Personal Income tax. For or Against ? (1 Viewer)

???

  • I’m against it. There should be ZERO tax on personal income.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I’m for it. The system is just about right.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Well, there should be personal income tax but what we are paying ATM is too high.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • How is the government going to get money if we have zero tax on personal income?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other (please state)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Mu5hi

Banned
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
425
Location
sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
you know my answer, because i just answered in the poll.
 

moll.

Learn to science.
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,545
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
People who voted "How is the government going to get money if we have zero tax on personal income?" are automatically deemed moronic for lack fo creativity/knowledge.
 

spiny norman

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
884
Location
Rivo
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
People who voted "How is the government going to get money if we have zero tax on personal income?" are automatically deemed moronic for lack fo creativity/knowledge.
Given the only other "Yes" option is "Yes, exactly as it is now" though, it's not really their fault.

EDIT: Sorry, there's a "Yes, but should be lower". No options for higher taxes?!? Clearly there's someone lacking creativity/knowledge.
 

moll.

Learn to science.
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,545
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Well there is "Other".
But honestly, if you don't have the brain capacity to realise that income tax is only a part of the revenue spectrum, then your view is null and void.
 

S.H.O.D.A.N.

world
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
941
Location
Unknown
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Well there is "Other".
But honestly, if you don't have the brain capacity to realise that income tax is only a part of the revenue spectrum, then your view is null and void.
Not really. The other revenue streams (there's essentially 4 types of tax) couldn't really accomodate for a removal of income tax, so it's not a 'moronic' question at all.

Cheers for expressing your opinion, or lack thereof, in an unnecessarily flagrant way, though. Perhaps instead of accusing others of lacking creativity, you could show off your own 'creativity' and answer the question?
 
Last edited:

Hagaren

The Fresh Prince
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
1,026
Location
Bel Air
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
the taxation rate should be the same from 25k to 125k.
 

Graney

Horse liberty
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
4,434
Location
Bereie
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Taxation is theft, token libertarian rant etc...

Not really. The other revenue streams (there's essentially 4 types of tax) couldn't really accomodate for a removal of income tax.
They can if you privatise everything, abolish most public goods and services.
 

Boxes

Banned
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
806
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
hey neb, why is rafy on your hit list?
 

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
cool bananas
let's catch melbourne public transport and have american style private healthcare lol
melbourne style public transport is probably better than sydney style (bus/train not turning up lol)

American healthcare is a long way from private,
 

blue_chameleon

Shake the sauce bottle yo
Joined
Mar 7, 2003
Messages
3,078
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
the taxation rate should be the same from 25k to 125k.
Why?

A little off topic maybe, but not all high income earners pay 45c in the dollar. The marginal rates say they should, but all those top bracket earners ($150k+) I know are smart enough to explore all possible options of [legally] reducing their tax. As they should.

A "flat rate" taxation system is always spruiked by those that don't understand the dynamics of the tax environment.
 

moll.

Learn to science.
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,545
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Not really. The other revenue streams (there's essentially 4 types of tax) couldn't really accomodate for a removal of income tax, so it's not a 'moronic' question at all.

Cheers for expressing your opinion, or lack thereof, in an unnecessarily flagrant way, though. Perhaps instead of accusing others of lacking creativity, you could show off your own 'creativity' and answer the question?
Who says they couldn't accomodate it? What evidence do you have that an increase in company, consumption or other taxes couldn't cover the shortfall?
 

moll.

Learn to science.
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,545
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Why?

A little off topic maybe, but not all high income earners pay 45c in the dollar. The marginal rates say they should, but all those top bracket earners ($150k+) I know are smart enough to explore all possible options of [legally] reducing their tax. As they should.

A "flat rate" taxation system is always spruiked by those that don't understand the dynamics of the tax environment.
To a point. They literally and legally cannot escape all of the extra tax. Effective rate may still be up to $.40 for the extra dollars, which still means that they get charged far more than low-income earners.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top