He's Out!! Packer dismissed

He's Out!! Packer dismissed

Post by Colin Kynoc » Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:33:05


On 26 Dec 2005 23:06:38 -0800, "Shatadal"

that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:

Quote:
>Fran, please take the hint. Colin wants to do your taxes.

I don't do taxes

Colin Kynoch
Not a Registered Tax Agent

 
 
 

He's Out!! Packer dismissed

Post by Spaceman Spif » Thu, 29 Dec 2005 04:47:06

Quote:

> On 26 Dec 2005 23:06:38 -0800, "Shatadal"

> that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:

>> Fran, please take the hint. Colin wants to do your taxes.

> I don't do taxes

how about your own?

--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff

get your own damn grateful dead lyrics.
http://arts.ucsc.edu/gdead/agdl/

 
 
 

He's Out!! Packer dismissed

Post by Colin Kynoc » Thu, 29 Dec 2005 08:27:21

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:47:06 GMT, "Spaceman Spiff"

decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read
it:

Quote:

>> On 26 Dec 2005 23:06:38 -0800, "Shatadal"

>> that the following would improve the lives of those that read it:

>>> Fran, please take the hint. Colin wants to do your taxes.

>> I don't do taxes

>how about your own?

No.

I get them done by a professional tax accountant.

Colin Kynoch

 
 
 

He's Out!! Packer dismissed

Post by Spaceman Spif » Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:29:11

Quote:

> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:47:06 GMT, "Spaceman Spiff"

> decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read
> it:


>>> On 26 Dec 2005 23:06:38 -0800, "Shatadal"

>>> decided that the following would improve the lives of those that
>>> read it:

>>>> Fran, please take the hint. Colin wants to do your taxes.

>>> I don't do taxes

>> how about your own?

> No.

> I get them done by a professional tax accountant.

then maybe evaluation of suspect actions should also be done by
professionals?
;-)

--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff

get your own damn grateful dead lyrics.
http://arts.ucsc.edu/gdead/agdl/

 
 
 

He's Out!! Packer dismissed

Post by kenhig.. » Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:42:27

Quote:


> much thought and consideration decided that the following would
> improve the lives of those that read it:



> >> much thought and consideration decided that the following would
> >> improve the lives of those that read it:



> >> >> much thought and consideration decided that the following would
> >> >> improve the lives of those that read it:


> >> >> >> Why should this man be hated?

> >> >> >> Jealous?  That is understandable.

> >> >> >I was jealous of how little tax he paid. There was a string of years in
> >> >> >which I paid between 5 and ten times as much personal tax as him. One
> >> >> >typical year, he paid just over $3000 while I paid 18,000

> >> >> That is what you get when you pay for good taxation advice.

> >> >When you can live off offshore income

> >> As I said good taxation advice.

> >> Colin Kynoch
> >> Who is reminded of Treasurer Paul Keating saying something along the
> >> lines of "It is every Australian's responsibility to use the taxation
> >> system to their advantage, but it is nit government's job to tell them
> >> how to do it."

> >Well I'll keep that in mind as I try to persuade the DET to pay me
> >through a series of shelf companies in the bahamas and work out how to
> >transfer price myself into a free trade zone somewhere in Shanghai

> There are numerous ways for a PAYG employee to reduce their taxable
> income and also to increase their net worth.

> Most Australians choose not to do them though.

> Colin Kynoch

And thank goodness for that.

You can call it what you like, but it comes down to anti sociale
behaviour.

I'm happy to pay the tax I do and would actually pay more if I thought
it was going to a worthwhile cause like education or health.

I'm on a middle income and don't feel the need to rort the taxation
system under the guise of good taxation advice.

I'm reminded of Senor Skase, who's companies NEVER reported a profit,
always posting a loss and gaining tax credits as he built his empire,
only for it all to crumble as he did a runner.

