hi jonno, it is the lack of logic that i do not understand.
your point (paraphrased by me) is that 30% is the required tax rate on these company profits.
If that is so, then why is more than 30% required to be paid on this already taxed profit? the common answer to this extra tax slug is "high income earners have to pay their fair share so we treat it as income and they get slugged extra on top of the 30%" ...... but nobody is screaming blue murder how unfair it is that the company profit is then being taxed at 45%.
but as soon as that same money is included into the taxable income of a low income peep, then suddenly peeps scream that we can longer use the same logic as we used for a high income peeps, so we will make the system 'fair' by using the 30% tax number because it would now be 'unfair' to now use the the tax scales.
so the question remains unanswered, why should any more tax than 30% be owing on already taxed money when it is distributed to a high income earner if we are happy with the 30% tax already paid?
