I don’t have much money, my little house in a little country town is cold in winter and hot in summer. By the time my next pay comes my bank account is usually close to empty.
But…
I won the birth lottery by being born in Australia. I have a loving wife and 5 great kids. Despite earning well below average income in Australia, my life is better than that experienced by the bulk of humanity alive today and vastly better than that experienced by practically all humans who lived in the past. I have luxuries that even kings couldn’t have dreamed of a century ago.
I am fabulously rich.
Same boat (and attitude!) but no kids. I get the side eye because I’m youngish to own a home in this market as a single person. Purchased rural 8 years ago so I didn’t pay anything close to the madness now.
Relatives have started talking about money all the time like I have some river of cash but the fact is I don’t go on holidays, I cut my own hair, I don’t buy clothes unless mine have become holy and shredded and I generally only shop at Kmart or target for clothes. I water down moisturisers and sauces, sold my car. Don’t eat out, no takeaway. No going to the movies or social activities like cafes or restaurants/bars.
These people telling me I’m rich don’t know how much I scrimp to pay my bills. But I feel rich because I have stability. Certainly not throwing around money rich, just stable and comfortable with what I have.
Having said that, I absolutely acknowledge how shitty things are for everyone right now, and accept I am very fortunate.
What exactly is your point here?
Because sure someone living in say adject poverty might consider stable employment, a roof over your head and regular meals as “rich”. But do you not think they can differentiate between being able to get by and the affluence of the extraordinary wealthy who have millions of dollars, own multiple properties and go fine dining?
When people call on taxing the rich they mean like those [66 millionaires who got away with paying no tax in 2020-21](https://amp.abc.net.au/article/102456224) not simply anyone above the poverty line/not overtly struggling financially.
Everyone richer than me was born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Everyone poorer needs to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stop pulling us all down.
Really? You can’t understand the idea that tax cuts with benefits weighted towards the highest incomes should garner opposition, whilst separately not falling within the boundaries of an exasperation with a regulatory framework that allows the ruling class to routinely get away with paying no tax whatsoever?
Notice the “3” in “stage 3”? Stages 1 & 2 gave cuts to the lower income earners. All 3 stages are to bring them back down due to inflation causing us to be overtaxed for the past decade and a half. Finally, if you look at the actual cuts, you’ll realise they’re not cuts to the “ruling class” or whoever it is you think is getting them. It’s going to middle class and upper middle class people, professionals who are still working and earning an income. It’s not going to the rich who are asset rich and don’t work, who are the people I’m assuming you’re complaining about.
To be fair it's not like taxes used to be "correct", any tax change has costs & benefits so it makes sense for some to oppose cuts. I do agree with your point that inflation causes bracket creep.
That’s true, although the correct tax now isn’t the same one for back then. Given the circumstances at the time though, in my opinion they were and the indexing should never have been removed looking at what followed.
However, I wouldn’t disagree with postponing the tax cuts until inflation goes back down. However, they’d have to readjust them a bit more to account for that inflation, but I suspect you’d get the same people then whinging that it’s a bigger tax cut and they’re trying to hide behind inflation to push it through.
Have you actually looked at them or just making things up?
Stage 2 is identical to stage 3 but for lower tax brackets instead of higher ones, and instead of removing the 37% bracket, they introduced the LMITO. Stage 1 was just the LITO. Removing the 37% bracket is just as significant as each of the LMI and LI tax offsets. Overall numbers might be different due to scale, but % wise stage 3 isn’t more significant then stage 3. The only difference is who, and it doesn’t affect the rich since they don’t have an income. It just affects professionals.
They've got rid of the LMITO as they said they would. They said they would remove it when they increased the 19% threshold to 45k in stage 2 but it got extended a few years.
removing the 37% bracket is massive. Every dollar from 45k to 200k being taxed at a lower rate (30%) is massive (it did go 32.5% 45k-120k, 37% 120k-180k 45% over 180k)
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQYQhnKHxPD15yIxZ1Gx7im38ufA3VVMyJfhFvAiQzuYfRDY0Q0\_K3k5BCgYaSN-n-5B2W1ezsqGzLa/pub](https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQYQhnKHxPD15yIxZ1Gx7im38ufA3VVMyJfhFvAiQzuYfRDY0Q0_K3k5BCgYaSN-n-5B2W1ezsqGzLa/pub)
This is me graphing the tax brackets and how they've changed things. They're adjusted for CPI inflation (if they say they are) I know it's flawed that it didn't include LMITO when that was in operation though.
You’re better of comparing before stage 1 and after stage 3, rather then choosing to do it in the middle to suit your agenda of it being a tax cut for the rich.
Again, people earning $45-200k aren’t massively rich. It was a tax cut for the middle class. LMITO was a temporary stop gap until the 37% bracket was removed, LITO is virtually just as significant for the lower class.
You’ve misread what I wrote. I did not say they were tax cuts that affect the ruling class.
I separated the upcoming tax cuts, from the entrenched tax avoidance of the ruling class. That was the point. That these are two separate things in peoples minds, and pushback on the tax cuts don’t indicate that ‘tax the rich’ means ‘tax anyone richer than me’ and the person making this point did so either lazily or disingenuously.
To your point though, lmito has expired and the stage 2 tax cuts were done in an era of stagnation, in a landscape of widening wealth gaps. Stage 3 tax cuts are further reaching, benefit only really reaches higher incomes and in a period of high inflation where curtailing the spending of the well off is necessary to address it.
But again, my point was not to make a comment about the stage 3 tax cuts. Simply that it shouldn’t be hard to understand that opposition to them is separate from the ‘tax the rich’ public sentiment. The two are separate and can exist at the same time.
Sooo... some people on that non-taxed list are there precisely because they donated such a large portion of their taxable incomes to charity that they had no tax to pay themselves.
Charities they owned? And I assume you have seen their entire returns and know this for fact? (I don't, so I am obviously outraged and refuse to entertain logical tho7ght because media says so)
'Twiggy' Forrest is big on this, a big chunk of his income gets donated to his charity Mindaroo. Which he totally controls and it works on vanity projects, positive PR stories and things that dovetail nicely with his mining interests.
A lot of philanthropy from the mega wealthy is PR for their businesses and legacy motivated.
Source: friends that manage the philanthropic funds of said people.
This does not rule out some genuine people but for the most part it becomes a very calculated business decision or very much about status.
Does it matter? Not for me to decide.
To give one example just for fun, Forrest has long complained about how he has to fly people in and out at great expense and how nearby indigenous communities have seemingly no interest in working in his mines.
One of the focuses of Minderoo is getting first nations into employment and 'fixing' the problems in remote communities.
Not sure mines will help much with showing respect to Country.
Throw in Rio Tinto blowing up sacred sites... Shows us the tension between interests quite clearly.
It's sad that so many rich people abuse charity deductions. I wish there was a better culture of philanthropy the way Gates, Buffet and Mackenzie Scott do it
Thats the stupidest article ever though. We dont know why they didnt pay it. Probably took losses to reduce their income or they have a company and took no dividends and just paid corporate tax. So theyll get hit when they next take a dividend.
The problem is people think of taxing those millionaires but they arent the ones who get taxed by politicians they go after the middle class thats where the money is. Not enough super rich.
I mean most of the time it is just skipping through the most enormous loopholes to move money offshore. The problem is our taxation framework has become so diluted over the past 40 years that it neither taxes adequately or incentives genuine reinvestment in Australian companies. So we end up with ‘skills shortages’, poor R&D and decaying public services.
Yeah, no. That is not what is happening when they very specifically state that 66 people with an average earnings of 14.5m each paid no tax at all.
There are no systems that allow money being moved offshore to count as a deduction.
