-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Alcohol Tax !!
- Thread starter Tigaman
- Start date
I'm not drinking it, but I am collapsing inward when walking past it.
It's not an unusual price tag at Dan's now. Even if you can find beers in 6 packs now (and yeah if you're willing to put yourself through Carlton Draught then that's easy) they're still 17 or 18 bucks for the cheapest ones.
Sin taxes are targeted at the working class. But they spin it by claiming it's in our best interests to reduce consumption or quit. And if a government tries to stop or reduce it, anti-alcohol or anti-smoking groups will shout from the rooftops.
I paid $16.70 for a pint of Carlton Draught at the Royal Hotel Mornington on Australia Day (including 15% PH tariff). It's criminal.
I don't don't go to the pub as much as I used to nowadays.
I paid $16.70 for a pint of Carlton Draught at the Royal Hotel Mornington on Australia Day (including 15% PH tariff). It's criminal.
I don't don't go to the pub as much as I used to nowadays.
Yep, if government wanted to slow inflation and help the hospo industry they would halt this round of increases.
Hospo industry getting smashed by 16% office vacancy in Melb CBD, this would help locally as well as nationally.
An interesting bi-product of the taxes on tobacco is the involvement of criminal gangs.
There is now so much money to be made in illegally imported tobacco products it has become very lucrative to the crims
Guess I'm lucky I thought to do a quick top up at Costco just before the taxes went up.
Had to grab a litre of Jimmy from Dan Murphy's a few weeks back as I'd run out of supply n while there did a quick check of their price for the big 1.75 litre bottles of Jimmy $118.00 a bottle. Got to Costco for a top up of a few bits n pieces n lo n behold Jimmy 1.75 was $99.00, was about to grab a stock up when I spotted the same size Jack on special. Down from $115.00 to $99.00 the same as the Jimmy's. Online peek at Dan Murphy's price for the 1.75 Jack $135.00 per bottle. Four bottles of Jack went in the shopping trolley and the saving compared to Dan's cover me for two years of Costco membership. Managed to sneak in a couple of slabs of Asahi stubbies at $50.00 a pop as well.
Rarely pay pub or restaurant prices for anything more than a sip or two with a meal, as the mark up is brutal, as is the mark up for buying by the 4 or 6 packs for traveler purposes.
Had to grab a litre of Jimmy from Dan Murphy's a few weeks back as I'd run out of supply n while there did a quick check of their price for the big 1.75 litre bottles of Jimmy $118.00 a bottle. Got to Costco for a top up of a few bits n pieces n lo n behold Jimmy 1.75 was $99.00, was about to grab a stock up when I spotted the same size Jack on special. Down from $115.00 to $99.00 the same as the Jimmy's. Online peek at Dan Murphy's price for the 1.75 Jack $135.00 per bottle. Four bottles of Jack went in the shopping trolley and the saving compared to Dan's cover me for two years of Costco membership. Managed to sneak in a couple of slabs of Asahi stubbies at $50.00 a pop as well.
Rarely pay pub or restaurant prices for anything more than a sip or two with a meal, as the mark up is brutal, as is the mark up for buying by the 4 or 6 packs for traveler purposes.
Much cheaper n simpler to buy a slab n keep some left overs for the next day. 6 pack costs a *smile* load n never goes far enough n then you have to try n scuttle out kinda sneaky like to get some more n hope like *smile* some dopey Plod isn't hanging around looking for a victim.
Doesn't take will power, just takes a bit of old. Can't drink that many in a session anymore n have to leave some leftovers for later.
If people truly want to tax wealth then IMO the result is simple. Whatever balance you do with personal income tax levels, you increase taxes on proportionate levels through property taxes. Ie. the more the property is worth the higher the taxes, and within that I mean significantly more than are currently charged through your local rates.
Boomers will whinge and money about this (both left and right) because they were lucky when they were able to buy their homes. My generation unfortunately don't have that luxury of buying property at lower levels, so the wealth that people talk about has already been earnt by previous generations. Still want to live in your $2m house when you only earn $70k per year, thats fine, but expect to be taxed for it without hiding behind a ring fence of (place of residence).
This is the truly only way of seperating the argument between income and wealth because much of our wealth these days is tied up within property. This would also likely cooldown the property market from its currently outrageous levels.
I'd be interested to hear the views of the likes of David who has been very vocal about taxing wealth whilst also being of the age to have benefited from the significant gain in property appreciation.
BTW - this will never happen as it would be political suicide as all the boomers will vote against us, but bearing in mind we have so much value tied up in property, thats purely the best way to tax wealth, especially as this also gets round the issues of tax within trusts etc as the tax is on the asset and not on the individual.
I'd much rather the above than the ludicrous view that taxing on death via inheritance tax is the correct way to tax wealth.
Boomers will whinge and money about this (both left and right) because they were lucky when they were able to buy their homes. My generation unfortunately don't have that luxury of buying property at lower levels, so the wealth that people talk about has already been earnt by previous generations. Still want to live in your $2m house when you only earn $70k per year, thats fine, but expect to be taxed for it without hiding behind a ring fence of (place of residence).
This is the truly only way of seperating the argument between income and wealth because much of our wealth these days is tied up within property. This would also likely cooldown the property market from its currently outrageous levels.
I'd be interested to hear the views of the likes of David who has been very vocal about taxing wealth whilst also being of the age to have benefited from the significant gain in property appreciation.
