Date: 6/06/2017 06:10:18
From: Tau.Neutrino
ID: 1075375
Subject: Tax Reform
How much different could Australia be if everyone could specify 10 percent of their tax goes towards nominated industries?
How much different could Australia be if everyone could specify 10 percent of their tax goes towards nominated industries?
Well, for starters, everyone would be paying 10% more tax…
Tau.Neutrino said:
How much different could Australia be if everyone could specify 10 percent of their tax goes towards nominated industries?
Tau.Neutrino said:
How much different could Australia be if everyone could specify 10 percent of their tax goes towards nominated industries?
That’s a novel idea, and not a bad one. For starters, it would tell the government where its budget is going wrong.
Could you be a bit more specific, or more general, about what you mean by “industries”?
Tamb said:
Tau.Neutrino said:How much different could Australia be if everyone could specify 10 percent of their tax goes towards nominated industries?
It would end up being 10% minus operating expenses i.e. near zero.
No, the additional cost wold be a small proportion of the revenue.
Tamb said:
Tau.Neutrino said:How much different could Australia be if everyone could specify 10 percent of their tax goes towards nominated industries?
It would end up being 10% minus operating expenses i.e. near zero.
BS
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tamb said:
Tau.Neutrino said:How much different could Australia be if everyone could specify 10 percent of their tax goes towards nominated industries?
It would end up being 10% minus operating expenses i.e. near zero.No, the additional cost wold be a small proportion of the revenue.
Federal funding should not be a popularity contest…
furious said:
- For starters, it would tell the government where its budget is going wrong.
Federal funding should not be a popularity contest…
Governments are elected to govern etc…
party_pants said:
furious said:
- For starters, it would tell the government where its budget is going wrong.
Federal funding should not be a popularity contest…
Governments are elected to govern etc…
Tamb said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tamb said:It would end up being 10% minus operating expenses i.e. near zero.
No, the additional cost wold be a small proportion of the revenue.
Wasn’t there some Centrelink scheme which cost more than it earned?
What does a small scale scheme with high implementation costs have to do with a scheme which would have a he income, and most of the implementation is already in place, i.e the income tax collection system.
I’m not saying it’s a good idea, since the benefits envisaged are already in place through charity concessions, but the suggestion that it would inevitably have zero nett income is nonsense.
furious said:
- For starters, it would tell the government where its budget is going wrong.
Federal funding should not be a popularity contest…
Of course it should. That’s how democracies work.
mollwollfumble said:
Tau.Neutrino said:How much different could Australia be if everyone could specify 10 percent of their tax goes towards nominated industries?
That’s a novel idea, and not a bad one. For starters, it would tell the government where its budget is going wrong.
Could you be a bit more specific, or more general, about what you mean by “industries”?
Industries like aerospace, space mining, rocket industries to develop nano satellite delivery systems.
Expand it to include government run research centers like CSIRO.
People could nominate multiple industries and specific research centers like cancer research.
Within an organization like CSIRO people could specify that a certain percentage goes towards climate research.
Tau.Neutrino said:
mollwollfumble said:
Tau.Neutrino said:How much different could Australia be if everyone could specify 10 percent of their tax goes towards nominated industries?
That’s a novel idea, and not a bad one. For starters, it would tell the government where its budget is going wrong.
Could you be a bit more specific, or more general, about what you mean by “industries”?
Industries like aerospace, space mining, rocket industries to develop nano satellite delivery systems.
Expand it to include government run research centers like CSIRO.
People could nominate multiple industries and specific research centers like cancer research.
Within an organization like CSIRO people could specify that a certain percentage goes towards climate research.
Think the most cute and cuddly would get all the money.
No. Elections might have a portion of popularity contest about them but when it comes to spending decisions and making laws then it is up to the government to determine what is in the best interest for the majority of people. Might not always work that way but sometimes people have to put up with things they don’t like…
Who gets to decide which industries are in the mix for this cash?
furious said:
- People could nominate multiple industries and specific research centers like cancer research.
Who gets to decide which industries are in the mix for this cash?
Specific cancer research organizations would be nominated.
Maybe put some money towards a Melb to Syd hyperloop system.
Tau.Neutrino said:
mollwollfumble said:
Tau.Neutrino said:How much different could Australia be if everyone could specify 10 percent of their tax goes towards nominated industries?
That’s a novel idea, and not a bad one. For starters, it would tell the government where its budget is going wrong.
Could you be a bit more specific, or more general, about what you mean by “industries”?
Industries like aerospace, space mining, rocket industries to develop nano satellite delivery systems.
Expand it to include government run research centers like CSIRO.
People could nominate multiple industries and specific research centers like cancer research.
Within an organization like CSIRO people could specify that a certain percentage goes towards climate research.
I was wondering if, say, that could be more general such as tertiary education, social services, artillery, water security, salaries, accountability, car industry, uranium etc.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Maybe put some money towards a Melb to Syd hyperloop system.
I prefer Cairns to Adelaide coastal freeway plus high speed train plus water plus other pipework all running together.
mollwollfumble said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
mollwollfumble said:That’s a novel idea, and not a bad one. For starters, it would tell the government where its budget is going wrong.
Could you be a bit more specific, or more general, about what you mean by “industries”?
Industries like aerospace, space mining, rocket industries to develop nano satellite delivery systems.
Expand it to include government run research centers like CSIRO.
People could nominate multiple industries and specific research centers like cancer research.
Within an organization like CSIRO people could specify that a certain percentage goes towards climate research.
I was wondering if, say, that could be more general such as tertiary education, social services, artillery, water security, salaries, accountability, car industry, uranium etc.
Yes, people could specify anything
It should be flexible
Everyone is different
>>>For starters, it would tell the government where its budget is going wrong.
Yes, it would serve as a feedback system as well.
mollwollfumble said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
mollwollfumble said:That’s a novel idea, and not a bad one. For starters, it would tell the government where its budget is going wrong.
Could you be a bit more specific, or more general, about what you mean by “industries”?
Industries like aerospace, space mining, rocket industries to develop nano satellite delivery systems.
Expand it to include government run research centers like CSIRO.
People could nominate multiple industries and specific research centers like cancer research.
Within an organization like CSIRO people could specify that a certain percentage goes towards climate research.
I was wondering if, say, that could be more general such as tertiary education, social services, artillery, water security, salaries, accountability, car industry, uranium etc.
Yes, we need more self propelled guns and MLRS.
Tau.Neutrino said:
How much different could Australia be if everyone could specify 10 percent of their tax goes towards nominated industries?
Funnily enough, some European countries have a specific tax that goes towards your nominated religion, and if you don’t have one, it goes towards general revenue.
dv said:
Tithing, eh.
Tau.Neutrino said:How much different could Australia be if everyone could specify 10 percent of their tax goes towards nominated industries?
Funnily enough, some European countries have a specific tax that goes towards your nominated religion, and if you don’t have one, it goes towards general revenue.
AwesomeO said:
Yes, we need more self propelled guns and MLRS.
There are sure to be some people who will think so.
how about if everyone in australia actually paid 10 percent tax regardless ?
no deductions
wookiemeister said:
how about if everyone in australia actually paid 10 percent tax regardless ?no deductions
That would be a tax cut for most high earners.
wookiemeister said:
how about if everyone in australia actually paid 10 percent tax regardless ?no deductions
The 10% flat tax idea has been around for a while but it never survived the debate, I don’t think the case for it was very strong.