Private Health loss of Rebate for some

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is an oldie but a goodie for those who have trouble understanding taxation:

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every
day, ten men go out for dinner.
The bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay
their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.
But what about the other six, the paying customers?
How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each
man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The
sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings). The seventh now paid $5
instead of $7 (28% savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back
when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat
down and ate without him.
But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something
important.
They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit
from a tax reduction.
 
Sorry but it is a TAX SYSTEM.......you can't go picking on one item when another might give something back to you.....for example those who have spouses not working or earning income (Family assistance here counts) you could claim a spouse tax offset (Over $2000 - a year I believe). Those of you who decide to dump your PHI - there is a 20% out of pocket medical expenses over $2060 - again a tax offset. For those with Kids who have FTB - education tax offset. I could go on but honestly the system is large and complex - find a good TAG who is registered and understands what is claimable and what isn't and the evidence required if you get audited. Read ato.gov.au. Having travelled to many 3rd world countries I would double my tax payable to ensure children and the disadvantage are given basic human rights. And honestly if I had a 1 million dollar tax bill every year I would be happy - this means I am earning the income that supports that amount.
 
Sponsored Post

Struggling to use your Frequent Flyer Points?

Frequent Flyer Concierge takes the hard work out of finding award availability and redeeming your frequent flyer or credit card points for flights.

Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, the Frequent Flyer Concierge team at Frequent Flyer Concierge will help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

Sorry but it is a TAX SYSTEM.......you can't go picking on one item when another might give something back to you.....for example those who have spouses not working or earning income (Family assistance here counts) you could claim a spouse tax offset (Over $2000 - a year I believe). Those of you who decide to dump your PHI - there is a 20% out of pocket medical expenses over $2060 - again a tax offset. For those with Kids who have FTB - education tax offset. I could go on but honestly the system is large and complex - find a good TAG who is registered and understands what is claimable and what isn't and the evidence required if you get audited. Read ato.gov.au. Having travelled to many 3rd world countries I would double my tax payable to ensure children and the disadvantage are given basic human rights. And honestly if I had a 1 million dollar tax bill every year I would be happy - this means I am earning the income that supports that amount.

I don't follow your point at all???

Sorry....seriously though.... What is your point?
 
dfcatch – sorry if my post confused you.

I believe the point was that this was a message board devoted to a particular topic – the fact is a Tax rebate was decreasing to the point of causing some financial stress to some members of the board. It was obviously enough of a concern that some members were going to make the choice to cancel their insurance policy. My point was to be proactive and look at the system as a whole to make sure you are maximising the offsets/deductions that are available on the hope that what you loose in one area you may be able to gain in another. This might be enough to allow a member and their family to stay with their private health insurance. But that’s ok – if my reply has no “point” can one of those special long term members with admin access please go and delete it. As a new member I was unaware that my response was pointless – I will take care not to post in future.
 
Sorry but it is a TAX SYSTEM.......you can't go picking on one item when another might give something back to you.....for example those who have spouses not working or earning income (Family assistance here counts) you could claim a spouse tax offset (Over $2000 - a year I believe). Those of you who decide to dump your PHI - there is a 20% out of pocket medical expenses over $2060 - again a tax offset. For those with Kids who have FTB - education tax offset. I could go on but honestly the system is large and complex - find a good TAG who is registered and understands what is claimable and what isn't and the evidence required if you get audited. Read ato.gov.au. Having travelled to many 3rd world countries I would double my tax payable to ensure children and the disadvantage are given basic human rights. And honestly if I had a 1 million dollar tax bill every year I would be happy - this means I am earning the income that supports that amount.

I receive nothing , nada...

I am entitled only to the Medicare safety net but for 8,5% net off my $2000 bucks spend per year I am not going to hire a tax agent for $500-$5000!!!

Your constant suggestion that we waste our money on pointless tax dodging just shows how dysfunctional our society is. Why do you think it is good for people to pay $1000000 tax AND simultaneously you encourage them to receive government benefits???

