66% income tax

TELESPHORE

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
869
For those who did not read the article a short summary. I actually read the paper version yesterday, but not worried because they are just speculating this.

For each person to get R130 a month, a total of R85 billion is required. This has to come from taxes and in this case increasing the taxes is the only way to do so. With basically a small percentage of people paying taxes, the jump in marginal taxation is significant.

More people would be infiltrating SA, putting more of a burden on the few paying taxes. The article also mentions increase in interest rates and inflation, but I am not convinced that would be the case.
 

The_Unbeliever

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
103,196
Lord Dimwit Flathead the Excessive imposed a 99% tax rate on the citizens of the Great Underground Empire.

He was aiming at a 100% tax rate, but sadly, there is no reports or notes on this implementation...
 

nocilah

Banned
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
7,624
Read an article in either the Cape Times or Rapport over the weekend, where certain ministers want to push income tax all the way to 66% to alleviate the poor.


When this happens I'm closing down my company and rather go and pay 50% tax in 1st world country where this includes my medical and pension

The gvt can go and f$ck itself

sounds like bullsh1t - are you sure you read right?
 

Mux

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
954
Tax truths

A story I received a long time ago - here goes (yes, I know this hoax is about an increase, but ...) :

"It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and it is accepted as fact. But what does that really mean? The following explanation may help.

Suppose that every night, 10 men go out for dinner at La Porchetta's. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. They decided to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, and it went like this:
* The first four men (the poorest) paid nothing.
* The fifth paid $1.
* The sixth $3.
* The seventh $7.
* The eighth $12.
* The ninth $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) paid $59.

All 10 were quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner said "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the 10 only cost $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. The first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But how should the other six, the paying customers, divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"?

They realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth and sixth men would each end up being paid to eat. The restaurateur suggested reducing each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, thus:
* The fifth man paid nothing (like the first four) instead of $1 (100%saving).
* The sixth paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
* The seventh paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
* The eighth paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
* The ninth paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
* The tenth paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off, and the first four continued to eat for free, as now did the fifth - but 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!"
"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. The nine sat down and ate without him, but when they came to pay the bill, they discovered that they didn't have enough money between all of them to meet even half of the bill!

That, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, special interest whingers is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

With thanks to David R. Kamerschen, Professor of Economics, University of Georgia.
 

nthdimension

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
764
6. Income tax (000’s) R 230 803 550
Pay as you earn R121 025 144
Persons, individuals and companies R92 717 674
Secondary tax on companies R12 277 625
Tax on retirement fund industry R4 783 107

If Rb85 is required, income tax has to increase significantly.
They'd need to collect another 19% or so. They appear to have been steadily escalating the amount they collect each year so it is feasible. Of course if we could get more people working and get industries like drugs and prostitution into the tax net we'd be rolling in money.

That, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, special interest whingers is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Then he'll starve or have to pick another table. None of them are likely to offering free food to the wealthiest. Nor should they expect it. Why should someone who earns R40,000 per year care about how much tax I pay? But then I don't whine and whinge about how the amount of tax I'm paying is stopping me from having a luxury car for every day of the year.

There are valid reasons for giving the bigger tax breaks to the lower income groups.
 

TELESPHORE

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
869
They'd need to collect another 19% or so. They appear to have been steadily escalating the amount they collect each year so it is feasible. Of course if we could get more people working and get industries like drugs and prostitution into the tax net we'd be rolling in money.


There are valid reasons for giving the bigger tax breaks to the lower income groups.

How did you get 19%? The total income tax is Rb 230. To raise a further Rb85 would require 37% if applied through the board. That would cause a lift to 55% tax.

PAYE is the area that is going to be providing the Rb85. So to raise Rb85 out of Rb 120 is 70%. 70% of a 40% rate is an additional 28% added to the current 40%. That gives 68% tax. Note it is a very simplistic calculation, as I do not have the revenues in all the tax brackets.

The increase in revenue for SARS is going to slow down. The economy was very overheated last year. At the same time the population is increasing the amount required and adding Inflation to it, the picture gets grimmer. So it is not feasible at all to have this kind of relief to the poor.

Rather allow people to deduct from taxable income, donations for feeding and looking after the poor
 

Vrotappel

Bulls fan
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
25,979
They'd need to collect another 19% or so. They appear to have been steadily escalating the amount they collect each year so it is feasible.