I'm not saying Packer was like that, and the cricket world owes him an
enormous debt for his innovations (and, by all accounts, he was a
generous donor to charities of his choice), but a mark remains against
him for his refusal to pay tax on his enormous income.

Higgs

 
 
 

He's Out!! Packer dismissed

Post by kenhig.. » Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:46:19

Quote:

> Probably Packer's accountant / tax advisor earned more than you did and
> paid less tax than Packer did....

> A multi-million probe by the Tax Man could not find any fault!
> Vicky:
> [My inability is not other person's mistake]

Not strictly true.

On a couple of occasions, he settled quietly in order to avoid
prosecution.

Higgs

 
 
 

He's Out!! Packer dismissed

Post by Colin Kynoc » Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:03:47


and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives
of those that read it:

Quote:



>> much thought and consideration decided that the following would
>> improve the lives of those that read it:



>> >> much thought and consideration decided that the following would
>> >> improve the lives of those that read it:



>> >> >> much thought and consideration decided that the following would
>> >> >> improve the lives of those that read it:


>> >> >> >> Why should this man be hated?

>> >> >> >> Jealous?  That is understandable.

>> >> >> >I was jealous of how little tax he paid. There was a string of years in
>> >> >> >which I paid between 5 and ten times as much personal tax as him. One
>> >> >> >typical year, he paid just over $3000 while I paid 18,000

>> >> >> That is what you get when you pay for good taxation advice.

>> >> >When you can live off offshore income

>> >> As I said good taxation advice.

>> >> Colin Kynoch
>> >> Who is reminded of Treasurer Paul Keating saying something along the
>> >> lines of "It is every Australian's responsibility to use the taxation
>> >> system to their advantage, but it is nit government's job to tell them
>> >> how to do it."

>> >Well I'll keep that in mind as I try to persuade the DET to pay me
>> >through a series of shelf companies in the bahamas and work out how to
>> >transfer price myself into a free trade zone somewhere in Shanghai

>> There are numerous ways for a PAYG employee to reduce their taxable
>> income and also to increase their net worth.

>> Most Australians choose not to do them though.

>> Colin Kynoch

>And thank goodness for that.

That is why so many Australian's have to rely on a pension when they
retire.

Quote:
>You can call it what you like, but it comes down to anti sociale
>behaviour.

No it is called burying your head in the sand and hoping that the
government will provide for you in retirement.

I for one would not like to be relying on a pension that is
approximately 25% of AWOTE.

Quote:
>I'm happy to pay the tax I do and would actually pay more if I thought
>it was going to a worthwhile cause like education or health.

So in reality you wouldn't actually pay more tax, as it doesn't go to
those areas.

It goes to things like having our troops in Iraq, East Timor,
Afghanistan etc.

It goes into political advertising to try to sell to a generally
apathetic electorate the latest dumb idea from the government.

Quote:
>I'm on a middle income and don't feel the need to rort the taxation
>system under the guise of good taxation advice.

Why is it rorting the tax system?  Negative gearing for example is tax
deferral in most instances, and most other forms of investment are
similar.

Your statement above just shoes you are a drone like most of the
working stiffs.

Quote:
>I'm reminded of Senor Skase, who's companies NEVER reported a profit,
>always posting a loss and gaining tax credits as he built his empire,
>only for it all to crumble as he did a runner.

That can occur.  But more often companies do pay tax and they also
provide considerable social benefit by providing employment.

Quote:
>I'm not saying Packer was like that, and the cricket world owes him an
>enormous debt for his innovations (and, by all accounts, he was a
>generous donor to charities of his choice), but a mark remains against
>him for his refusal to pay tax on his enormous income.

Why?  It was found to be legal.  He was just smart.

Oh and BTW those donations to charities would have been tax
deductible.

