Why income/wealth equality is getting worse

[loubert]

Am i the only one appalled and disgusted that Lisa Wilkinson quit over pay inequality.

Probably not, but I'd wager you're in the minority of a dimwitted view.

The difference between her income and the male capitalist pig was 10%

Source?

the difference between her income and the average working aussie is over 1000% for man or woman.

As Mr. B asked before, source?

Her and all the other megalomaniacs who think they are worth that much more than common people need to have a good long look in the mirror before they go bleating on about equality

Has Wilkinson stated that at all? I highly doubt it, and further more, who cares. It isn't like she is a banker or hedge fund manager who seem to derive their income from exploitation of the common folk.

[Wrenn]

I am not sure if the "1000% of average Australian" claim is right, especially since there is a large disparity between male and female income (approximately 17%, to the disadvantage of women). NB: I gave a source there, and would like to see some of your sources, Lewis.

I am bad at math, but the first google hit says she was payed $1.1 million (I assume per year? dunno). Average australian salary is $78,000 . So she was getting ~15 times more or 1500% of the average Australian?

[MikeJay]

The only way to tackle inequality is to tax it.
Taxes only tax the minor subset of wealth being income in a given year, and treats everyone as equal in that regard, whether they are a billionaire, have assets worth a million dollars (their home), or are struggling on a wage to pay their rent, debts, hecs, and childcare fees.
The person in the million dollar house pays no tax if they don't work. The person who owns nothing has to pay the tax, for the police to protect the assets of those who own them.

This is really very crazy. Negative gearing supercharges this insanity and is the cut in the achilles tendon of any future revenue.

The person in the million dollar house would have to own it outright to be in a position not to work, to own the house outright they probably had to work for most of their life. Having worked for most of their life, they've already paid their fair share of income tax.

[Darwinsbulldog]

First of all, sometimes can be asset rich and income poor. [Hence most financial advisers suggest a mix of investments, for both capital growth and income].

Note here I am not talking about inherited wealth, [which should be subject to probate taxes], but wealth accumulated over a lifetime of work.

The problem socially is the lack of an above subsistence guaranteed wage. [Or indeed the lack of any guaranteed minimum wage] Subsistence wages are no good, because you can't accumulate capital [save or invest] and thus provide for retirement.

IMHO, there is nothing intrinsically about negative gearing. What is evil is the lack of distinction between individuals trying to set up some retirement income with a rental or two, and corporations with hundreds or thousands of properties.

Remember that rents go up and down, so you are only likely to get ahead as a small landlord during the good times. When rents are low, the costs burden way exceeds the income [rents]. Negative gearing helps with this.

Being a landlord is risky too. Insurance companies don't like paying out on claims, and proving malicious damage by a tenant can be hard. Again, the big end of town doesn't have to worry about this, because of their economies of scale [trades and businesses might give them a discount for bulk services [eg insurgence], maintenance and repairs, for example.

A lot of "mom & pop" investors can't afford the best insurance or good quality property management, further exposing them to financial risk if they get a bad tenant, who doesn't pay rent, or trashes the place. [Or both].

Of course there are horror stories of both asshole landlords and asshole tenants. The law can be unfair to those landlords and tenants that try to do the right thing.

I have been screwed as a tenant and as a landlord, so I can sympathise with both groups. [When they deserve it, of course].

As with any ethical question [such as the moral legitimacy and fairness of a tax or tax concession] details and circumstances are just as important as the principles that relate to the question.

As usual however, the debate gets polarised and ideological, rather than actually nutting our a fair and sensible policy that does not leave the poorer sections of the community out in the cold, but gives some incentive to those who risk their savings to support themselves in the future.

I have few problems with capitalism on principle, provided that ALL people in the society face no barriers to entry and participation. If billionaires want to remain billionaires, then they should be taxed accordingly, and the income redistributed to allow everyone, no matter what their abilities or disabilities, to participate.