Remember that the expenditure side of the budget escalates as well. Also note the big bite 2010 is going to take out of the next 3 budgets. There's no money for a social grant. But I believe that's the way Trevor see it as well.
 

nthdimension

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
764
At the same time the population is increasing the amount required and adding Inflation to it, the picture gets grimmer. So it is not feasible at all to have this kind of relief to the poor.
It is feasible to boost total tax by a significant margin. You are not going to achieve it by simply increasing income tax or a single income tax bracket.

But steadily increasing tax seems to be the trend in most places. Usually by indirect methods.
 

nthdimension

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
764
Remember that the expenditure side of the budget escalates as well. Also note the big bite 2010 is going to take out of the next 3 budgets. There's no money for a social grant. But I believe that's the way Trevor see it as well.
There are other possible ways to achieve these things. There's no quick fix. If I were going to spend that kind of money I'd use it to create businesses so people can have work. Most people actually prefer to work for their money.
 

TELESPHORE

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
869
It is feasible to boost total tax by a significant margin. You are not going to achieve it by simply increasing income tax or a single income tax bracket.

But steadily increasing tax seems to be the trend in most places. Usually by indirect methods.

No No No. Tax is a negative economic factor. It removes working capital out of the economy and has no wealth multiplier.
Wealth is created by increasing income without sacrificing the income of other products. Tax has no economic gearing and would spiral the country into an abyss of unproductive despondency if applied in excess.
We are already overtaxed.

Indirect taxation is an evil that spurns even further corruption. There is no control over it. How many ‘funds’ exist and all of them cannot be audited without huge audit qualifications. Rm400 lost here – Rm200 lost there and they all add up to huge sums.

Any tax above 10% is excessive. I would go so far as stating that if the state cut its expenditure to fit a 10% taxation, none of our services would be worse off. There is so much fat build into state budgets (not just SA but also the Western world) that the creaming of the top is not noticed at all.

And while I am at it – those HUGE benefits for CEO’s and other executives in the private sector is in fact the same as tax and even worse.
 

Kompete

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2005
Messages
1,878
Of course only the Rapport would report the ravings of some minor lunatic as if they actually had some bearing on what is likely to happen. Why?
Because the readership of the Rapport has a perverse persecution complex. Taxation in this country has steadily gotten less since 1994. Does anybody remember the sort of taxes we (in my case my parents paid) in the old SA? Now that was supporting somebody, somehow I don't think it was the poor.

I'm tempted to agree with Nick...but wouldnt go as far as generalising on the Rapport readership

But the point is clear...this thread and the article is BS...there is absolutely no evidence in the article that the government was even considering raising personal income tax to fund the basic social grant

...this thread is typical of many others in this "news & current affairs" forum...it only serves to fuel the minds of people that live on negativity (especially related to the affairs of SA)
 

TELESPHORE

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
869
The Government has no other means to fund such an expenditure but by taxation. That is how Governments fund their expenditures. It is logical then after the calculations were made that a huge impact on taxation would follow. These are the sad facts of the matter.

As far as the rhetoric about the origin is concerned, the following sheds more light:

http://www.sabcnews.com/politics/government/0,2172,138779,00.html

Skweyiya maintains stance on basic income grant

November 20, 2006, 17:00
Zola Skweyiya, the social development minister, has maintained his position that he is in favour of the introduction of the basic income grant.

Briefing the media in Tshwane today, Skweyiya also revealed that close to half a million members of the public were being investigated for allegedly defrauding the social grant system. Skweyiya was representing the Social Cluster, where he also touched on health, education and housing issues. He said the basic income grant issue was being informally discussed within the ANC circles.

Trevor Manuel, the finance minister, has already expressed his opinion on the matter saying the country could go bankrupt if such a grant was introduced. Meanwhile, in North West about two weeks ago, President Thabo Mbeki told the SABC that the ANC might review some of its policies during the party's policy conference in June next year in order to address service delivery and poverty.
 

telkomsuig

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
2,422
Can't believe this thread is still going...:). Not much you can say if it does happen it will take money away from very needed infras5tructure development (and real jobs) and giving it to poor people. The problem with this type of system is the grant will never be enough and gvt will not be able to take it away once it instituted it.

Why not just drop minimum wage and make labor more competitive internationally.
 

TELESPHORE

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
869
Why not just drop minimum wage and make labor more competitive internationally.

And then the Union Bosses are out of a job and a mansion and a fancy car – how could you even suggest something like that!!!!:rolleyes:
And no more strikes and lazy days at home. You are ruining society.
 
Top