BTW - this will never happen as it would be political suicide as all the boomers will vote against us, but bearing in mind we have so much value tied up in property, thats purely the best way to tax wealth, especially as this also gets round the issues of tax within trusts etc as the tax is on the asset and not on the individual.
I'd much rather the above than the ludicrous view that taxing on death via inheritance tax is the correct way to tax wealth.
I'd like to see a practical way that works.
Let's say in that example where you have a 2m dollar house on 70 grand a year. So you get taxed a tonne, and have to sell your house. But the only person who can afford to buy it is someone on 200 grand a year.
I'm not sure the situation is any better.
What a bunch of lightweight leaners and takers on this thread. How can I bring down the productive earners that create jobs to my pathetic level because I’m can’t earn enough for what I want. How about you work harder or study harder or start a business and take a risk and become a higher earner instead of expecting them to shout you everything. That 3% odd already pay a third of the tax. You want more, get off your arse and work harder or get a second job. Tall poppy syndrome deluxe on here.
Easy shekels for both versions of the Govt's back pocket. Not a chance in hell they'd give that back without another version of tax that gave them at least 50% better return.
Not sure what number the " luxury " tax kicks in on, but I doubt it would be much over $70 grand on a new car n there's *smile* loads of whizz bang techie new run of the mill family cars that cost way over these days. FMD fancy Hyundai's, Kia's, Mazda's n gawd knows what else run up to n over a hundred grand now.
Mr Poshman, there was a good reason I said earlier that the principal place of residence should not be part of a wealth tax, it is a roof over peoples' heads. Hence, the market value of the said residence is of no benefit to those who do own a house they live in. If my residence was worth less than we paid for it, that would not affect me at all. I would be considered middle class and, like most middle class people who do have some wealth, it is mainly tied up in a residence, which is where I live. In a property based system I can either live in a residence I own or I have to rent. The other wealth I have was from inheritance, which I should have been taxed on, and would have been in most countries, and I have no issue being taxed on wealth, which if there was a wealth tax I would be. In any case, housing is so damned expensive now we could never have bought it even 10 years after we did, so it isn't like we had so much money we could afford the absurd valuation it would now have. Sure, tax us on the amount we paid for the house and even put a capital gains tax on if we sell it. But, we bought the house on the basis of what we could afford when we bought it, if we were taxed on the absurd amount it is now worth we would likely be forced to sell and live who knows where, how does that help?
What needs to be taxed is wealth which is just there to accumulate more wealth as that is what worsens inequality. That is where the really substantial inequality in wealth is. It is not tied up in the family home.
As for inheritance tax, the evidence does show that inheritance taxes did have an impact on unequal wealth, they worked. The tax rates on income, on inheritance etc we saw in the post war period did lead to less inequality. I know that doesn't fit the neo-liberal economic theories, but any resemblance between neo-liberal economics and reality is beyond a coincidence, it is a miracle.
As for the housing problem, build shitloads of public housing, that will force rents down and should force house prices down. This has been neglected for way too long. Plus, don't leave this to developers, they will build large apartment blocks with as many apartments as they can squeeze in, which means apartments which are not big enough to raise a family - they solve nothing.
I don't know what the boomers will vote for or against, but this Gen-X will vote for a wealth tax, not that anyone will ever put one up.
DS
What needs to be taxed is wealth which is just there to accumulate more wealth as that is what worsens inequality. That is where the really substantial inequality in wealth is. It is not tied up in the family home.
As for inheritance tax, the evidence does show that inheritance taxes did have an impact on unequal wealth, they worked. The tax rates on income, on inheritance etc we saw in the post war period did lead to less inequality. I know that doesn't fit the neo-liberal economic theories, but any resemblance between neo-liberal economics and reality is beyond a coincidence, it is a miracle.
As for the housing problem, build shitloads of public housing, that will force rents down and should force house prices down. This has been neglected for way too long. Plus, don't leave this to developers, they will build large apartment blocks with as many apartments as they can squeeze in, which means apartments which are not big enough to raise a family - they solve nothing.
I don't know what the boomers will vote for or against, but this Gen-X will vote for a wealth tax, not that anyone will ever put one up.
DS
In what world do the people who work harder get paid more?
I've got a friend in a high paying corporate job who does WFH and plays video games on his lunch breaks.
And another friend in social work who gets paid very little and spends his days supporting abused kids try to stay out of jail.
Very strange post.
You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't tax some wealth and not others because it suits you.
For example, lets say 1 couple remain in a $1.5m house which is their entire wealth, and another couple more to a $500k house, and invest $1m, why should they pay tax on that. The wealth is the same.
Also, in your view of an inheritance tax, look specifically at what occurs as you get older, people look to downsize, increasing the number of larger homes available for families and moving to smaller 1 or 2 bedroom homes. Again lets look at that same example. Lets say both couples have a $1.5m home, whats the incentive to downsize? Ie. you remain in that home and you say their principal place of residence is tax free in an inheritance tax example, whereas the other might move to a $500k home, and then the additional $1m then becomes liable for inheritance tax. It'll actually result in less downsizing because people tax plan and will understand that doing that risks an inheritance tax obligation.
Having a 2 tiered system of wealth doesn't help anything, it would actually hinder. Ie. you either tax ALL wealth or none of it.