Colin Kynoch

 
 
 

He's Out!! Packer dismissed

Post by Colin Kynoc » Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:04:41

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 05:29:11 GMT, "Spaceman Spiff"

decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read
it:

Quote:

>> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:47:06 GMT, "Spaceman Spiff"

>> decided that the following would improve the lives of those that read
>> it:


>>>> On 26 Dec 2005 23:06:38 -0800, "Shatadal"

>>>> decided that the following would improve the lives of those that
>>>> read it:

>>>>> Fran, please take the hint. Colin wants to do your taxes.

>>>> I don't do taxes

>>> how about your own?

>> No.

>> I get them done by a professional tax accountant.

>then maybe evaluation of suspect actions should also be done by
>professionals?
>;-)

Yes let me know when Murali has been tested professionally, as to date
he certainly has not been.  They have been very amateur with their
efforts.

\Colin Kynoch

 
 
 

He's Out!! Packer dismissed

Post by kenhig.. » Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:40:05

Quote:


> and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives
> of those that read it:



> >> much thought and consideration decided that the following would
> >> improve the lives of those that read it:



> >> >> much thought and consideration decided that the following would
> >> >> improve the lives of those that read it:



> >> >> >> much thought and consideration decided that the following would
> >> >> >> improve the lives of those that read it:


> >> >> >> >> Why should this man be hated?

> >> >> >> >> Jealous?  That is understandable.

> >> >> >> >I was jealous of how little tax he paid. There was a string of years in
> >> >> >> >which I paid between 5 and ten times as much personal tax as him. One
> >> >> >> >typical year, he paid just over $3000 while I paid 18,000

> >> >> >> That is what you get when you pay for good taxation advice.

> >> >> >When you can live off offshore income

> >> >> As I said good taxation advice.

> >> >> Colin Kynoch
> >> >> Who is reminded of Treasurer Paul Keating saying something along the
> >> >> lines of "It is every Australian's responsibility to use the taxation
> >> >> system to their advantage, but it is nit government's job to tell them
> >> >> how to do it."

> >> >Well I'll keep that in mind as I try to persuade the DET to pay me
> >> >through a series of shelf companies in the bahamas and work out how to
> >> >transfer price myself into a free trade zone somewhere in Shanghai

> >> There are numerous ways for a PAYG employee to reduce their taxable
> >> income and also to increase their net worth.

> >> Most Australians choose not to do them though.

> >> Colin Kynoch

> >And thank goodness for that.

> That is why so many Australian's have to rely on a pension when they
> retire.

Hardly.

It's mostly because they don't earn enough to begin with, not because
they've spent their lives paying too much tax.

As someone in the finance industry, you ought to realise that.

Quote:
> >You can call it what you like, but it comes down to anti sociale
> >behaviour.

> No it is called burying your head in the sand and hoping that the
> government will provide for you in retirement.

What?

Paying your taxes is burying your head in the sand and hoping the govt
will provide?

Quote:
> I for one would not like to be relying on a pension that is
> approximately 25% of AWOTE.

Which is why we have super, Col.

Quote:
> >I'm happy to pay the tax I do and would actually pay more if I thought
> >it was going to a worthwhile cause like education or health.

> So in reality you wouldn't actually pay more tax, as it doesn't go to
> those areas.

What don't you understand, Col?

I said I'd pay more if I thought it went to what I consider a a
worthwhile area.

Quote:
> It goes to things like having our troops in Iraq, East Timor,
> Afghanistan etc.

of course it does, but it's a bit difficult to seperate what portion of
MY taxes goes where at present.

If the govt said the tax rate was going to increase by 5% to upgrade
hospitals and schools, I'd be in favour.
If it was going up by 5% to pay for troops in Iraq, I wouldn't.

Quote:
> It goes into political advertising to try to sell to a generally
> apathetic electorate the latest dumb idea from the government.

> >I'm on a middle income and don't feel the need to rort the taxation
> >system under the guise of good taxation advice.

> Why is it rorting the tax system?  Negative gearing for example is tax
> deferral in most instances, and most other forms of investment are
> similar.

Kerry Packer wasn't in need of a 2nd home to provide him income for his
retirement.