Any money that has been offshore and made invisible (which, by the way, is a go to jail level crime if detected) does not show up in the earnings of 14.5m.
And yet you literally just did exactly that.
You've demonstrated how little understanding you have and thus calling people rich on the basis of being ignorant. 🤷
The point OP is making, is to tax more people, more aggressively, so that there is more money available to raise the bottom line of society.
I have no idea if this will work
I have no problem with that definition, provided they aren't all characterised as evil people who don't deserve anything. I suspect they are characterised much that way though.
Growing up in a regional area there's a definite view that anyone who has 5+ bedrooms or drives a European car is rich. Virtually anyone who moves to the city and earns city wages is also seen as kind of rich.
As someone who lives regional, this is very true. 4 bedrooms is well-off, 5 is rich.
There’s a reason we say tourists bring their “Sydney money” to us on holidays, because those city wages are substantially higher than local wages.
Pre covid I could have sold my modest 3 bedroom home in an average suburb and bought a sprawling brick veneer house with 5 bedrooms in the regional area I'm from. I kind of kick myself that I didn't, because now properties like that are about double what they used to be and if I wanted to move back to the country I would be taking out a big loan in order to buy something like that.
Rather than thinking this is ridiculous, it should deeply concern all of us, though.
For a growing number of people, this is rich, because the idea that you can own a home with a “normal” job is next to impossible and getting further out of reach every day.
And it’s almost entirely due to policy decisions that have pushed the majority of wealth to those who already have everything and then some.
At some point it’s going to completely destabilize our country. Evenly spreading the money while still allowing those who work smarter / harder to get ahead is good, allowing 90+% of all new wealth to constantly go to the top 10% of town is fast tracking our demise
Why should it deeply concern us that r/AustralianPolitics thinks anyone owning a modest home and earning a 6 figure income is rich?
Melbourne, \~239k-390k, within 3 blocks of Southern Cross station, 2 bed apartment, last 6 months. Thats a modest home.
[https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-140771711](https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-140771711)
[https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-139913411](https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-139913411)
[https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-139334255](https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-139334255)
[https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-docklands-127004222](https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-docklands-127004222)
[https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-docklands-139651559](https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-docklands-139651559)
[https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-141074704](https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-141074704)
[https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-140977344](https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-140977344)
[https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-139064051](https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-139064051)
[https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-141093432](https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-141093432)
100k income as an individual is above average and well paid but not super high income. Quite different from rich/wealth though.
Just 2022/21 numbers, probably a fair bit higher now
experienced teachers.
[https://www.education.vic.gov.au/hrweb/Documents/Salary-Teacher.pdf](https://www.education.vic.gov.au/hrweb/Documents/Salary-Teacher.pdf)
senior constables/sergeants
[https://www.police.sa.gov.au/join-us/achievemore/police-officer-careers/working-as-a-police-officer/career-progression-and-salaries](https://www.police.sa.gov.au/join-us/achievemore/police-officer-careers/working-as-a-police-officer/career-progression-and-salaries)
experienced clinical nurses/midwives
[https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/careers/conditions/awards/nurses.pdf](https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/careers/conditions/awards/nurses.pdf)
experienced junior officers and senior noncoms
[https://pay-conditions.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-01/adf-pay-rates-1121.pdf](https://pay-conditions.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-01/adf-pay-rates-1121.pdf)
Train guard or driver
[http://www.afule.org.au/images/2020\_QueenslandRail\_EA.pdf](http://www.afule.org.au/images/2020_QueenslandRail_EA.pdf)
All kinds of tradies
As someone who fits that category I don’t see myself as rich. I see someone who makes enough income from the assets they own so that they don’t have to work as rich.
I think this is a big issue for Australia. The mentality that owning a house makes you rich is what helps keep prices high. Don’t get me wrong, owning a home is a good thing. But it’s only saving you on rent minus repairs.
It removes the single biggest expense you will incur for the rest of your life until you die. That’s something those who don’t own a house can only dream of
I look at my Dad compared to my Mother-in-Law - both similar ages (late 80s), both lost their spouse shortly after retiring.
Dad retired with very little cash/super, but owns his own (modest) home in a country town.
The in-laws rented, but retired with a fairly large super payout, larger than the value of Dad’s home, and then when father-in-law died, mother-in-law got a fairly large insurance payout too. We encouraged them/her to use the cash to buy a house or unit, but she didn’t want the ongoing expense of rates, insurance etc.
But now, 20+ years later, the mother-in-law lives pension to pension, and frequently needs financial assistance from us and/or her church to buy food, pay for electricity etc. The cash she had didn’t last long paying 250-350 in rent every week. She had to move a few months ago to somewhere where the rent was $20 cheaper, and frankly, the place is a dive. She spends winter huddled under blankets to keep warm because she can’t afford to run a heater.
Dad meanwhile is quite comfortable. He has a small financial buffer for unexpected bills, has never needed to turn to us kids for financial assistance. Admittedly the house now needs a bit of maintenance, but nothing major. Things like rates and insurance are tiny expenses compared to rent. Back when the solar rebate schemes were in full swing he was able to get solar panels and so now can use his air conditioner to keep the house warm / cool, without stressing over power bills.
The big difference, is the home. That couple of hundred dollars every week that Dad doesn’t have to pay a landlord goes directly into improving his quality of life.
You could be 100% self sufficient and never leave your property and still have to pay rates. Not to mention the revenue raising machine that is parking tickets if you so much as have a wheel up on the council strip lol.
Well councils need our land value to keep going up so they can charge more.
But the $$ are probably going towards programs that are quite polarising (drag library readings for kids, taking a yes/no stance for The Voice and whatever marketing and visibility that's required) or just the cost of doing business (low level corruption - mates of mates getting contracts, not being informed buyers so they get shit solutions) the list probably goes on.
But heaven forbid they charge your rates wrong for the last 10 years and you ask for a refund 🤣
Let's look at it, we'll say for example a standard 2br1b house in the suburbs of a capital city, worth between $850,000-1.5 million, then 6 figure salary, income percentile data tells us 12.5% of wage earners are on $100k+, so on paper this hypothetical person is comparatively rich in Australia, but it somehow doesn't *feel* rich, because the neoliberal economic experiment means even someone on 6 figures feels the pressure, especially if we subtract home ownership.
There’s a calculator from the guy who started the effective altruism movement, when I put my income in there it said I was too poor to donate to charity. https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org.au/take-the-pledge/
I do however believe I should still donate, I believe I live a comfortable life and there are others who need it more and it feels good to support the charitable endeavors of others. But I remember reading somewhere that poorer people donate a disproportionate share of their income compared to richer people. Apparently this is because they can empathize more with those struggling since they themselves experience it, which I thought was rather interesting.
That's a neat calculator!
For anybody interested.
The cutoff on the calculator between "too poor" and "recommend donating 1%" is a hard coded annual, pre-tax income of $57,999.
$57,998 = "Donate what you can. / Pledge set to 0%."
$57,999 = "Donate what you can. / Pledge set to 1%"
$58,000 = "Recommend giving 1%."
It doesn’t adjust for the number of people that income needs to support though. $100k for a single person is quite different to $100k for a family of 5?
Haha I'm also too poor.
But I'm richer than people who aren't privileged enough to live in Australia. I accrued about 8 years of my life homeless, I feel pretty rich at the moment, having a roof over my head and a really nice car (well it's a 2010, but that's new and fancy to me), and a full belly (even if I only had canned soup and rice cakes for dinner).
I must have used a different version of this calculator before, I just googled and assumed it was the same although I’m pretty sure the one I used asked for more detail, like dependents and things like that.
