Originally posted by madamswer
Confusing my ratios doesn't change the point. Restated
The Gini co-efficient equates the top 50% to the bottom 50%. Tax cuts for small business would, not unexpectedly, have a greater impact upon the income of the top 50% than the bottom 50% who are more likely to be on benefits, pension, etc.
Nope.
Still wrong.
This is the last time I'm going to try to explain it to you; (refer graphic below):
View attachment 1424233
GINI INDEX = Area A divided by the sum of Area A and Area B
In other words, it is a measure of the degree of kurtosis of the Lorenz Curve with respect to the Line of Perfect Equality.
For Australia, Area A is small compared to more than two-thirds of other countries in the world, which places Australia in the top-third of countries in terms of income distribution.
"Why do you ignore transfers and only focus on tax? "
I don't. The calculation of the Gini Index incorporates it.
Cumulative share of net income earned (the y-axis in the above graphic) is exactly that, a
netquantum, i.e., after all taxes, subsidies, levies and other transfer payments.
Maybe people are just imagining that their households are more cash-strapped?
That feeling, where it exists, will not be confined to the lower income cohorts; it will be evident right across the income spectrum. A great many people who earn a lot of money find themselves in challenging financial positions. Because they don't live within their means. I personally knew an individual who worked for an investment bank and who would have earned several millions of dollars over the course of his career; he committed suicide in 2012 because his financial concerns overwhelmed him.
Conversely, I know a great number of people who have managed to get ahead financially despite being on only moderate levels of income.
"Why do you begrudge all our citizens a fair share of the nation's spoils? Aren't they also worthy of a life lived with inclusion and dignity?"
Where did I express any such sentiment?
I was merely responding to a thread, whose opening post was based on a false premise, duly demonstrated to be so with the use of factual references, which showed that inequality in Australia is well below international averages and has been remarkably consistent for an extended period of time.
I am very proud to live in a country that boasts that level of economic egalitarianism.
And with plenty of well-paid jobs on offer for those who are keen to work, too.
On the few occasions that I've travelled abroad, and witnessed the social ills or fiscal challenges of other countries, I've come back each time feeling that I live in the best and fairest country in the world.
One area where I think Australian society can be improved is the area of financial literacy: too many people are inordinately bad at managing their personal finances.
Basic financial literacy topics, such as the time value of money, the law of compounding returns, cash flow budgeting, avoidance of excessive and unnecessary consumption, should be taught at school, I believe.
That will go a long way to preventing households - right across the income spectrum - ending up cash-strapped.
.
"For Australia, Area A is small compared to more than two-thirds of other countries in the world, which places Australia in the top-third of countries in terms of income distribution."
The question remains, is the level of inequality increasing or decreasing? BTW, for a Western nation, comparison with the OECD is expected, not all "other countries in the world". Maybe worth taking a look where we sat in the 1970's. Oh, and tax cuts for small business would be expected to flow towards those in the upper half of the income distribution. Otherwise, the LNP would need to rethink their political agenda.
"A great many people who earn a lot of money find themselves in challenging financial positions. Because they don't live within their means."
That's irrelevant. People are finding themselves in economic vulnerability resulting from structural changes, not personal choices or financial illiteracy. That's little more than a smokescreen ignoring the underlying issues.
"You haven't responded to my question about how taxes are being cut for high-income earners."
You need to take a good look at the income tax cuts passed by the Senate last year (extending out to 2026) which is to what my post referred. Will they be expected to increase or decrease inequality?
Showing high income tax rates from 2010-present as support also conveniently ignores the Howard/early-Rudd years where tax cuts where very much in vogue. Its also ignores the toolbag of tricks to legally minimise such as CGT discounting and salary packaging which is effectively allowing higher income earners to divert income directly into capital bypassing a large part of their prior tax responsibility. In keeping with the LNP definition of 'fairness', they're said to be available to everyone but ...........