Quote:
> Your statement above just shoes you are a drone like most of the
> working stiffs.

Your attitude reminds me why I don't want to associate with people like
yourself.

Quote:
> >I'm reminded of Senor Skase, who's companies NEVER reported a profit,
> >always posting a loss and gaining tax credits as he built his empire,
> >only for it all to crumble as he did a runner.

> That can occur.  But more often companies do pay tax and they also
> provide considerable social benefit by providing employment.

Try telling that to the people left owed money by Mr Skase, the ones
who lost their life savings or saw their businesses collapse, the ones
who now DO have to rely on the govt for supporet in their old age.

Working stiffs, right?

Quote:
> >I'm not saying Packer was like that, and the cricket world owes him an
> >enormous debt for his innovations (and, by all accounts, he was a
> >generous donor to charities of his choice), but a mark remains against
> >him for his refusal to pay tax on his enormous income.

> Why?  It was found to be legal.  He was just smart.

Not always.
He won more than he lost, but he lost several times.
He din't get prosecuted because he was a rich and powerful man, rather
than a working stiff.

Quote:
> Oh and BTW those donations to charities would have been tax
> deductible.

No shit, Sherlock!
You could get a job in the financial services industry.

Higgs

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> Colin Kynoch

 
 
 

He's Out!! Packer dismissed

Post by Colin Kynoc » Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:25:26


and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives
of those that read it:

Quote:



>> and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives
>> of those that read it:



>> >> much thought and consideration decided that the following would
>> >> improve the lives of those that read it:



>> >> >> much thought and consideration decided that the following would
>> >> >> improve the lives of those that read it:



>> >> >> >> much thought and consideration decided that the following would
>> >> >> >> improve the lives of those that read it:


>> >> >> >> >> Why should this man be hated?

>> >> >> >> >> Jealous?  That is understandable.

>> >> >> >> >I was jealous of how little tax he paid. There was a string of years in
>> >> >> >> >which I paid between 5 and ten times as much personal tax as him. One
>> >> >> >> >typical year, he paid just over $3000 while I paid 18,000

>> >> >> >> That is what you get when you pay for good taxation advice.

>> >> >> >When you can live off offshore income

>> >> >> As I said good taxation advice.

>> >> >> Colin Kynoch
>> >> >> Who is reminded of Treasurer Paul Keating saying something along the
>> >> >> lines of "It is every Australian's responsibility to use the taxation
>> >> >> system to their advantage, but it is nit government's job to tell them
>> >> >> how to do it."

>> >> >Well I'll keep that in mind as I try to persuade the DET to pay me
>> >> >through a series of shelf companies in the bahamas and work out how to
>> >> >transfer price myself into a free trade zone somewhere in Shanghai

>> >> There are numerous ways for a PAYG employee to reduce their taxable
>> >> income and also to increase their net worth.

>> >> Most Australians choose not to do them though.

>> >> Colin Kynoch

>> >And thank goodness for that.

>> That is why so many Australian's have to rely on a pension when they
>> retire.
>Hardly.

>It's mostly because they don't earn enough to begin with, not because
>they've spent their lives paying too much tax.

If more Australians saved a little more and invested instead of
rushing out and buying the latest consumer gadget they would earn
enough to fund their own retirement.

Quote:
>As someone in the finance industry, you ought to realise that.

I realise that it is patently untrue.

Given the Average Weekly Ordinary Time Earnings are now around $1,000
per week.  It is patently absurd to suggest that people cannot fund
their own retirement.

The problem is that people like yourselves believe that the government
owes them a living in retirement, and***their incomes up against
the wall on consumer debt, instead of having some self control and
deferring those sorts of purchases and investing money.

I have clients on 30,000 p.a. who will not qualify for the pension
when they retire because they have got off their arses and made sure
that they have provided for their own retirement.

Quote:
>> >You can call it what you like, but it comes down to anti sociale
>> >behaviour.