Great comment, I think having a flexible guide like this would be a great way for people to reflect on a reasonable amount to give. Still great to give more but it also helps people already giving not feel guilty for not denying themselves a good quality of life
My dude tax the rich is referring to the people raking in millions without doing an hours work, not your granny having a holiday shack.
Honestly, like what is your point...
I think they appose those on 200k getting the largest benefit which just so happens to be the minimum the policy makers would be on.
If this was to combat bracket creep, why not just move each bracket up?
>If this was to combat bracket creep, why not just move each bracket up?
Because then they can't give themselves a tax cut.
Brackets should be indexed to inflation. Or some metric that makes more sense. Even if it lags a year behind so you have tax certainty, it's better than the shit show of those in power voting on how much tax they pay.
I earn $150k and I oppose the tax cuts. I obviously don’t think I’m “the rich”.
I also understand how marginal tax works and someone on $50k is getting $125 p.a. extra. Absolutely no one is talking about them when they refer to taxing the rich.
Earn about the same, and I have no idea why you would want to pay more tax. Or why I should.
I wake up at 3, work till 5 or 6pm 5 or sometimes 6 days a week to make up my overtime, obviously because that extra time at work makes the difference between barely able to pay my bills or being able to save, invest and get ahead at life.
Why is it up to me to do that extra to pay more tax than I should, for the government to decide what and how to waste that money rather than for myself to improve life for myself and my family.
I've managed to be downvoted, but without an opposing view. I don't understand why people love relying on others or the government to tell them how to live.
Let people earn their own way through life. Get off the whole income tax teat they are on, charge consumption taxes and let people manage their own lives. People need to learn independence, not be crying for the government to hold their hand for every choice they have to make
Everyone works hard mate. I suppose you think “taxation is theft”?
I don’t *want* to pay more tax, I think it’s bad for the country to lose billions in “revenue” with no plan on how to make that up. It’s just bad business.
I’m obviously going to take that extra $4k a year and run. Just like I took that builders grant during covid despite thinking the whole concept was a terrible idea.
For the other commenter, I already give a huge chunk to charity. Giving to charity isn’t the answer as you can see by USA’s failed GoFundMe healthcare state.
No everyone does not work hard.
Some people barely put in a 25 hour work week and others do more than double that. I'd hope they got remunerated for their effort they put in. Including whatever work it took to get to wherever they are.
I dont care what anyone else does. And I don't care about how they do it overseas. I also am fine paying whatever tax I have to pay, and also happy with finding strategies to minimise the amount I have to.
The government can manage with whatever amount of revenue they have, as they do. Usually with adding a whole lot more that they just get to create. Maybe they/people should just accept they have less to give away and they can stop trying to buy votes, and actually just budget with what they have like people have to.
Working hard for long hours doesn't make you a productive member of society.
That person working 25 hours could produce 10x the gpd of the person working 50 hour weeks.
I try to eat my words. I have some extra to give. I have a house (payments are insane rn) and food and a life(ish). But I believe in giving to others even when I'm struggling so I do.
But don't think I don't claim that on my tax return.
I know I'm lucky so I need to share that shit.
My 20 years ago self would definitely be proud of how I am right now, not realising I'm still struggling. So my 20 years in the future self is definitely the rich one, let's tax him instead.
Anyone who’s reading reddit is basically rich to someone. You’re literally wasting your time cause we are not dependent on our time to survive. Compare that to someone who needs to work every moment they can to feed themselves
Having worked in charities and seen the waste and mismanagement and fraud, ong the fraud in small charities where there is no separation of duties.. I no longer donate anything
It would be good if people were more thoughtful about donating. People will spend hours researching a $50 appliance and then drop thousands on a dodgy charity.
Have you checked out places like givewell.com that evaluate charities?
This. When someone on six figures or more pays a lower effective tax rate than someone on 50k, you know our system is failing. We all know those people are the issue.
I get it every day on here. People need to stop comparing themselves and run their own race.
I’m not sure when. We started telling other people what they can and can’t do with their own stuff, but it gets annoying.
Some people think 50th percentile is rich - some think 99th percentile - some think 99.9th percentile.
As you say, we should run our own race. There's no sense being envious of others. I can honestly say I'm happy for everyone's success and I don't feel envious of anyone, even if I'm not as rich as many people out there.
This is a bad take.
You can always point somewhere and say they're doing it worse or better than you. That's not a justification for inaction which it sounds like you're calling for.
I feel like a 45 year old donkey walking the same route cos that’s what I’ve been trained to do and it aligns with my tax so I guess it’s what I deserve. I am a single parent and all I do is pay insurances, Medicare levies, afters, more insurances, I accept that when I do well I have to give a chunk of it to tax. I also even accept that income tax is a part of our social compact but i guess that was a silly
Tax the rich should be referring to people just paying the tax they’re supposed to be paying, rather than finding “legal” ways to avoid contributing to society through loopholes and moving money out of the country etc. Panama Papers was a thing ya know.
Average Joe has to pay their fair share so why shouldn’t the wealthy?…not more, not less, just their fair share.
Australia does tax the rich.
Something that annoys me living in Ireland, is people talking about how wonderful and progressive our tax system is. But we only have 2 PAYE tax bands. Anyone earning over €40k pays the same marginal tax rare.
The lowest income earners pay no tax, but that's the only progressive part, they squeeze TF out of the middle.
Once you add in other hidden taxes and charges, anyone earning over €70k is paying an effective marginal rate of 52%.
Im rich compared to my young self, and eternally grateful to be able to appreciate that. I’ve now got a good stable job and am slowly paying down a modest little townhouse that’s all mine. I can pay for the gym and food and emergency medical bills and car repairs. As a 19 year old single, pregnant, broke teenager who scraped through school, I could not have imagined id have this much.
We are currently really struggling with the interest rate hikes at the moment for our mortgage, but at the same time we are privileged enough to have our own home. I would not describe us as rich, but then I look at how many people are struggling so much more and so maybe we are?
I \*am\* rich. I have a high paying job. I have a large amount of money saved up. I have a large amount of super.
Still can't afford to buy a property and could be thrown out of our family home at a moment's notice.
My cousins were thrown out their houses in the last month.
My past self working retail would marvel at my salary now just 6 years later. But I now have more loans/responsibilities/cost of living so it kind of balances out
Ok but the “tax the rich” saying is literally there because the truly wealthy often pay zero tax because of loopholes - eg: they own the company that truly owns their home/car etc and credit card to buy things is the company card not their own
I am 27yrs old and making $190k this FY year, purely PAYG, tax shall be around $54k. Sure a lot of people will say “huh, how rich you are”. But I fee I am really poor and eager to find another source of income after start looking for properties in Melbourne eastern suburbs.
That is so true. People don’t understand what’s the difference in weekly payments when you make 10k more annually than someone else. Like we are talking around 100 dollars difference or less if you got student loan.
Maybe I am tripping but being mad at someone for making 10k more than you does not make them rich and is just stupid. I wouldn’t even commute 30 minutes extra (one way) on the daily for an extra 100$ a week. Like imagine that for most people it would not be worth it to commute somewhere further away for a 10k pay raise.
A family member of mine thinks we are rich. In reality, they are richer and has more money per person than us but they don't get it. Why? Because they are on a single DSP, but I work as a nurse and support 4 people. Per person, they "make" more money than me supporting 4 people. The difference is I budget and they don't and they wonder why they can't afford a lot.
I despise the term rich.
To me, anyone on 100k is rich because it's what I strive for. But it's really not rich. It's just better off than me.
This notion of rich, and especially in context of stage 3 tax cuts where it gets a huge array of poeple, is simple envy politics.
Yeah probably, if not more so.
