Utter ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Care to explain why the Australian economy hasn’t collapsed as a result of this crushing “tax”?
Australian retirees to become the richest in the World
- Thread starter lionking
- Start date
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Is that your concern? That if Australian employers were required to pay the same amount of money to the government, and the government used it to fund a government-administered super, it would crush the Australian economy?
Do you believe that by making employers pay directly to a privately-managed super, the Australian government has provided a social safety net without destroying the economy?
Is that why you're so insistent that it not be called a tax? Because if you call things taxes it destroys the economy?
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
OUR desire. Both conservative and progressive governments have supported this scheme for decades.
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
You are the one who is so keen to call it a tax, like you think that's a bad thing. It isn't and it's not.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, we know you live in a democracy. That changes nothing about my assessment: lionking's beloved retirement funding is essentially a tax. A tax imposed by a government of the people is still a tax.
Did you vote for this scheme under the impression that you weren't taxing employers?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
It is a tax. I don't think it's a bad tax.
It's the people, running away screaming from the idea that this is functionally a tax, who think taxes are a bad thing.
What I think is a bad thing is lionking trying to gaslight us that this is some sort of free market outcome, rather than your government forcing employers to fund a retirement scheme.
Why do you and he have such a problem with the idea of government forcing people to do things for the greater good?
You and I agree that it's often the right thing to do. Where we don't agree is that it's ever okay to lie about what's going on.
Last edited:
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
LOL, you really don't know, do you!
If it is "functionally" a tax, why isn't the government benefiting directly? Why can some employers NOT have to contribute to super? Why do some employees not need super? Why do super funds have to pay all relevant taxes on the financial streams they operate? Why do voluntary employee contributions get taxed at all (let alone differently)? Why are employees allowed claim a percentage of super contributions as tax concessions? These are all mechanisms for avoiding paying tax.
If you would like an example of an Australian "tax" that is not called "tax", you need only look at the Medicare Levy. Oh, that's right - it's "socialism" to have publicly-funded health care for all, funded by taxation.
Last edited:
I know I shouldn’t respond to such ignorant posts, but if I remain silent you or others might think I have conceded a point to you.
Taxes in Australia are governed by tax laws and administrated by the Treasury. Superannuation is not. It is you, in fact, who is lying by calling super a tax.
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Define tax. Then ask are, by that definition, wages a tax? The super guarantee is more like a component of wages than anything else.
Why is it important if it is called a tax or not? There are apparently different definitions of tax where super is a tax in one definition, and not in another.
ETA: I am not just asking the Aussies, but also theprestige.
ETA: I am not just asking the Aussies, but also theprestige.
Last edited:
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
Australian super is actually quite similar to the US employee 401(k) scheme, but with slightly different rules. That does not seem to be a "tax" per se although there's plenty of involvement in the US tax system.
Somebody does
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The government isn't supposed to benefit directly from taxes. The people are supposed to benefit from government programs, that are funded by taxation. This tax cuts out the government as a middleman, and keeps the government out of the business of administering the retirement fund. This is probably part of the reason why the fund is so successful.LOL, you really don't know, do you!
If it is "functionally" a tax, why isn't the government benefiting directly?
The function of a tax isn't to put money in the government's coffers. The purpose of a tax is to fund some government-mandated program for the benefit of the people. And that's exactly what's going on with Australia's super: Employers are required by law to fund a government-mandated program for the benefit of the people.
Saying it's not a tax is silly. It functions exactly like a tax.
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
What you are saying is that wages are also a tax? They are government-mandated program for keeping workers alive and healthy. LOL.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
No. I'm not saying wages are also a tax. Any more than I would say that a government-mandated retirement fund is part of an employee's compensation, if the government administers it and taxes the employer to pay for it. Nobody in their right mind says Social Security payments are part of an employee's wages.
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
I know you are saying that wages are taxes. But it meets your definition of a tax.
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
No, they don't.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
What's the point of saying it isn't a tax, when it's literally the government making people pay into a government-mandated social safety net?
What exactly is supposed to be communicated? It's not like employers are making these payments voluntarily, based on free market negotiations with their employees. The government is forcing them to make these payments.
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
Future investment.
Let's try that again, but one slight change.