>> No it is called burying your head in the sand and hoping that the
>> government will provide for you in retirement.

>What?

>Paying your taxes is burying your head in the sand and hoping the govt
>will provide?

Yes it is a poor mentality.  Those who expect the government to
provide in their retirement are in for a rude shock.

Quote:
>> I for one would not like to be relying on a pension that is
>> approximately 25% of AWOTE.
>Which is why we have super, Col.

And if you are lucky enough to be in full time employment from 18 to
65 and have your employer contribute 9% on your behalf you  may be
lucky enough to retire on 75% of your pre retirement earnings.

Wonderful you have 40 hours more in which to spend 25% less money.

Great plan that Kenny.

Personally I would want to be earning more in retirement than when I
am working.  This will enable me to do the thing I want in retirement
instead of ***ing and moaning about not having enough money.  But
guess what I have to get off my arse and do something about it myself.

Quote:
>> >I'm happy to pay the tax I do and would actually pay more if I thought
>> >it was going to a worthwhile cause like education or health.

>> So in reality you wouldn't actually pay more tax, as it doesn't go to
>> those areas.
>What don't you understand, Col?

>I said I'd pay more if I thought it went to what I consider a a
>worthwhile area.

So you are unlikely to be happy paying more tax, as it is unlikely
that any government (regardless of whether they are Coalition or
Labor) will be heading down that road in a hurry.

Quote:
>> It goes to things like having our troops in Iraq, East Timor,
>> Afghanistan etc.

>of course it does, but it's a bit difficult to seperate what portion of
>MY taxes goes where at present.

Not really the budget gives pretty detailed information as to what
percentage of the tax take goes where.

Quote:
>If the govt said the tax rate was going to increase by 5% to upgrade
>hospitals and schools, I'd be in favour.

I wouldn't believe it.

Quote:
>If it was going up by 5% to pay for troops in Iraq, I wouldn't.

Expect Tax cuts in the next budget as the Coalition softens up the
electorate for the next election.

Quote:
>> It goes into political advertising to try to sell to a generally
>> apathetic electorate the latest dumb idea from the government.

>> >I'm on a middle income and don't feel the need to rort the taxation
>> >system under the guise of good taxation advice.

>> Why is it rorting the tax system?  Negative gearing for example is tax
>> deferral in most instances, and most other forms of investment are
>> similar.
>Kerry Packer wasn't in need of a 2nd home to provide him income for his
>retirement.

So.  He controlled business that either directly or indirectly
employed 10,000's of Australians.  Yes he used the tax system to his
benefit, good on him.  Shows what an intelligent man he was.

He even had a sheltered workshop all of his own, AKA the Nein Cricket
Commentary Team.

Quote:
>> Your statement above just shoes you are a drone like most of the
>> working stiffs.
>Your attitude reminds me why I don't want to associate with people like
>yourself.

You would have to actually want to do something for yourself to want
to speak to a financial planner or finance broker.

Quote:
>> >I'm reminded of Senor Skase, who's companies NEVER reported a profit,
>> >always posting a loss and gaining tax credits as he built his empire,
>> >only for it all to crumble as he did a runner.

>> That can occur.  But more often companies do pay tax and they also
>> provide considerable social benefit by providing employment.

>Try telling that to the people left owed money by Mr Skase,

Blind Freddy could see Skase, Bond and co would come undone months and
even years before it happened.

Quote:
>the ones
>who lost their life savings or saw their businesses collapse, the ones
>who now DO have to rely on the govt for supporet in their old age.

If they had their life savings in Quintex then I have no sympathy for
them whatsoever.

They didn't diversify, they were greedy and they were stupid.

And yes I resent my taxes paying for stupidity.

Quote:
>Working stiffs, right?

Idiots.

Much the same as those who lost all their money in HIH or Harris
Scarfe or OneTel.

Only an idiot (or business owner) would have all their money in one
company.