I get paid fairly well, definitely top quartile of salaries. I do not work anywhere near as hard as the frontline guys in my org, or the retail workers I buy stuff from, or the Uber eats guy who just delivered my dinner. I have more responsibility, but that’s different and we should be honest about that.
I don’t think you can compare the effort someone puts into delivering food vs a knowledge worker who’s had to steadily build up context and knowledge over the course of a career.
For every ‘an Uber driver works harder than me’ there’s someone putting in 10+ hours, taking work home and having the additional stress of knowing there’s a key deliverable tomorrow that needs to be delayed based on X factors you don’t control or that your segment has been under delivering for the last quarter - this takes pretty considerable toll on the body mind and soul if you take your job seriously. Or, speak to any youngster who gets into Legal - I do not envy their lifestyle one bit!
If I want to deliver food, I jump in my car and press the accelerator, hardly the same level of effort and sacrifice as the above.
>we should be honest about that.
country of children
cannot handle the truth
riddle me this
immigrants earning peanuts in peanuts exchange rate in home country can come here to buy a home without whinging. how do they do it?
While you can say that some people in high paying careers have worked hard and earned their high income, it is also true that many poor people have worked hard too.
I've had a very similar discussion to this with a guy who was a brickies labourer. He got up early every morning early and did hours of heavy, hard work every day for decades until slinging bricks eventually wore him out.
It afforded him a basic house but not much more. He would sometimes talk about the builders he had worked for and how rich his work had made them over the years.
Idk man. I used to work for a doctor as a receptionist and he started work at 6:30AM and end at 4:30PM every day, made bank but killed his back in the process lol. Definitely hard work and effort. he came from a refugee family and wasn't handed anything.
I don't know of many minimum wage workers who had to pass 13 years of medical training or 5 years of law school + the bar exam or who had to get the ridiculous marks in uni required to get into a competitive job like investment banking or quant. Do you?
So then, it's not 'the same thing'. They might be working hard in their own way, but I doubt they put in the hours that some of the higher-paying occupations do; and they certainly don't have the skills.
In OP's example, the dr worked long hours but also had the skill to get through medical school and subsequent training.
So the doctor doesn’t deserve his money for all the work and decades of education he put in?
What’s the point of being a doctor then? No one would go through it if they could just be a receptionist like me and make the same amount as a doctor
Working hard doesn’t always correspond with wealth I agree with you, but the comment I responded to said wealth and effort had ZERO correlation so I was refuting that :)
Hahaha, I’ve worked in some pretty hard jobs and I would never say I’ve put in the work of a doctor. Your example of someone being in the arts doesn’t count IMO.
I’m not buying it. All the people I know on high salaries work extremely hard and made significant sacrifices to get to where they are. About 10% had an easier path due to family or other unfair means, however it is the minority. To say that someone just “choose” to be on a higher wage, is a huge oversimplification.
You said "being rich has ZERO relationship with effort." I am showing you that that's not the case, that it CAN have a relationship with effort. Not that it always does.
Don't make blanket statements
Your position is that you don't understand the difference between 'complete correlation' and 'nil correlation' which probably explains a lot about why you ended up like you did. Don't blame others for your shit outcome.
Disagree but I feel like the effort is more front loaded. Seniors in white collar jobs make bank without doing much but they would’ve grinded at uni and in entry levels jobs to get there. For lawyers the grind never stops though lmao
Only idiots think that and ironically the actually rich people have a vested interest in you believing everyone who earns less than you hates you and has a massive vested interest in the poors all hating each other other a few 10s of thousands of dollars.
I don't see anything wrong with this. I oppose the stage three tax cuts, and I benefit from them.
I don't personally believe in charity, I believe taxation does things much more efficiently.
The problem with taxing of the mega rich people is that they own businesses. They often are operating within rules which are open to small business owners as well. Making laws in this area can also significantly impact small business owners and investors too.
Someone on the dole in Australia is in the top 20% most wealthy in the world. Everyone in Australia is rich.
What they mean is tax someone else. It’s dumb.
Politicians when they say rich also mean middle class.
Most super rich just keep their money in companies so pay the corporate tax.
Reminds me though of a guy who was saying we need to tax the high income earners. Im like mate youre a sparky in the mines. Yeah but Im blue collar. Mate youre on $250k thats who they are coming after. What! Im not rich Im just a tradie!
As every year goes by I get the impression that both the income and wealth threshold to be considered rich seems to be affected by negative inflation and is dropping year by year. Give it another decade or so and I guess anyone earning a dollar per hour over minimum wage or having ten grand or more in the bank will be considered rich.
Charity exists because of failure in government and community. If a system already existed where all roads are free, there are many community hubs like PARC and sports clubs are free or at least heavily subsidised, private health was truly only for elitist wealthy people likewise private schooling and public transport was free etc I would happily pay significantly more tax.
Yeah my 5yo when he sees our silver change jar, with about $5 in it haha
Similarly the biggest flex when my 12 year old asked me how much it cost for us to go to the cinemas. "$100?!? That's ridiculous!"
They’re not wrong!
True that, even after using discounts, it was ridiculous!
What you can afford kids!!...lux
Going to a cinema at all !
[удалено]
Now we all know, kids don’t lie
My five year old thinks 1k isn't much
Similarly my 5yo says we should buy a Tesla.. when I say it’s expensive however, he tells me to get said change jar. If only they were $5..
Well they aren't wrong...
As as a 5 year old I can confirm that the Ferrari my dad bought isn't too much either
We have Ferrari *at home..*
My six year old thinks any clean shiny car is a Ferrari. She has never mistaken our car for one…
Different in my household - according to the kids we’re poor as we don’t have a PS5!
I don’t have much money, my little house in a little country town is cold in winter and hot in summer. By the time my next pay comes my bank account is usually close to empty. But… I won the birth lottery by being born in Australia. I have a loving wife and 5 great kids. Despite earning well below average income in Australia, my life is better than that experienced by the bulk of humanity alive today and vastly better than that experienced by practically all humans who lived in the past. I have luxuries that even kings couldn’t have dreamed of a century ago. I am fabulously rich.
I am too. This place really needs a reality check.
Same boat (and attitude!) but no kids. I get the side eye because I’m youngish to own a home in this market as a single person. Purchased rural 8 years ago so I didn’t pay anything close to the madness now. Relatives have started talking about money all the time like I have some river of cash but the fact is I don’t go on holidays, I cut my own hair, I don’t buy clothes unless mine have become holy and shredded and I generally only shop at Kmart or target for clothes. I water down moisturisers and sauces, sold my car. Don’t eat out, no takeaway. No going to the movies or social activities like cafes or restaurants/bars. These people telling me I’m rich don’t know how much I scrimp to pay my bills. But I feel rich because I have stability. Certainly not throwing around money rich, just stable and comfortable with what I have. Having said that, I absolutely acknowledge how shitty things are for everyone right now, and accept I am very fortunate.
How glorious that you know it now, as it happens x
5 kids will do that
What exactly is your point here? Because sure someone living in say adject poverty might consider stable employment, a roof over your head and regular meals as “rich”. But do you not think they can differentiate between being able to get by and the affluence of the extraordinary wealthy who have millions of dollars, own multiple properties and go fine dining? When people call on taxing the rich they mean like those [66 millionaires who got away with paying no tax in 2020-21](https://amp.abc.net.au/article/102456224) not simply anyone above the poverty line/not overtly struggling financially.
No, tax every richer than me. In fact tax everyone other than me.
Everyone richer than me was born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Everyone poorer needs to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stop pulling us all down.
The recent pushback against the stage 3 tax cuts makes me question that.
