis test beyond an X-ray in Britain tends to be regarded as a rare, extravagant event, only done in cases of obvious, if not desperate, need," writes Bartholomew. "In Britain, 36 percent of patients have to wait more than four months for non-emergency surgery. In the U.S., 5 percent do. In Britain, 40 percent of cancer patients do not see a cancer specialist.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/reiland/s_307614.html

 

[Vahl]

Ok I was wrong about life expectancy...
But I was just going by some of the major killers.



http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/reiland/s_307614.html

With respect this is an unreliable source. The man is another overly patriotic American who never looks at all the facts, only the ones which promote America and bag out the rest of the world.
Also note that the quality of surgery in the US is less than that in the UK. ie In Australia Brittish surgeons etc can work straight away but practitioners qualified in the US often have their qualifications rejected and have to reskill at an Australian facility.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

If you read the bottom, the purpose of the article was just to show another side of the story.
The american health care system has many problems, but it's not like it is trumped in every way by every other system.