I pay a 6 figure tax bill now not because of wealth but because of a suddenly high income in my 40s. This began after 17 years of highly specialized training (much of it unpaid) during which I could barely afford to bring up a family, and couldnt buy a house or save...
 
dfcatch – sorry if my post confused you.

I believe the point was that this was a message board devoted to a particular topic – the fact is a Tax rebate was decreasing to the point of causing some financial stress to some members of the board. It was obviously enough of a concern that some members were going to make the choice to cancel their insurance policy. My point was to be proactive and look at the system as a whole to make sure you are maximising the offsets/deductions that are available on the hope that what you loose in one area you may be able to gain in another. This might be enough to allow a member and their family to stay with their private health insurance. But that’s ok – if my reply has no “point” can one of those special long term members with admin access please go and delete it. As a new member I was unaware that my response was pointless – I will take care not to post in future.

You are welcome to post. But I agree I don't see the 'point' of the "system as a whole". If I had a 20% flat tax and no deductions the government would have exactly the same amount of money! and instead of considering spending 5000 bucks a year on tax minimization agents I could give the money to the local refugees I currently support. Plus the government probably spends half the money they are recycling and churning back to people on bureaucrats to administer the churn.
 
dfcatch – sorry if my post confused you.

I believe the point was that this was a message board devoted to a particular topic – the fact is a Tax rebate was decreasing to the point of causing some financial stress to some members of the board. It was obviously enough of a concern that some members were going to make the choice to cancel their insurance policy. My point was to be proactive and look at the system as a whole to make sure you are maximising the offsets/deductions that are available on the hope that what you loose in one area you may be able to gain in another. This might be enough to allow a member and their family to stay with their private health insurance. But that’s ok – if my reply has no “point” can one of those special long term members with admin access please go and delete it. As a new member I was unaware that my response was pointless – I will take care not to post in future.

Ahhh I understand your point now - cheers for clarifying.

My view is that I look at simply as a policy perspective.

And that's where I disagree with the government's decision - simply put - I think they have made a bad policy decision.

Your post brings up the wider taxation issues.
 
Ahhh I understand your point now - cheers for clarifying.

My view is that I look at simply as a policy perspective.

And that's where I disagree with the government's decision - simply put - I think they have made a bad policy decision.

Your post brings up the wider taxation issues.

Of course that is not unusual for any government.Today read a synopsis of a UBS report into the EU's ETS-much lauded by some.
'The price for emissions certificates has plunged, a development that is actually making coal more attractive than renewable energy.'
According to UBS Investment Research the system has cost $287 billion till 2011 with "almost zero impact" on overall emissions in European Union and the money could have result in over 40% reduction if used in targeted way, e.g. to upgrade power plants
 
I receive nothing , nada...

I am entitled only to the Medicare safety net but for 8,5% net off my $2000 bucks spend per year I am not going to hire a tax agent for $500-$5000!!!

Your constant suggestion that we waste our money on pointless tax dodging just shows how dysfunctional our society is. Why do you think it is good for people to pay $1000000 tax AND simultaneously you encourage them to receive government benefits???

I pay a 6 figure tax bill now not because of wealth but because of a suddenly high income in my 40s. This began after 17 years of highly specialized training (much of it unpaid) during which I could barely afford to bring up a family, and couldnt buy a house or save...

I am someone in a similar position... having spent > 12 odd years studying training, scrounging etc, I am now somewhat suddenly in higher income bracket which means I get wacked. The tax system doesn't seem to cater for this, encouraging instead slow continuous earning.

I originally contributed to this article as the annoyance of Julia evoking the politics of envy saying yadda about a sub $1000 benefit whilst conveniently forgetting that they stick the boot in & take 47.5% of the top rate earnings anyway.
I accept the rate is arbitrary and can be massaged, but lets not pretend that it is not there & doesn't have to be paid... Each extra "means testing" yadda just adds to the insult...

Of course, nothing will change as there are no votes in anything but the middle ground. Just like two ice cream sellers on bondi beach on a hot day... it is all about both parties hanging around the middle ground....
 