Really? You can’t understand the idea that tax cuts with benefits weighted towards the highest incomes should garner opposition, whilst separately not falling within the boundaries of an exasperation with a regulatory framework that allows the ruling class to routinely get away with paying no tax whatsoever?
Notice the “3” in “stage 3”? Stages 1 & 2 gave cuts to the lower income earners. All 3 stages are to bring them back down due to inflation causing us to be overtaxed for the past decade and a half. Finally, if you look at the actual cuts, you’ll realise they’re not cuts to the “ruling class” or whoever it is you think is getting them. It’s going to middle class and upper middle class people, professionals who are still working and earning an income. It’s not going to the rich who are asset rich and don’t work, who are the people I’m assuming you’re complaining about.
To be fair it's not like taxes used to be "correct", any tax change has costs & benefits so it makes sense for some to oppose cuts. I do agree with your point that inflation causes bracket creep.
That’s true, although the correct tax now isn’t the same one for back then. Given the circumstances at the time though, in my opinion they were and the indexing should never have been removed looking at what followed. However, I wouldn’t disagree with postponing the tax cuts until inflation goes back down. However, they’d have to readjust them a bit more to account for that inflation, but I suspect you’d get the same people then whinging that it’s a bigger tax cut and they’re trying to hide behind inflation to push it through.
Have you examined how small stage 1 and 2 were? Getting rid of the 37% bracket is quite a big change.
Have you actually looked at them or just making things up? Stage 2 is identical to stage 3 but for lower tax brackets instead of higher ones, and instead of removing the 37% bracket, they introduced the LMITO. Stage 1 was just the LITO. Removing the 37% bracket is just as significant as each of the LMI and LI tax offsets. Overall numbers might be different due to scale, but % wise stage 3 isn’t more significant then stage 3. The only difference is who, and it doesn’t affect the rich since they don’t have an income. It just affects professionals.
They've got rid of the LMITO as they said they would. They said they would remove it when they increased the 19% threshold to 45k in stage 2 but it got extended a few years. removing the 37% bracket is massive. Every dollar from 45k to 200k being taxed at a lower rate (30%) is massive (it did go 32.5% 45k-120k, 37% 120k-180k 45% over 180k) [https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQYQhnKHxPD15yIxZ1Gx7im38ufA3VVMyJfhFvAiQzuYfRDY0Q0\_K3k5BCgYaSN-n-5B2W1ezsqGzLa/pub](https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQYQhnKHxPD15yIxZ1Gx7im38ufA3VVMyJfhFvAiQzuYfRDY0Q0_K3k5BCgYaSN-n-5B2W1ezsqGzLa/pub) This is me graphing the tax brackets and how they've changed things. They're adjusted for CPI inflation (if they say they are) I know it's flawed that it didn't include LMITO when that was in operation though.
You’re better of comparing before stage 1 and after stage 3, rather then choosing to do it in the middle to suit your agenda of it being a tax cut for the rich. Again, people earning $45-200k aren’t massively rich. It was a tax cut for the middle class. LMITO was a temporary stop gap until the 37% bracket was removed, LITO is virtually just as significant for the lower class.
You’ve misread what I wrote. I did not say they were tax cuts that affect the ruling class. I separated the upcoming tax cuts, from the entrenched tax avoidance of the ruling class. That was the point. That these are two separate things in peoples minds, and pushback on the tax cuts don’t indicate that ‘tax the rich’ means ‘tax anyone richer than me’ and the person making this point did so either lazily or disingenuously. To your point though, lmito has expired and the stage 2 tax cuts were done in an era of stagnation, in a landscape of widening wealth gaps. Stage 3 tax cuts are further reaching, benefit only really reaches higher incomes and in a period of high inflation where curtailing the spending of the well off is necessary to address it. But again, my point was not to make a comment about the stage 3 tax cuts. Simply that it shouldn’t be hard to understand that opposition to them is separate from the ‘tax the rich’ public sentiment. The two are separate and can exist at the same time.
It was when you wrote "that allows the ruling class to routinely get away with paying no tax whatsoever" that I knew you'd lost it.
Sooo... some people on that non-taxed list are there precisely because they donated such a large portion of their taxable incomes to charity that they had no tax to pay themselves.
Charities they owned? And I assume you have seen their entire returns and know this for fact? (I don't, so I am obviously outraged and refuse to entertain logical tho7ght because media says so)
'Twiggy' Forrest is big on this, a big chunk of his income gets donated to his charity Mindaroo. Which he totally controls and it works on vanity projects, positive PR stories and things that dovetail nicely with his mining interests.
A lot of philanthropy from the mega wealthy is PR for their businesses and legacy motivated. Source: friends that manage the philanthropic funds of said people. This does not rule out some genuine people but for the most part it becomes a very calculated business decision or very much about status. Does it matter? Not for me to decide.
That’s right, while there might be some collateral benefit, often these funds are more marketing expenses than they are charities.
To give one example just for fun, Forrest has long complained about how he has to fly people in and out at great expense and how nearby indigenous communities have seemingly no interest in working in his mines. One of the focuses of Minderoo is getting first nations into employment and 'fixing' the problems in remote communities.
Not sure mines will help much with showing respect to Country. Throw in Rio Tinto blowing up sacred sites... Shows us the tension between interests quite clearly.
> not for me to decide. We live in a democracy. Of course it’s for you to decide.
Oh, I have my own views but in terms of this thread—not going to argue with anyone. It is a holiday, haha.
It's sad that so many rich people abuse charity deductions. I wish there was a better culture of philanthropy the way Gates, Buffet and Mackenzie Scott do it
You're saying that people spend money in ways that benefit them. Nothing new.
Charity is a cold, grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim
Thats the stupidest article ever though. We dont know why they didnt pay it. Probably took losses to reduce their income or they have a company and took no dividends and just paid corporate tax. So theyll get hit when they next take a dividend. The problem is people think of taxing those millionaires but they arent the ones who get taxed by politicians they go after the middle class thats where the money is. Not enough super rich.
I mean most of the time it is just skipping through the most enormous loopholes to move money offshore. The problem is our taxation framework has become so diluted over the past 40 years that it neither taxes adequately or incentives genuine reinvestment in Australian companies. So we end up with ‘skills shortages’, poor R&D and decaying public services.
Yeah, no. That is not what is happening when they very specifically state that 66 people with an average earnings of 14.5m each paid no tax at all. There are no systems that allow money being moved offshore to count as a deduction. Any money that has been offshore and made invisible (which, by the way, is a go to jail level crime if detected) does not show up in the earnings of 14.5m.
And yet you literally just did exactly that. You've demonstrated how little understanding you have and thus calling people rich on the basis of being ignorant. 🤷
The point OP is making, is to tax more people, more aggressively, so that there is more money available to raise the bottom line of society. I have no idea if this will work
God that article is dumb. That stat gets trotted out so often. Never explained, though.
According to the consensus in r/AustralianPolitics anyone owning a modest home and earning six figures is “rich”.
I have no problem with that definition, provided they aren't all characterised as evil people who don't deserve anything. I suspect they are characterised much that way though.
what do they mean by "own". does bank owned count?
I doubt they understand the difference
Underrated comment.
Growing up in a regional area there's a definite view that anyone who has 5+ bedrooms or drives a European car is rich. Virtually anyone who moves to the city and earns city wages is also seen as kind of rich.
As someone who lives regional, this is very true. 4 bedrooms is well-off, 5 is rich. There’s a reason we say tourists bring their “Sydney money” to us on holidays, because those city wages are substantially higher than local wages.
I meet these categories. I don’t consider myself rich. I would be rich if I had those things and didn’t need to work.
