by Psyber » Sun Jul 14, 2013 4:51 pm
Bully's comment just above about the issue of MP's pay entitlements seemed apposite today as I watched an episode of "The Big Idea" on the ABC while having lunch. The topic was whether the rich should pay more tax. I was interested because I tend to think marginal tax rates at very high incomes could be higher, especially for those earning $500K or more per year, and even more so for those on millions per annum. I was disturbed though by those who started to slide the debate into "wealth" rather than income, and advocated capital gains tax on the family home.
It disturbed me on general principle because of the paper work burden involved for every home owner and I wondered whether it was more about punishing the wealthy rather than raising money given the potential costs of running the system. (I could see a lot more appealing about valuations going on.)
Also, on a personal level, I was concerned because, while my home is valuable, my income from my superannuation has not been much above the $30K per annum level that was being touted as "the poor". and I may struggle to find the income to pay such a tax on an asset not yielding income itself. I'd be OK at the moment because in the last year, partly because of the reduced return on my self-managed superannuation fund, I have taken on some medical locum jobs. However, I will be 70 later this year and cannot count on being able to do it in the long-term future.
I suspect it would be too hard for party to embrace in a potentially close election like that coming up later this year, but I know from my old school friends, who have held state office as MPs with the ALP in the past, that they see "supply charges" on utility bills as a form of wealth tax and as justifiable, so the thinking is there.
How do others see that issue?
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