Quote:
>> >I'm not saying Packer was like that, and the cricket world owes him an
>> >enormous debt for his innovations (and, by all accounts, he was a
>> >generous donor to charities of his choice), but a mark remains against
>> >him for his refusal to pay tax on his enormous income.

>> Why?  It was found to be legal.  He was just smart.

>Not always.
>He won more than he lost, but he lost several times.

And when he lost it was basically his legal advice that was found to
be wrong.  Lawyers don't get it right 100% of the time.  The Tax
Office were on your own admission wrong more often than Packer's.

Quote:
>He din't get prosecuted because he was a rich and powerful man, rather
>than a working stiff.

No he didn't get prosecuted because he paid the tax when the High
Court ruled against him.

The tax act is open to interpretation (even more so now that it is
three times as large as it was when the Coalition took power on the
promise of a simpler fairer tax system)  If you are ruled against and
you don't win in court you are issued with a notice to pay and you pay
the amount plus any interest.  Packer was never found to have done
anything illegal, rather he was found to have received an incorrect
interpretation of the Tax Act.

Quote:
>> Oh and BTW those donations to charities would have been tax
>> deductible.

>No shit, Sherlock!
>You could get a job in the financial services industry.

Who wants a job?

I prefer to own my own business.

And a job is something you don't enjoy.  I love what I do for a living

Colin Kynoch

 
 
 

He's Out!! Packer dismissed

Post by kenhig.. » Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:45:55

Quote:


> and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives
> of those that read it:



> >> and consideration decided that the following would improve the lives
> >> of those that read it:



> >> >> much thought and consideration decided that the following would
> >> >> improve the lives of those that read it:



> >> >> >> much thought and consideration decided that the following would
> >> >> >> improve the lives of those that read it:



> >> >> >> >> much thought and consideration decided that the following would
> >> >> >> >> improve the lives of those that read it:


> >> >> >> >> >> Why should this man be hated?

> >> >> >> >> >> Jealous?  That is understandable.

> >> >> >> >> >I was jealous of how little tax he paid. There was a string of years in
> >> >> >> >> >which I paid between 5 and ten times as much personal tax as him. One
> >> >> >> >> >typical year, he paid just over $3000 while I paid 18,000

> >> >> >> >> That is what you get when you pay for good taxation advice.

> >> >> >> >When you can live off offshore income

> >> >> >> As I said good taxation advice.

> >> >> >> Colin Kynoch
> >> >> >> Who is reminded of Treasurer Paul Keating saying something along the
> >> >> >> lines of "It is every Australian's responsibility to use the taxation
> >> >> >> system to their advantage, but it is nit government's job to tell them
> >> >> >> how to do it."

> >> >> >Well I'll keep that in mind as I try to persuade the DET to pay me
> >> >> >through a series of shelf companies in the bahamas and work out how to
> >> >> >transfer price myself into a free trade zone somewhere in Shanghai

> >> >> There are numerous ways for a PAYG employee to reduce their taxable
> >> >> income and also to increase their net worth.

> >> >> Most Australians choose not to do them though.

> >> >> Colin Kynoch

> >> >And thank goodness for that.

> >> That is why so many Australian's have to rely on a pension when they
> >> retire.

> >Hardly.

> >It's mostly because they don't earn enough to begin with, not because
> >they've spent their lives paying too much tax.

> If more Australians saved a little more and invested instead of
> rushing out and buying the latest consumer gadget they would earn
> enough to fund their own retirement.

But them paying less tax (be it by avoidance or a govt tax cut) is
hardly likely to change that behaviour.

Quote:

> >As someone in the finance industry, you ought to realise that.

> I realise that it is patently untrue.

> Given the Average Weekly Ordinary Time Earnings are now around $1,000
> per week.  It is patently absurd to suggest that people cannot fund
> their own retirement.

I was suggesting that it's not the tax component that stops people
funding their own retirement.

Aren't you supposed to have some knowledge of financial matters?

How come it's so difficult for you to get your head around such simple
ideas?

