Tax beat up

Yes, I know, I know. It’s not like the Fairfax media to beat up on taxation. This morning, however, there was this interesting story in the SMH:

The tax on an Australian family earning $82,000 a year has risen to the second highest rate in the developed world, figures from the OECD show.

Australia’s tax level now trails only Denmark’s for a single-income family earning $82,000 a year with two children, according to the report.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report into taxing of wages, to be released on Wednesday, found the average tax on a family earning $82,000 a year dropped from 25.6 per cent in 2000 to 21 per cent in 2008, before rising to its current level of 24.3 per cent under the Labor and Coalition governments.

Sounds horrific. The data are here. Ten news went to town:

While Sweden offers families virtually free childcare and the UK will cover any medical expense under their NHS, turns out, you’re paying more tax than BOTH nations, while getting less in return.

It’s been revealed that Australian families with two children, and earning a single-income salary of $82,000 a year, are now being slugged with the second highest tax bill in the developed world.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report, Australia was only trumped by Denmark when it came to tax levels.

Except for one small problem – that is the overall figure that neglects to include welfare. Those data are found on the very next page in the same report.

Now, all of a sudden, the average tax rate is 13.2%, down from 18.4% in 2000, and certainly not the second highest in the developed world.

This entry was posted in Taxation. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Tax beat up

  1. Habib

    Some breeder with a couple of rug monkeys on 82K is most likely a net tax recipient. They’ll see themselves as taxpayers though, parasitic gits. Near as bad as non-working tax hoovers, sometimes even worse as many are public employees, who persecute the rest of us who actually produce.

  2. Infidel Tiger

    While Sweden offers families virtually free childcare and

    the UK will cover any medical expense under their NHS,

    Sounds great. Unfortunately you’ll die in the queue first.

  3. Chris

    So yesterday I posted a wild speculation that each ABC hack, on average, hoovers up the taxes of eight average taxpayers (plus three more taxpayers in on-costs).
    Alternatively, a taxpaying and household basis, my household paid about $200-$250 for the public broadcasters last year. Their dishonest twelve cents a day divided by the dependants my salary supports.

    Signed a proud breeder.
    Who’s paying for YOUR pension, cobber?

  4. Squirrel

    Yes, we need to cut taxes on (and increase benefits for) families so that they can keep up with the ballooning prices of all those lust-worthy homes advertised by Domain, and buy all the stuff plugged by the advertisements which are occasionally interrupted by Ten News etc..

  5. Andrew

    You can’t have it both ways. Either
    – HoWARd6666 was a spendocrat who bankrupted us on middle class “welfare” (even though there was a zero debt, a SWF and a surplus even through the 9 of his 11 years in which commodity prices were remarkably low by modern standards and trading partners were in severe recessions), OR
    – what was sneered at as “welfare” was in fact a de facto tax cut, and there’s actually no difference between cutting someone’s taxes and giving them a tax “rebate,” which is not “welfare” at all

    I hold to the second, and don’t consider a tax cut / rebate to be “spending.” Of course, most of the Cat (and Wayne Goose, plus of course the entire TurnCoaT) hold to the first.

  6. Gavin R Putland

    Yeah, but, instead of taking from them in tax and handing it back in welfare, we could consider not taking it in the first place.

    (Well, this is supposed to be a libertarian blog, so somebody oughta say it.)

  7. eb

    Yeah, but, instead of taking from them in tax and handing it back in welfare, we could consider not taking it in the first place

    Well, yeah, but….

    The way is works is that everybody on say, $82k pays $xx amount of tax. But people who have to support families then get certain amounts back to compensate for the costs of raising the “rug monkeys”.

  8. chrisl

    While in France last year the tour guide said he paid 51% tax from first dollar earned ,plus 20% GST, It kinda encouraged him to work for cash and it kinda encouraged me to pay in cash!

  9. Chris

    t people who have to support families then get certain amounts back to compensate for the costs of raising the “rug monkeys”.

    Not in direct payments or tax deductions. Most of it is education and health spending which comes on a per-person basis without regard for whatever the tax status of the parents is, though ‘disadvantaged’ and ‘indigenous’ get a lot more than tax-paying parents.

  10. Infidel Tiger

    Yeah, but, instead of taking from them in tax and handing it back in welfare, we could consider not taking it in the first place.

    (Well, this is supposed to be a libertarian blog, so somebody oughta say it.)

    Its weird isn’t it?

    If you tell people they can pay less tax but have to pay their own way and they don’t like it.