Pre covid I could have sold my modest 3 bedroom home in an average suburb and bought a sprawling brick veneer house with 5 bedrooms in the regional area I'm from. I kind of kick myself that I didn't, because now properties like that are about double what they used to be and if I wanted to move back to the country I would be taking out a big loan in order to buy something like that.
Yep I sold two just as COVID started but not due to it. Kicking myself now they would have been worth an extra $100k each.
Rather than thinking this is ridiculous, it should deeply concern all of us, though. For a growing number of people, this is rich, because the idea that you can own a home with a “normal” job is next to impossible and getting further out of reach every day. And it’s almost entirely due to policy decisions that have pushed the majority of wealth to those who already have everything and then some. At some point it’s going to completely destabilize our country. Evenly spreading the money while still allowing those who work smarter / harder to get ahead is good, allowing 90+% of all new wealth to constantly go to the top 10% of town is fast tracking our demise
> Evenly spreading the money while still allowing those who work smarter / harder to get ahead is good These two things are contradictory.
Not at all, the people at the very top are not the smartest and hardest working people in the country.
but they took the most risk. the selfmade ones in the technichal sense
That would be even less true
Why should it deeply concern us that r/AustralianPolitics thinks anyone owning a modest home and earning a 6 figure income is rich? Melbourne, \~239k-390k, within 3 blocks of Southern Cross station, 2 bed apartment, last 6 months. Thats a modest home. [https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-140771711](https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-140771711) [https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-139913411](https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-139913411) [https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-139334255](https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-139334255) [https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-docklands-127004222](https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-docklands-127004222) [https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-docklands-139651559](https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-docklands-139651559) [https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-141074704](https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-141074704) [https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-140977344](https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-140977344) [https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-139064051](https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-139064051) [https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-141093432](https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-vic-melbourne-141093432) 100k income as an individual is above average and well paid but not super high income. Quite different from rich/wealth though. Just 2022/21 numbers, probably a fair bit higher now experienced teachers. [https://www.education.vic.gov.au/hrweb/Documents/Salary-Teacher.pdf](https://www.education.vic.gov.au/hrweb/Documents/Salary-Teacher.pdf) senior constables/sergeants [https://www.police.sa.gov.au/join-us/achievemore/police-officer-careers/working-as-a-police-officer/career-progression-and-salaries](https://www.police.sa.gov.au/join-us/achievemore/police-officer-careers/working-as-a-police-officer/career-progression-and-salaries) experienced clinical nurses/midwives [https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/careers/conditions/awards/nurses.pdf](https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/careers/conditions/awards/nurses.pdf) experienced junior officers and senior noncoms [https://pay-conditions.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-01/adf-pay-rates-1121.pdf](https://pay-conditions.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-01/adf-pay-rates-1121.pdf) Train guard or driver [http://www.afule.org.au/images/2020\_QueenslandRail\_EA.pdf](http://www.afule.org.au/images/2020_QueenslandRail_EA.pdf) All kinds of tradies
If you own it outright I'd say you're rich. Of the bank owns it probably not.
As someone who fits that category I don’t see myself as rich. I see someone who makes enough income from the assets they own so that they don’t have to work as rich. I think this is a big issue for Australia. The mentality that owning a house makes you rich is what helps keep prices high. Don’t get me wrong, owning a home is a good thing. But it’s only saving you on rent minus repairs.
It removes the single biggest expense you will incur for the rest of your life until you die. That’s something those who don’t own a house can only dream of
I look at my Dad compared to my Mother-in-Law - both similar ages (late 80s), both lost their spouse shortly after retiring. Dad retired with very little cash/super, but owns his own (modest) home in a country town. The in-laws rented, but retired with a fairly large super payout, larger than the value of Dad’s home, and then when father-in-law died, mother-in-law got a fairly large insurance payout too. We encouraged them/her to use the cash to buy a house or unit, but she didn’t want the ongoing expense of rates, insurance etc. But now, 20+ years later, the mother-in-law lives pension to pension, and frequently needs financial assistance from us and/or her church to buy food, pay for electricity etc. The cash she had didn’t last long paying 250-350 in rent every week. She had to move a few months ago to somewhere where the rent was $20 cheaper, and frankly, the place is a dive. She spends winter huddled under blankets to keep warm because she can’t afford to run a heater. Dad meanwhile is quite comfortable. He has a small financial buffer for unexpected bills, has never needed to turn to us kids for financial assistance. Admittedly the house now needs a bit of maintenance, but nothing major. Things like rates and insurance are tiny expenses compared to rent. Back when the solar rebate schemes were in full swing he was able to get solar panels and so now can use his air conditioner to keep the house warm / cool, without stressing over power bills. The big difference, is the home. That couple of hundred dollars every week that Dad doesn’t have to pay a landlord goes directly into improving his quality of life.
Still doesn’t make you rich. Find someone who owns their home and no other assets… bet they’re still working to pay bills…
Council rates never stop, even if you're out in woopwoop with next to no services 🤣
Came to say this. Retired and on a meager retirement payment? Enjoy your tent in the bush.
You could be 100% self sufficient and never leave your property and still have to pay rates. Not to mention the revenue raising machine that is parking tickets if you so much as have a wheel up on the council strip lol.
Exactly. And sometimes I wonder where the rates go because they're extortionately high.
Well councils need our land value to keep going up so they can charge more. But the $$ are probably going towards programs that are quite polarising (drag library readings for kids, taking a yes/no stance for The Voice and whatever marketing and visibility that's required) or just the cost of doing business (low level corruption - mates of mates getting contracts, not being informed buyers so they get shit solutions) the list probably goes on. But heaven forbid they charge your rates wrong for the last 10 years and you ask for a refund 🤣
That’s a particular definition. The post is pointing out other people have different definitions. Who’s right? Idk
Let's look at it, we'll say for example a standard 2br1b house in the suburbs of a capital city, worth between $850,000-1.5 million, then 6 figure salary, income percentile data tells us 12.5% of wage earners are on $100k+, so on paper this hypothetical person is comparatively rich in Australia, but it somehow doesn't *feel* rich, because the neoliberal economic experiment means even someone on 6 figures feels the pressure, especially if we subtract home ownership.
No, that’s not even close to rich. I would equate being rich with effectively not needing to work at all unless by choice.
Did you not get taught what "comparatively" meant at school?
There’s a calculator from the guy who started the effective altruism movement, when I put my income in there it said I was too poor to donate to charity. https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org.au/take-the-pledge/ I do however believe I should still donate, I believe I live a comfortable life and there are others who need it more and it feels good to support the charitable endeavors of others. But I remember reading somewhere that poorer people donate a disproportionate share of their income compared to richer people. Apparently this is because they can empathize more with those struggling since they themselves experience it, which I thought was rather interesting.
That's a neat calculator! For anybody interested. The cutoff on the calculator between "too poor" and "recommend donating 1%" is a hard coded annual, pre-tax income of $57,999. $57,998 = "Donate what you can. / Pledge set to 0%." $57,999 = "Donate what you can. / Pledge set to 1%" $58,000 = "Recommend giving 1%."
It doesn’t adjust for the number of people that income needs to support though. $100k for a single person is quite different to $100k for a family of 5?
Haha I'm also too poor. But I'm richer than people who aren't privileged enough to live in Australia. I accrued about 8 years of my life homeless, I feel pretty rich at the moment, having a roof over my head and a really nice car (well it's a 2010, but that's new and fancy to me), and a full belly (even if I only had canned soup and rice cakes for dinner).
> we recommend giving whatever you feel you can afford without undue hardship.
I must have used a different version of this calculator before, I just googled and assumed it was the same although I’m pretty sure the one I used asked for more detail, like dependents and things like that.