Quote:
> The problem is that people like yourselves believe that the government
> owes them a living in retirement, and***their incomes up against
> the wall on consumer debt, instead of having some self control and
> deferring those sorts of purchases and investing money.

And where have I suggested the above?

I look after my own affairs, thanks very much.
I could retire now, though it would be difficult.

Quote:
> I have clients on 30,000 p.a. who will not qualify for the pension
> when they retire because they have got off their arses and made sure
> that they have provided for their own retirement.

So you're advising tax avoidance as a means to counter this?

Advising tax avoidance as a means to fund your retirement is not only
stupid, it's anti social.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> >> >You can call it what you like, but it comes down to anti sociale
> >> >behaviour.

> >> No it is called burying your head in the sand and hoping that the
> >> government will provide for you in retirement.

> >What?

> >Paying your taxes is burying your head in the sand and hoping the govt
> >will provide?

> Yes it is a poor mentality.  Those who expect the government to
> provide in their retirement are in for a rude shock.

Paying your taxes and expecting the govt to provide for your retirement
are two different issues.

Quote:
> >> I for one would not like to be relying on a pension that is
> >> approximately 25% of AWOTE.

> >Which is why we have super, Col.

> And if you are lucky enough to be in full time employment from 18 to
> 65 and have your employer contribute 9% on your behalf you  may be
> lucky enough to retire on 75% of your pre retirement earnings.

And if you've been sensible enough to pay off your house etc, rather
than waste money on dodgy tax avoidance schemes, 75% should be
sufficient.

Quote:
> Wonderful you have 40 hours more in which to spend 25% less money.

By not paying all the expenses associated with going out to work, you
should be ok, unless you have an expensive lifestyle or large debts.

Quote:
> Great plan that Kenny.

> Personally I would want to be earning more in retirement than when I
> am working.  This will enable me to do the thing I want in retirement
> instead of ***ing and moaning about not having enough money.  But
> guess what I have to get off my arse and do something about it myself.

Very few people earn more in retirement than they do when working.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> >> >I'm happy to pay the tax I do and would actually pay more if I thought
> >> >it was going to a worthwhile cause like education or health.

> >> So in reality you wouldn't actually pay more tax, as it doesn't go to
> >> those areas.

> >What don't you understand, Col?

> >I said I'd pay more if I thought it went to what I consider a a
> >worthwhile area.

> So you are unlikely to be happy paying more tax, as it is unlikely
> that any government (regardless of whether they are Coalition or
> Labor) will be heading down that road in a hurry.

It's not rocket science, Col.

If we as a nation had our tax increased to pay for better hospitals,
I'd vote for it.
If it was to send more troops to Iraq, I'd vote against it.

Quote:

> >> It goes to things like having our troops in Iraq, East Timor,
> >> Afghanistan etc.

> >of course it does, but it's a bit difficult to seperate what portion of
> >MY taxes goes where at present.

> Not really the budget gives pretty detailed information as to what
> percentage of the tax take goes where.

These expenditures are already in place, I can't change that.
I CAN vote against proposed changes.

Quote:
> >If the govt said the tax rate was going to increase by 5% to upgrade
> >hospitals and schools, I'd be in favour.

> I wouldn't believe it.

Not everyone is as avaricious as you, Col.

Quote:

> >If it was going up by 5% to pay for troops in Iraq, I wouldn't.

> Expect Tax cuts in the next budget as the Coalition softens up the
> electorate for the next election.

We had them in the last budget.
Minimal  for low income earners, much larger (and recurring) for those

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> >> It goes into political advertising to try to sell to a generally
> >> apathetic electorate the latest dumb idea from the government.

> >> >I'm on a middle income and don't feel the need to rort the taxation
> >> >system under the guise of good taxation advice.

> >> Why is it rorting the tax system?  Negative gearing for example is tax
> >> deferral in most instances, and most other forms of investment are
> >> similar.

