Get rid of the Income tax?

Hi everyone, got a hypothetical for you. Would it be worth it to you to abolish all government welfare in exchange for never having to pay Income tax again? I ask because, in Australia, our total federal revenue from personal income tax comes close to what we spend on welfare.

What do you folks think?

What happens to all those people who need welfare to survive? With unemployment rising, what about those who can't find work.
With a goverment actually diving companies away from Australia.

Lets just rid of welfare for the rich. Or better stop the mega corps evading so much tax.

I'm not saying it's an instant thing. there would have to be a transition period. But as for rising unemployment, a business can only hire as many people as it can afford. If everyone gets and average 30% increase in their income, how much more do you think they'd spend? If people can spend more, then businesses earn more. Businesses earn more, they expand to cope with demand. Taxation is what really drives unemployment. Did you know, for instance, that a business in Australia, in addition to having to contribute to super, also has to pay a Payroll Tax of 10% of what they are paying their employee's?

A true "Libertarian" idea. The poll does need another choice, reduction in both.

I'm not for it really. Like most simple solutions would cause more problems than it would solve. So reducing both would probably be a good thing eliminating either (or both) would probably be a bad thing in a lot of respects.

Looking forward to more people commenting with more information.

Have fun,
T2M

Invictus wrote:Hi everyone, got a hypothetical for you. Would it be worth it to you to abolish all government welfare in exchange for never having to pay Income tax again? I ask because, in Australia, our total federal revenue from personal income tax comes close to what we spend on welfare.

What do you folks think?

You seriously need to do more research on how an economy works, and what the role of welfare and taxes in it are.

Invictus wrote:I'm not saying it's an instant thing. there would have to be a transition period. But as for rising unemployment, a business can only hire as many people as it can afford. If everyone gets and average 30% increase in their income, how much more do you think they'd spend?

What would you spend the money you supposedly save on though? After all, now that welfare doesn't exist anymore, you absolutely do need to invest in long-term savings plans or insurance policies against unemployment, old age, and medical emergencies.

Unless, of course, you plan on working till you die and never becoming unemployable.

If people can spend more, then businesses earn more. Businesses earn more, they expand to cope with demand. Taxation is what really drives unemployment. Did you know, for instance, that a business in Australia, in addition to having to contribute to super, also has to pay a Payroll Tax of 10% of what they are paying their employee's?

"Taxation drives unemployment?" Seriously? Are you somehow living in a country that has no dealings whatsoever with the worldwide economy? Are you seriously telling me that no australian company has ever outsourced work to other countries? There are many factors that influence unemployment rates, but taxes are one of the least important ones.

Yes. Do you know how much is avoided by big business?

How about how much money the federal government pays into the super funds of those earning hundreds of thousands a year? I'll give you a hint. It matches what the government is ripping out of welfare for the poor.

Cutting government welfare just places more strain on the middle class, who provide most of the non government welfare. Unfare strain since the rich typically don't do diddly squat to help the poor, it will actually cost the middle class more than they gain.

Or perhaps you plan to just let people starve. Or live in work houses and eat company gruel in virtual slavery conditions?

The E wrote:What would you spend the money you supposedly save on though? After all, now that welfare doesn't exist anymore, you absolutely do need to invest in long-term savings plans or insurance policies against unemployment, old age, and medical emergencies.

Unless, of course, you plan on working till you die and never becoming unemployable.

I completely agree. I just don't trust government to act in the best interests of anyone but themselves.

Annachie wrote:Yes. Do you know how much is avoided by big business?

How about how much money the federal government pays into the super funds of those earning hundreds of thousands a year? I'll give you a hint. It matches what the government is ripping out of welfare for the poor.

Cutting government welfare just places more strain on the middle class, who provide most of the non government welfare. Unfare strain since the rich typically don't do diddly squat to help the poor, it will actually cost the middle class more than they gain.

Or perhaps you plan to just let people starve. Or live in work houses and eat company gruel in virtual slavery conditions?

I know big business dodges a lot of stuff. That's why they have lobbyists. That doesn't do small business any favors though does it? As for the rest, you may find this an interesting read.
http://mises.org/library/welfare-welfare-state

thinkstoomuch wrote:A true "Libertarian" idea. The poll does need another choice, reduction in both.

I'm not for it really. Like most simple solutions would cause more problems than it would solve. So reducing both would probably be a good thing eliminating either (or both) would probably be a bad thing in a lot of respects.

Looking forward to more people commenting with more information.

Have fun,
T2M

Added. Thanks for the suggestion!

Invictus wrote:I completely agree. I just don't trust government to act in the best interests of anyone but themselves.

But you do trust corporations, which are compelled to act as self-servingly as possible at all times, to serve you better?