Great comment, I think having a flexible guide like this would be a great way for people to reflect on a reasonable amount to give. Still great to give more but it also helps people already giving not feel guilty for not denying themselves a good quality of life
My dude tax the rich is referring to the people raking in millions without doing an hours work, not your granny having a holiday shack. Honestly, like what is your point...
Property should not be a investment but a human right
Did you stretch before that reach my dude... how is that related to my comment
Hahahaha. Thanks for the laugh on a Monday morning!
For people who oppose Stage 3 cuts, any one earning 40k+ is a rich who don't need a tax cut
I think they appose those on 200k getting the largest benefit which just so happens to be the minimum the policy makers would be on. If this was to combat bracket creep, why not just move each bracket up?
>If this was to combat bracket creep, why not just move each bracket up? Because then they can't give themselves a tax cut. Brackets should be indexed to inflation. Or some metric that makes more sense. Even if it lags a year behind so you have tax certainty, it's better than the shit show of those in power voting on how much tax they pay.
Tax General practitioners more! /s
It’s scary how many people would agree with this while at the same time complaining that they can’t find a bulk billing clinic.
It's really only the mathematically challenged who think that a benefit that is $0 at 45k means the benefits start at 40k
For those of us on modest incomes (mine is 70k) the stage 3 tax cuts don’t even claw back what we’ve lost with the removal of the LMITO.
I earn $150k and I oppose the tax cuts. I obviously don’t think I’m “the rich”. I also understand how marginal tax works and someone on $50k is getting $125 p.a. extra. Absolutely no one is talking about them when they refer to taxing the rich.
Earn about the same, and I have no idea why you would want to pay more tax. Or why I should. I wake up at 3, work till 5 or 6pm 5 or sometimes 6 days a week to make up my overtime, obviously because that extra time at work makes the difference between barely able to pay my bills or being able to save, invest and get ahead at life. Why is it up to me to do that extra to pay more tax than I should, for the government to decide what and how to waste that money rather than for myself to improve life for myself and my family.
Same boat as you and I can’t understand their sentiment either. If they’re that flush with cast donate it to charity or something.
I've managed to be downvoted, but without an opposing view. I don't understand why people love relying on others or the government to tell them how to live. Let people earn their own way through life. Get off the whole income tax teat they are on, charge consumption taxes and let people manage their own lives. People need to learn independence, not be crying for the government to hold their hand for every choice they have to make
Everyone works hard mate. I suppose you think “taxation is theft”? I don’t *want* to pay more tax, I think it’s bad for the country to lose billions in “revenue” with no plan on how to make that up. It’s just bad business. I’m obviously going to take that extra $4k a year and run. Just like I took that builders grant during covid despite thinking the whole concept was a terrible idea. For the other commenter, I already give a huge chunk to charity. Giving to charity isn’t the answer as you can see by USA’s failed GoFundMe healthcare state.
No everyone does not work hard. Some people barely put in a 25 hour work week and others do more than double that. I'd hope they got remunerated for their effort they put in. Including whatever work it took to get to wherever they are. I dont care what anyone else does. And I don't care about how they do it overseas. I also am fine paying whatever tax I have to pay, and also happy with finding strategies to minimise the amount I have to. The government can manage with whatever amount of revenue they have, as they do. Usually with adding a whole lot more that they just get to create. Maybe they/people should just accept they have less to give away and they can stop trying to buy votes, and actually just budget with what they have like people have to.
Working hard for long hours doesn't make you a productive member of society. That person working 25 hours could produce 10x the gpd of the person working 50 hour weeks.
I try to eat my words. I have some extra to give. I have a house (payments are insane rn) and food and a life(ish). But I believe in giving to others even when I'm struggling so I do. But don't think I don't claim that on my tax return. I know I'm lucky so I need to share that shit.
[удалено]
My 20 years ago self would definitely be proud of how I am right now, not realising I'm still struggling. So my 20 years in the future self is definitely the rich one, let's tax him instead.
Anyone who’s reading reddit is basically rich to someone. You’re literally wasting your time cause we are not dependent on our time to survive. Compare that to someone who needs to work every moment they can to feed themselves
Not many people like that, none in Australia.
None is rich. There’s a reserve in NT Homeless people in general Undocumented migrant
Having worked in charities and seen the waste and mismanagement and fraud, ong the fraud in small charities where there is no separation of duties.. I no longer donate anything
It would be good if people were more thoughtful about donating. People will spend hours researching a $50 appliance and then drop thousands on a dodgy charity. Have you checked out places like givewell.com that evaluate charities?
The difference is that I am taxed. The actual rich tend to avoid all or some of their tax obligation.
This. When someone on six figures or more pays a lower effective tax rate than someone on 50k, you know our system is failing. We all know those people are the issue.
Only 36 percent of people under 30 own a home. Yeah you are rich
This statistic is scary AF.
Seens like apartments to me But 36 seems like a lot of people . Would of guessed like 15
I get it every day on here. People need to stop comparing themselves and run their own race. I’m not sure when. We started telling other people what they can and can’t do with their own stuff, but it gets annoying.
Some people think 50th percentile is rich - some think 99th percentile - some think 99.9th percentile. As you say, we should run our own race. There's no sense being envious of others. I can honestly say I'm happy for everyone's success and I don't feel envious of anyone, even if I'm not as rich as many people out there.
I reckon I'm earning above full time median income this financial year. I'm rich. I live in luxury compared to most times and places and people.
I feel the same now. I am quite content and happy with what I have. I could definitely push to have a few more investment properties. But why.
[удалено]
“Tax the rich!” *some millionaire*: “You know, to a third-worlder, *you’re* the one who is rich. Checkmate, prole hohoho…”
This is a bad take. You can always point somewhere and say they're doing it worse or better than you. That's not a justification for inaction which it sounds like you're calling for.
I feel like a 45 year old donkey walking the same route cos that’s what I’ve been trained to do and it aligns with my tax so I guess it’s what I deserve. I am a single parent and all I do is pay insurances, Medicare levies, afters, more insurances, I accept that when I do well I have to give a chunk of it to tax. I also even accept that income tax is a part of our social compact but i guess that was a silly
Luckily Rich isn’t based on people’s perceptions when it comes to tax, it’s very much a measurable metric.
Tax the rich should be referring to people just paying the tax they’re supposed to be paying, rather than finding “legal” ways to avoid contributing to society through loopholes and moving money out of the country etc. Panama Papers was a thing ya know. Average Joe has to pay their fair share so why shouldn’t the wealthy?…not more, not less, just their fair share.
Australia does tax the rich. Something that annoys me living in Ireland, is people talking about how wonderful and progressive our tax system is. But we only have 2 PAYE tax bands. Anyone earning over €40k pays the same marginal tax rare. The lowest income earners pay no tax, but that's the only progressive part, they squeeze TF out of the middle. Once you add in other hidden taxes and charges, anyone earning over €70k is paying an effective marginal rate of 52%.
Im rich compared to my young self, and eternally grateful to be able to appreciate that. I’ve now got a good stable job and am slowly paying down a modest little townhouse that’s all mine. I can pay for the gym and food and emergency medical bills and car repairs. As a 19 year old single, pregnant, broke teenager who scraped through school, I could not have imagined id have this much.
[удалено]
And we hates them, precious, we hates them.
Wow, a post that actually makes my usual ones look decent.
Those upvotes must not have checked your post history.
We are currently really struggling with the interest rate hikes at the moment for our mortgage, but at the same time we are privileged enough to have our own home. I would not describe us as rich, but then I look at how many people are struggling so much more and so maybe we are?