    What the hell has happened?

  11. Barry

    Taxes are still too high in Aus, you muppet !!

  12. Zyconoclast

    Except for one small problem – that is the overall figure that neglects to include welfare. Those data are found on the very next page in the same report.

    What is this ‘include welfare’ that you talk about? Who gets this?

    Why not just drop the tax rate directly to 13% and ditch the welfare?

  13. Tel

    Why not just drop the tax rate directly to 13% and ditch the welfare?

    *SIGH*

    It’s not welfare, it’s a discount on your tax for certain key demographics in order for government to direct money towards particular activities. Families with children for example are allowed to claim back some of their own money in their tax return, ostensibly because government wants to look after your children.

    The whole point is that if rates were the same for everyone, then government would have to trust you to spend your money as you personally see fit… and obviously individuals cannot be trusted.

  14. Oh! I see. Because we’re no worse off than the rest of the socialist scum, everything is okay.

    Because some academic wanker put some tables together, we’re to accept comparisons of apples to rock salt.
    Considering Australia is resource rich, one would thunk that individual citizens would need to be taxed a little LESS. How much tax does Belgium get from its resources sector? Apples to rock salt.

    Considering technology has made paper shuffling (Govt work) so much simpler (no more pools of typists, no more armies of abacus flickers) you’d think Govts need to tax less to function, especially since the 90’s.

    Anybody, married with child or not, that’s taxed over 20% is being robbed at gun point.

  15. Gavin R Putland

    Re: “Families with children for example are allowed to claim back some of their own money in their tax return, ostensibly because government wants to look after your children.”

    And apparently this “tax benefit” is administered through Centrelink, so that the Government can treat it as welfare for the purpose of hassling the beneficiaries, but as a tax rebate for the purpose of boasting about low taxation.

  16. alexnoaholdmate

    Meh. The same guys who don’t know the difference between profit and revenue. Hardly a surprise.

    It’s like a whole news empire run by Monty. What did you expect?

  17. danger mouse

    No matter how you see it, still worthwhile abolishing their ABC

  18. Defender of the faith

    Exactly. And the poor distribution of the welfare benefit is another distortion. Plainly the correct approach is to drop the rates and the welfare at once.

  19. Tel

    As that woman who was complaining hard on the news discovered… no tax return, no family tax benefit money (which sometimes means you have to pay back what you took in advance, oh dear).

    As for why it’s weirdly administered, that’s mostly as a mechanism to transfer the money away from men and toward woman, as our non-sexist, absolutely very equality (yes sir equality) government still makes the presumption that men are earning money and women are looking after the kids. So basically messing with people’s lives in every way possible… but how amusing that we have a whole load of middle class voters nodding and thanking government for generously giving their own money back.

    I blame the school system.

  20. .

    and there’s actually no difference between cutting someone’s taxes and giving them a tax “rebate,” which is not “welfare” at all

    There is.

    If you cut the taxes, the government never gets it in the first place.

    The meme about what the government allows you to keep dies in utero.

  21. .

    (I don’t mean to be too harsh Andrew, but lower taxes has lower deadweight loss – as well as better cashflow for tha’ wukkas).

  22. Nerblnob

    Is there some calculator somewhere where I can figure out what an Australian resident person on X salary with X dependents etc a)pays in tax and b)gets back in rebates/benefits?

    Just so as I know.

  23. Ve2

    Through the 70’s and 80’s as a single taxpaying toolmaker with two children the lowest I ever paid was 19.3%.

  24. Rayvic

    The SMH shows its incompetence yet again.

  25. Down in the polls

    Does the rate of tax take into account income tax, Medicare levy, goods and services tax, stamp duty, rates, fuel tax, beer tax and all other measures to Hoover up $ for three levels
    Of government and their offspring?

  26. EvilElvis

    There is.

    If you cut the taxes, the government never gets it in the first place.

    The meme about what the government allows you to keep dies in utero.

    Agree dot.

    The real issue is the layers of bureaucracy required to administer the taxes taken and redistribute, through Centrelink, CSA or whatever incompetent quango you deal with. Public service needs a machete going through it.

    On a side note, those who whinge about Howard screwing us and setting this all up should carefully think of the Muppets they’ve voted for since. Not competent or ‘innovative’ enough to maintain, let alone grow our economy, and, to spineless to reign in spending thanks to an out of control public service.l

  27. Solitarius

    Comparing Medicare and the NHS is a folly. The NHS is utterly hopeless compared to Medicare.

Comments are closed.