By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Cobretti2 on 02 September 2012
Edit Thread
fordy said:
Cobretti2 said:

- I thought the excess (surchage i think its label on the tax form) is 1% extra on top of the original 1.5% medicare levy i f you earnt over $70,000.  If you get private heath over the age of 31, then you pay the $2 for every year when you actually get the cover. I knwo my mum got it late so she pays about $20 more than me for samecover, but in the years previous to havng health, she had to pay apporx 1% surchase on taxes to medicare levy. Back in her day the threshold was $50,000, so $500 extra.

- The flood stuf I was refering to was QLD, these areas are designated flood plains (meaning they flood on a regular basis, not a once every 100 year thing). The severity obviously varies. aOne example, the rail tracks in the flood plains that got washed away, they rebuilt them exactly the same way (i.e created an elevated train track which creates a dam wall. They should include tunnels thruogh the wall, so water can continue its natural flow to the main river.

- Not sure if interest is part of the capital gains section, but it is in the income section of tax on its own i think.  I think on interest earned they charge a flat 30% or so.  Many things are means tested in our tax system, so I don't see why this cannot be the same at a minimum. Negative gearingis great if you got enough money to get into the realestate investment market. I was more refering to the low to middle class, who save some extra cash rather than blow it all.

- Oh, you're talking about the extra for higher income earners? I guess it's looked at the same way as a pogressive taxation system. It would go something like 1.5% for low and middle incomes and 2.5% for high incomes, or a flat rate of something like 2.2% fr everybody. Similar with thedifferent levels of income (does the extra 1% only apply for all income above $70k?) 

- The worse part about the QLD floods, is that despite the government's attempts to cushion the blow, premiums on house insurance went up to an obscene amount, something like $600 to $900 per annum in our area (I live in southern NSW), and many refused to cover flood damage (luckily we live in an area that has never had flooding on record). Yes, there should be smarter ways to rebuild things that have been damaged in the flood (Melbourne had a "once in a lifetime" flood when I lived there in 2003, and then again a few years later. To rebuild the same thing on the notion of "it will never happen again in our lifetime" is very negative viewing). It's a shame too, because we cannot have a serious discussion here about infastructure without it turning into an argument about gold-plating or pork barreling (NBN, Very fast rail, National energy grid). In fact, Victoria tried to cut costs in converting rail sleepers on the Albury to Melbourne line from wood to concrete. The end result is that the rail line between our two largest cities cannot be traversed over 80km/h in some places, for danger of derailment. I'd rather the government spend a little more to have it last longer in such cases.

- I'm not sure about bank interest taxes. They are in a completely different section, but if it's being taxed at a higher rate than regular income, that really should be changed (all income earned should be subject to the same taxation). I ended up paying qite a bit of tax on my bank interest, and ended up giving up and putting it into property. 

What annoys me moreso are the taxes that were implemented for a reason, and never used for that reason. For instance, the Fuel levy introduced my Malcolm Fraser was to fund road projects, yet only 14% or so of all fuel levy accumulated goes to such road projects. Had they used this money for it;s primary purpose, maybe we would have a decent Hume/Pacific/Newell/Goulburn/Princes etc. Highway system decades ago.


- Not sure what the level for private health is now as the brackets for tax have somewhat changed, so that low income earners beenfit. First 18K is not taxible now. however othe brackets have been increased (mainly middle class), so middle class are the worst of fin this deal.  I honestly don't see why a progressive health thing shoudl apply as chances are someone who earns good money better looks after themself so they do nto go to hospital and doctors as much.

- Rail in this country has always had no good funding (except when we are shipping coal or timber offshore). I knwo in Tassie they wanted to save costs so they replaced the timber sleepers with some metal ones. They warped in the sublight (we all know how hot Tassie gets haha). They then replaced them with concrete ones.

- Eventually I will be puttin git into property (well at least my own house lol) once I got enough saved up for a 20% deposit. It is hard to do whilst paying rent where I am.

 

Finally totally agree about our tax funds being missused. They should go to what the taxes were originally assigned for. LIke the carbon tax. This should be used to research renewable energy solutions that do not rely on weather conditions. But most of this will get redistributed back to the low income earners. Why tax them in the first place then if all you are goign to do is redistribute the wealth.

It will be interestinng times ahead for Australia once the mining boom is over. Australia should be investing into infastructure, like dubai does from its oil money. Australia needs better roads, public transport and cheaper cost of living. Throw ontop of that better hospitality and services in tourism and people will flock here to visit the unique natural places this place has to offer.