But poll taxes, one size fits all negative gearing, and the like, do not promote peace, democracy, or for that matter, a great capitalist system. Because if you are poor, you can't consume much in the way of goods and services, so where is the profit in that? By keeping the little people down, the big end of town deprive themselves of a market.

[The Irreverent Mr Black]

I am not sure if the "1000% of average Australian" claim is right, especially since there is a large disparity between male and female income (approximately 17%, to the disadvantage of women). NB: I gave a source there, and would like to see some of your sources, Lewis.

I am bad at math, but the first google hit says she was payed $1.1 million (I assume per year? dunno). Average australian salary is $78,000 . So she was getting ~15 times more or 1500% of the average Australian?

Yes, but couldn't be both the male and female average, as the disparity exists, and 17% is significant.

I would like to see the justification of Lewis's claims and figures.

[MikeJay]

Note here I am not talking about inherited wealth, [which should be subject to probate taxes], but wealth accumulated over a lifetime of work.

There would be a lot of people in Australia that would take offence at something like this, there must be some kind of "out" with regards to tax on inherited wealth.

[knowledge is power]

Average australian salary is $78,000 .

Wow, really? I'm a pauper, apparently.*shrugs*

[wadaye]

The only way to tackle inequality is to tax it.
Taxes only tax the minor subset of wealth being income in a given year, and treats everyone as equal in that regard, whether they are a billionaire, have assets worth a million dollars (their home), or are struggling on a wage to pay their rent, debts, hecs, and childcare fees.
The person in the million dollar house pays no tax if they don't work. The person who owns nothing has to pay the tax, for the police to protect the assets of those who own them.

This is really very crazy. Negative gearing supercharges this insanity and is the cut in the achilles tendon of any future revenue.

The person in the million dollar house would have to own it outright to be in a position not to work, to own the house outright they probably had to work for most of their life. Having worked for most of their life, they've already paid their fair share of income tax.

Where I live, houses have tripled in the last five years.
Nobody worked for that money. Sure if they had to work to pay their mortgage they would have paid taxes, but of course if they had to work to pay two mortgages then they could negatively gear and thus avoid paying any income tax either.

And they don't pay any tax on the capital gain of the first house that they live in even if they sell it.

You've obviously never heard of a reverse mortgage. Its a way of drawing down off the house through an increasing draft facility on a house loan. Its quite common these days. And its all tax free money. It doesn't have to be declared as income. So the unemployed person drawing down on their house can still collect their unemployment benefits, child care rebates, family tax benefit A and B, not pay any medicare levy or HECS or HELP repayments either.

[wadaye]

...

I have few problems with capitalism on principle, provided that ALL people in the society face no barriers to entry and participation. If billionaires want to remain billionaires, then they should be taxed accordingly, and the income redistributed to allow everyone, no matter what their abilities or disabilities, to participate.

This brings us back to the point. Inequality of wealth and assets will never be touched through taxation on income alone while property and assets remain an onshore tax haven. You can tax a billionaire's income all you like but it will never affect his, or her, wealth.

But poll taxes, one size fits all negative gearing, and the like, do not promote peace, democracy, or for that matter, a great capitalist system. Because if you are poor, you can't consume much in the way of goods and services, so where is the profit in that? By keeping the little people down, the big end of town deprive themselves of a market.

I prefer the pitchfork argument

[odd]

Am i the only one appalled and disgusted that Lisa Wilkinson quit over pay inequality.

Probably not, but I'd wager you're in the minority of a dimwitted view.

The difference between her income and the male capitalist pig was 10%

Source?

the difference between her income and the average working aussie is over 1000% for man or woman.

As Mr. B asked before, source?

Her and all the other megalomaniacs who think they are worth that much more than common people need to have a good long look in the mirror before they go bleating on about equality

Has Wilkinson stated that at all? I highly doubt it, and further more, who cares. It isn't like she is a banker or hedge fund manager who seem to derive their income from exploitation of the common folk.

Mod Note: Lewis, you best start answering the question members are putting to you - one of the rules around here is that you can't just dump and run - when people take the time to engage with your posts and ask questions you are obliged to respond.