Australia's leading libertarian and centre-right blog
The latest tax stats are out and they confirm the trend towards high income earners paying more of the income tax burden. The top 25 percent of taxpayers now pay 67.4 percent of net income tax while only earning 51.4 of taxable income.
Update: Here is the gap between the net income tax paid by the top 5 percent and the bottom 25 percent.
To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation.
—
How does the tax burden change if you add in GST? Are there any good estimates of this?
Steve Edney
25 Mar 10 at 2:42 pm
NATSEM did some stuff a few years ago at the household level. Can’t recall the outcome, I’ll try hunt it down.
Sinclair Davidson
25 Mar 10 at 2:43 pm
No. Those trying to get rich pay an obscene level of tax. Those who waste a lot of money can be supported nearly indefinitely.
Our tax system does exactly the opposite of what lefties expound that it does – it solidifies any class system we have.
Taxes and subsidies assure that upward and downward mobilility only really occur in a relative sense and not much in a real sense.
Semi Regular Libertarian
25 Mar 10 at 2:45 pm
The Natsem study (behind a paywall) found that while the GST itself is regressive, the tax burden overall had become more progressive.
Sinclair Davidson
25 Mar 10 at 2:50 pm
I’d make it even more progressive by lifting the tax free thereshold to $100k. Any objections?
TerjeP (say Tay-a)
25 Mar 10 at 3:30 pm
And how much would the 100k + people be taxed under your scheme Terje?
jtfsoon
25 Mar 10 at 3:32 pm
Given the tax rate hasn’t gone up in those years, doesn’t this just mean the top quartile is outpacing the other quartiles in earnings?
AJ
25 Mar 10 at 3:40 pm
These figures starkly expose the claim that ‘the rich’ are not paying their ‘fair share’; in fact, they demonstrate that the claim is a lie.
dover_beach
25 Mar 10 at 3:44 pm
Ok just to stir up some discussion.
The top 25% earn more than 50% of the income surely they can afford to pay a bit more than their fair share. After all if everyone paid an equal percent. they would still pay 51.4%, currently they pay 67.4 which is about 30% more than an equal split. Surely these guys can afford it.
On the second graph surely that is what we expect to see, when to quote the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts, “rich gettin richer, the poor get the picture, the bombs never hit ya when your down so low” .
Steve Edney
25 Mar 10 at 4:08 pm
well given the time period you would expect this.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
25 Mar 10 at 4:25 pm
Isn’t that what the left call equality ?
Social justice = theft on a grand scale.
Jono
25 Mar 10 at 4:33 pm
The “time period,” Homer?
Didn’t we discuss this?
C.L.
25 Mar 10 at 5:06 pm
“And how much would the 100k + people be taxed under your scheme Terje?”
Heh.
Jason, I think you’re forgetting the mass sackings. After the riots are over, revolutionary libertarian government is cheap as chips.
FDB
25 Mar 10 at 5:30 pm
Jason – if we lifted the tax free threshold to $100k then obviously those earning over $100k would be paying less tax. In absolute terms they would be the biggest beneficiaries. However the system would be more progressive than it is now.
TerjeP (say Tay-a)
25 Mar 10 at 5:39 pm
FDB – no revolution necessary. Basically it could be funded out of run of the mill economic growth if you put a cap on spending. Fix spending in real per capita terms for a decade and allocate all revenue growth to increases in the tax free threshold and bobs your uncle. No blood on the streets required.
TerjeP (say Tay-a)
25 Mar 10 at 5:44 pm
There’d be thousands of homeless accountants too. Sounds good.
Infidel Tiger
25 Mar 10 at 5:47 pm
Here’s what happens when you burden the wealthy. The Golden State is rooted:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2EzZTI5YjI4MDdhMjRkZjk3MWJhOTVkNzM1Yzc0NGE=
Infidel Tiger
25 Mar 10 at 6:50 pm
perhaps Sinkers believes This trend is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level!
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
25 Mar 10 at 7:01 pm
The top 25% earn more than 50% of the income surely they can afford to pay a bit more than their fair share.
At least we’re being honest about it now. It used to be that high tax rates on the wealthy was their fair share.
Michael Sutcliffe
25 Mar 10 at 8:22 pm
Infidel – I’m sure the accountants would still have homes.
TerjeP (say Tay-a)
26 Mar 10 at 11:49 am