> >Kerry Packer wasn't in need of a 2nd home to provide him income for his
> >retirement.

> So.  He controlled business that either directly or indirectly
> employed 10,000's of Australians.  Yes he used the tax system to his
> benefit, good on him.  Shows what an intelligent man he was.

That's why he paid corporate tax (even if he did *** and moan about
it and avoid it at every opportunity).

He did the same with his personal tax.

Quote:
> He even had a sheltered workshop all of his own, AKA the Nein Cricket
> Commentary Team.

> >> Your statement above just shoes you are a drone like most of the
> >> working stiffs.

> >Your attitude reminds me why I don't want to associate with people like
> >yourself.

> You would have to actually want to do something for yourself to want
> to speak to a financial planner or finance broker.

I've yet to meet a financial planner that I trusted.
I've had examples of your dishonesty at first hand, I wouldn't do
business with you.

Quote:

> >> >I'm reminded of Senor Skase, who's companies NEVER reported a profit,
> >> >always posting a loss and gaining tax credits as he built his empire,
> >> >only for it all to crumble as he did a runner.

> >> That can occur.  But more often companies do pay tax and they also
> >> provide considerable social benefit by providing employment.

> >Try telling that to the people left owed money by Mr Skase,

> Blind Freddy could see Skase, Bond and co would come undone months and
> even years before it happened.

Yet 'financial planners' encouraged people to invest their life savings
with him.

Banks lent him money.

Quote:
> >the ones
> >who lost their life savings or saw their businesses collapse, the ones
> >who now DO have to rely on the govt for supporet in their old age.

> If they had their life savings in Quintex then I have no sympathy for
> them whatsoever.

working stiffs, right?

Quote:
> They didn't diversify, they were greedy and they were stupid.

THEY were the greedy and stupid ones?

Quote:
> And yes I resent my taxes paying for stupidity.

What about for supposed professional services?

Quote:
> >Working stiffs, right?

> Idiots.

> Much the same as those who lost all their money in HIH or Harris
> Scarfe or OneTel.

> Only an idiot (or business owner) would have all their money in one
> company.

Never made a bad investmen, Col?

Quote:
> >> >I'm not saying Packer was like that, and the cricket world owes him an
> >> >enormous debt for his innovations (and, by all accounts, he was a
> >> >generous donor to charities of his choice), but a mark remains against
> >> >him for his refusal to pay tax on his enormous income.

> >> Why?  It was found to be legal.  He was just smart.

> >Not always.
> >He won more than he lost, but he lost several times.

> And when he lost it was basically his legal advice that was found to
> be wrong.  Lawyers don't get it right 100% of the time.  The Tax
> Office were on your own admission wrong more often than Packer's.

So it wasn't his fault when he lost, but was when he won?

Quote:

> >He din't get prosecuted because he was a rich and powerful man, rather
> >than a working stiff.

> No he didn't get prosecuted because he paid the tax when the High
> Court ruled against him.

No, he settled out of court.
He did that to avoid further expense, as well as to avoid publicity and
possible further additional punishment.

Quote:
> The tax act is open to interpretation (even more so now that it is
> three times as large as it was when the Coalition took power on the
> promise of a simpler fairer tax system)  If you are ruled against and
> you don't win in court you are issued with a notice to pay and you pay
> the amount plus any interest.  Packer was never found to have done
> anything illegal, rather he was found to have received an incorrect
> interpretation of the Tax Act.

And the interpretation of those interpretations is open to
interpretation.
Just because you settle out of court doesn't mean you wouldn't have got
a higher hit had it gone to court.
Both sides agree to settle out of court when they are unsureof the
outcome.

Quote:
> >> Oh and BTW those donations to charities would have been tax
> >> deductible.

> >No shit, Sherlock!
> >You could get a job in the financial services industry.

> Who wants a job?

> I prefer to own my own business.

> And a job is something you don't enjoy.  I love what I do for a living

Good for you

Higgs

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> Colin Kynoch