One small issue. Is the means testing based on gross or taxable income?
 
One small issue. Is the means testing based on gross or taxable income?

Since they resolve this at tax time I guess it'll be taxable income. Medicare surcharge, PHI rebate are both boxes that you ticket on the tax return and they they work it out based on taxable income. Pretty sure I read that the means test will not include any grossed up FBT (whatever the proper name is) amounts, like family tax benefit does.
 
Re 50% tax I'm another person as I mentioned and it is VERY common in my industry where pay is high per hour but there are no big bonuses or profit sharing. If tax was 25-30pc at most I would change my mind. Especially as there is a limit to what I can charge my clients from a business and moral point of view.

Thank-you for providing the data point. Out of interest, and if you don't mind saying, what industry do you work in?

Re pay rates : I don't want a "legislated example". Where is the research...where are the examples? Public company executive pay figures are available.

Here's some proper research showing the gender pay gap:

http://sydney.edu.au/business/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/108242/WRC_Gender_pay_gap_2011.pdf

"After controlling for a broad set of economic and non-economic variables, we found a gender wage gap of 8.2 per cent. This means that, all things being equal (especially age and education level) women are paid 8.2 percent less than men when doing similar work. These findings are consistent with other studies."

http://www.eowa.gov.au/Pay_Equity/Pay_Equity_Information/EPD 2011 factsheet.pdf is also interesting, but is raw data rather than results controlled for age / education / etc.

If you took the time to Google you would have found this in minutes, and there's plenty more out there if you want more evidence (both Australian and international studies).

It is pretty divisive when the current Government trots out the line that couples or singles are "wealthy" at these modest income levels like they have.

I assume you mean the $150k/year figure? If so, that is wealthy (or, at the very least, getting towards it) when you look at the actual data. The median household income in Australia in 2009/2010 was $68,640 (http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/DBE855896D8CA36DCA2578FB0018533C/$File/65230_2009-10.pdf, top of page 24), and having a household income above $150,000/year puts you in the top ~13.2% of households (according to my calculations based on data from page 18 of the same PDF). $200k/year puts you in the top ~5.6%. And for the record, it's not just the government that trots out this line - so does the opposition and most of the media on a regular basis.

I think it's easy to not realise what the true reality of income levels across all of Australian society is. I know I've been guilty of this - I was quite shocked when I saw the above figures for the first time. I also suspect most posters on here would suffer from the same perception bias I had, which comes from mainly "travelling" in circles made up of well-educated professionals (just regular people fitting this description - not the super-wealthy).

And for the record, I'm not "playing the politics of envy" here, but trying to look at the facts. Personally, I fit into the $150k+/year bracket, but I also recognise that this is a lot of money compared to the average Australian, and at this income level (and in a certain range above/below it) it's the choices about lifestyle / how you spend your money / etc that determines how much you will "battle" to make ends meet. At my income level I could be living in a house in a much nicer suburb, driving a Porsche, eating out every night, etc, and if I did I would be struggling - but I make the choice to live within my means, so I do not. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if your household income is over $150k/year and you are struggling, it is because of the lifestyle choices you've made, not your income level.
 
I'm sorry the research you quote is for men and women doing "similiar"work-not the same.
Look at the figures for first year medical graduate salaries-women are supposedly paid $500 a year less than men.I dont know one State or Territory where there is a different pay rate in first year for men cf women.
The"similiar"work argument has surfaced to be used with Fair Work Australia to justify pay rises.It is the old argument-keep trying until you find a statistic to support your argument.
The challenge is find a situation where a man earns more than a woman for the same work.
 
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Of course this will all be moot discussion if Rudd resigns from parliament on Monday, and Julia loses the snap election that will follow. Can't believe that means testing the rebate is looking like a better option than the alternative (mad monk as PM).
 
Sorry - can't help myself - hope this is useful - its not on your taxable income. It is actually your "income for surcharge purposes". Which is Taxable income (including net amount on which family trust distribution tax has been paid), exempt foreign employment income (if your taxable income is $1 or more), reportable fringe benefits, total NET investment losses and reportable super contributions. There is removal of income if you are 55/59 with a super lump sum.
 