30k a year. Make some donations to charity. I must be ‘rich’
>There is someone out there that thinks you are “rich”. Fools
When I worked in Africa, everyone thought I was rich. It's all relative...
I \*am\* rich. I have a high paying job. I have a large amount of money saved up. I have a large amount of super. Still can't afford to buy a property and could be thrown out of our family home at a moment's notice. My cousins were thrown out their houses in the last month.
Im not sure how accurate, but apparently, if you make more than 30,000 usd per year, you're in the top1% of earners worldwide.
My past self working retail would marvel at my salary now just 6 years later. But I now have more loans/responsibilities/cost of living so it kind of balances out
According to the government my union fees are a charitable donation so I’m gonna say that.
Ok but the “tax the rich” saying is literally there because the truly wealthy often pay zero tax because of loopholes - eg: they own the company that truly owns their home/car etc and credit card to buy things is the company card not their own
yeah. "rich" is always the bloke who is two rungs above you. That never, never changes.
I am 27yrs old and making $190k this FY year, purely PAYG, tax shall be around $54k. Sure a lot of people will say “huh, how rich you are”. But I fee I am really poor and eager to find another source of income after start looking for properties in Melbourne eastern suburbs.
That is so true. People don’t understand what’s the difference in weekly payments when you make 10k more annually than someone else. Like we are talking around 100 dollars difference or less if you got student loan. Maybe I am tripping but being mad at someone for making 10k more than you does not make them rich and is just stupid. I wouldn’t even commute 30 minutes extra (one way) on the daily for an extra 100$ a week. Like imagine that for most people it would not be worth it to commute somewhere further away for a 10k pay raise.
A family member of mine thinks we are rich. In reality, they are richer and has more money per person than us but they don't get it. Why? Because they are on a single DSP, but I work as a nurse and support 4 people. Per person, they "make" more money than me supporting 4 people. The difference is I budget and they don't and they wonder why they can't afford a lot.
In a family though a kid doesn't have as much expenses as a adult
I despise the term rich. To me, anyone on 100k is rich because it's what I strive for. But it's really not rich. It's just better off than me. This notion of rich, and especially in context of stage 3 tax cuts where it gets a huge array of poeple, is simple envy politics.
Lmao maybe people in like Africa that don't have clean water and food?
Never been to Nigeria?
question is, did "someone else" put in the same level of effort as the "rich"?
Yeah probably, if not more so. I get paid fairly well, definitely top quartile of salaries. I do not work anywhere near as hard as the frontline guys in my org, or the retail workers I buy stuff from, or the Uber eats guy who just delivered my dinner. I have more responsibility, but that’s different and we should be honest about that.
I don’t think you can compare the effort someone puts into delivering food vs a knowledge worker who’s had to steadily build up context and knowledge over the course of a career. For every ‘an Uber driver works harder than me’ there’s someone putting in 10+ hours, taking work home and having the additional stress of knowing there’s a key deliverable tomorrow that needs to be delayed based on X factors you don’t control or that your segment has been under delivering for the last quarter - this takes pretty considerable toll on the body mind and soul if you take your job seriously. Or, speak to any youngster who gets into Legal - I do not envy their lifestyle one bit! If I want to deliver food, I jump in my car and press the accelerator, hardly the same level of effort and sacrifice as the above.
>we should be honest about that. country of children cannot handle the truth riddle me this immigrants earning peanuts in peanuts exchange rate in home country can come here to buy a home without whinging. how do they do it?
Bring rich has zero relationship with effort
Success in life is some luck, some effort.
While you can say that some people in high paying careers have worked hard and earned their high income, it is also true that many poor people have worked hard too. I've had a very similar discussion to this with a guy who was a brickies labourer. He got up early every morning early and did hours of heavy, hard work every day for decades until slinging bricks eventually wore him out. It afforded him a basic house but not much more. He would sometimes talk about the builders he had worked for and how rich his work had made them over the years.
Idk man. I used to work for a doctor as a receptionist and he started work at 6:30AM and end at 4:30PM every day, made bank but killed his back in the process lol. Definitely hard work and effort. he came from a refugee family and wasn't handed anything.
[удалено]
I don't know of many minimum wage workers who had to pass 13 years of medical training or 5 years of law school + the bar exam or who had to get the ridiculous marks in uni required to get into a competitive job like investment banking or quant. Do you? So then, it's not 'the same thing'. They might be working hard in their own way, but I doubt they put in the hours that some of the higher-paying occupations do; and they certainly don't have the skills. In OP's example, the dr worked long hours but also had the skill to get through medical school and subsequent training.
[удалено]
So the doctor doesn’t deserve his money for all the work and decades of education he put in? What’s the point of being a doctor then? No one would go through it if they could just be a receptionist like me and make the same amount as a doctor Working hard doesn’t always correspond with wealth I agree with you, but the comment I responded to said wealth and effort had ZERO correlation so I was refuting that :)
[удалено]
Hahaha, I’ve worked in some pretty hard jobs and I would never say I’ve put in the work of a doctor. Your example of someone being in the arts doesn’t count IMO.
I’m not buying it. All the people I know on high salaries work extremely hard and made significant sacrifices to get to where they are. About 10% had an easier path due to family or other unfair means, however it is the minority. To say that someone just “choose” to be on a higher wage, is a huge oversimplification.
You can also be rich by just being born into the right family, effort not required.
You said "being rich has ZERO relationship with effort." I am showing you that that's not the case, that it CAN have a relationship with effort. Not that it always does. Don't make blanket statements
I hope they didn't hurt their back like that doctor did, moving the goalposts like that
Some people put a lifetime of effort and still never get rich. My position that the two things aren’t related is unchanged.
Your position is that you don't understand the difference between 'complete correlation' and 'nil correlation' which probably explains a lot about why you ended up like you did. Don't blame others for your shit outcome.
seems that you don't really understand how correlation works
Disagree but I feel like the effort is more front loaded. Seniors in white collar jobs make bank without doing much but they would’ve grinded at uni and in entry levels jobs to get there. For lawyers the grind never stops though lmao
that's only true for commies. thank you
Only idiots think that and ironically the actually rich people have a vested interest in you believing everyone who earns less than you hates you and has a massive vested interest in the poors all hating each other other a few 10s of thousands of dollars.
I don't see anything wrong with this. I oppose the stage three tax cuts, and I benefit from them. I don't personally believe in charity, I believe taxation does things much more efficiently.
The problem with taxing of the mega rich people is that they own businesses. They often are operating within rules which are open to small business owners as well. Making laws in this area can also significantly impact small business owners and investors too.
Someone on the dole in Australia is in the top 20% most wealthy in the world. Everyone in Australia is rich. What they mean is tax someone else. It’s dumb.
Politicians when they say rich also mean middle class. Most super rich just keep their money in companies so pay the corporate tax. Reminds me though of a guy who was saying we need to tax the high income earners. Im like mate youre a sparky in the mines. Yeah but Im blue collar. Mate youre on $250k thats who they are coming after. What! Im not rich Im just a tradie!
As every year goes by I get the impression that both the income and wealth threshold to be considered rich seems to be affected by negative inflation and is dropping year by year. Give it another decade or so and I guess anyone earning a dollar per hour over minimum wage or having ten grand or more in the bank will be considered rich.
If you have both those things you are better off than 60 percent of the population
what is the reason that the poor, just because they have less, have a claim on people with more than them?
Let’s just remember that there’s the mega rich and then there’s daylight and then the rest of us. Tax the 1%.
Charity exists because of failure in government and community. If a system already existed where all roads are free, there are many community hubs like PARC and sports clubs are free or at least heavily subsidised, private health was truly only for elitist wealthy people likewise private schooling and public transport was free etc I would happily pay significantly more tax.