The problem with this debate is that the side you defend appeals mostly to emotion. It's so easy for Bill to lie about tax cuts to millionaires; is an anesthetic who studied for 7 years on $250k a millionaire? What about a software developer on $300k a year? Only 0.3% of households have net worth over $10m, why is Bill putting so many people in the 'rich' basket?
The vast majority of 'tax avoidance' is actually legal, you won't find me arguing against changes to super, negative gearing (used vastly by the middle class btw and in my view not making much economic sense), capital gains tax, tightening up of trust etc. as long as it makes economic sense. But you cannot tell me that going after people on less than $400-$500k a year is useful at all, these accountants, doctors or small business owners have put in the hours. By the way if you make $500k gross and save all your income it still takes you 25-30 years to save $10m! They deserve to keep their earnings because they make this country a better place. I don't like the guy at all but Bannon's call for increased taxes on the super rich makes more sense; a much better proposition would be to revamp our tax thresholds and have a new one for incomes above $1-$2m whichever number experts recommend. I even advocated in a previous thread for some sort of death tax on the super rich.
Van Badham assertion that inequality is the worst in 75 years is highly dubious, again what kind? Income or wealth? If you look deeper you actually find out that this claim, wait for it.......was based on research by Andrew Leigh; the bloke who managed to write an essay on beer crafters but got his dates, facts and figures completely mixed up.
The fact is that our Gini coefficient hasn't moved significantly since 2000. In addition again, Bill attacks the top 10%, but the people in the 90 to 99.5% bracket probably only own a fraction of what the top 0.5% own or earn. Has he bother to look at the difference?
Bill and Badham also conveniently forget that we are going through a painful readjustment called the post mining boom. Anyone could head out West and make a mint, these jobs aren't there anymore, of course it is going to affect the real wage figures, conveniently Badham only chooses to use the last 4 years in her article, because it fits her narrative. We were a very high cost country (still are), does she honestly believe that if wages went up in line with productivity (itself up a meager 1.5% per annum over 4 years) we would have more employment? How did Germany go from the sick man of Europe to the powerhouse it is today? Answer, by keeping a lid on wages, with the help of their more reasonable (than their Australian peers) unions.
As with a lot of the figures you read in the Australian, you have to fact check what the Guardian prints, especially Badham so here it is for you:
"In August 1998, the ABS identified 1,681,700 people as casual employees, or 20.1% of the workforce.
In November 2015, the ABS identified 2,396,500 people as casual employees, or 20.1% of the workforce."
I am not sure that figure increased to 40% in the last 2 years. I should add that I am, along with a large share of the people I have work with in the project space, considered a casual employee......because we choose so, not because we have no choice. I am a casual by definition (and have been for 50% of my working life), and I like it; which granted might not be the case for everyone.
My point of view for all it's worth, is that yes the super rich (maybe go with the 0.3% of households with more than $10m) should probably get slugged a little more (someone more intelligent than me can decide how much), but the rest by and large should be left alone. I certainly won't argue with you about $1m being more useful to the economy if distributed to 1,000 fellow Australians rather than being kept in the bank account of someone who has $50m.
As a final note, again your view of capital mobility is highly dangerous. Capital is and should remain mobile, you cannot have governments dictate where people deploy their money, all you'll get out of that is inefficiency and waste
Expand