Wealth is relative. $150k PA doesn't necessarily make you "wealthy". It does give you the opportunity to get there more quickly.
I recall a statistic a few years ago now , that self made millionaires in Australia were NOT ( in the majority of cases) high income earners. But fell into the category " it's not how much you earn, but how much you spend". ...... A lesson lost on our current political masters I fear.
 
Thank-you for providing the data point. Out of interest, and if you don't mind saying, what industry do you work in?



Here's some proper research showing the gender pay gap:

http://sydney.edu.au/business/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/108242/WRC_Gender_pay_gap_2011.pdf

"After controlling for a broad set of economic and non-economic variables, we found a gender wage gap of 8.2 per cent. This means that, all things being equal (especially age and education level) women are paid 8.2 percent less than men when doing similar work. These findings are consistent with other studies."

http://www.eowa.gov.au/Pay_Equity/Pay_Equity_Information/EPD%202011%20factsheet.pdf is also interesting, but is raw data rather than results controlled for age / education / etc.

If you took the time to Google you would have found this in minutes, and there's plenty more out there if you want more evidence (both Australian and international studies).



I assume you mean the $150k/year figure? If so, that is wealthy (or, at the very least, getting towards it) when you look at the actual data. The median household income in Australia in 2009/2010 was $68,640 (http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/DBE855896D8CA36DCA2578FB0018533C/$File/65230_2009-10.pdf, top of page 24), and having a household income above $150,000/year puts you in the top ~13.2% of households (according to my calculations based on data from page 18 of the same PDF). $200k/year puts you in the top ~5.6%. And for the record, it's not just the government that trots out this line - so does the opposition and most of the media on a regular basis.

I think it's easy to not realise what the true reality of income levels across all of Australian society is. I know I've been guilty of this - I was quite shocked when I saw the above figures for the first time. I also suspect most posters on here would suffer from the same perception bias I had, which comes from mainly "travelling" in circles made up of well-educated professionals (just regular people fitting this description - not the super-wealthy).

And for the record, I'm not "playing the politics of envy" here, but trying to look at the facts. Personally, I fit into the $150k+/year bracket, but I also recognise that this is a lot of money compared to the average Australian, and at this income level (and in a certain range above/below it) it's the choices about lifestyle / how you spend your money / etc that determines how much you will "battle" to make ends meet. At my income level I could be living in a house in a much nicer suburb, driving a Porsche, eating out every night, etc, and if I did I would be struggling - but I make the choice to live within my means, so I do not. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if your household income is over $150k/year and you are struggling, it is because of the lifestyle choices you've made, not your income level.

I'm not sure why you are criticising my googling skills. I can find similar articles but they don't impress me at all. I'm not going to repeat the arguments I used first time but I haven't changed my mind. The Sydney article concludes that "The persistence of the gender pay gap continues to be largely related to work being undervalued in female-dominated industries of employment. " It isn't a research paper, it is a briefing sheet useful to lobbyists and compiled by a who's who of union organisations. The other article is uncontrolled for the workers' work history. I understand that primary school teachers and social workers earn less than neurosurgeons or astrophysicists but the barriers to entry are entirely different so the market rewards them differently. And I know female brain surgeons and astrophysicists and they have no wage parity issues compared to their male colleagues.

Unless the government centrally controls all wages and forces social workers to earn as much those barriers will remain. Work that has high barriers to entry, is dirty or dangerous will always have a premium financially in a market economy and traditionally has been more skewed towards male participation. Believe me, as a company director if we can find senior female professionals willing to take on boards roles they will be snapped up in a second.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Enhance your AFF viewing experience!!

From just $6 we'll remove all advertisements so that you can enjoy a cleaner and uninterupted viewing experience.

And you'll be supporting us so that we can continue to provide this valuable resource :)


Sample AFF with no advertisements? More..
Back
Top