Budget In A Nutshell

"Ad valorem excise duties on computer monitors – some of which are used as television screens - will be reinstated at a flat rate of 7%. "
is this to fund the hopeless SABC ?
 
In other words, placate the poor with social grants so that they do not get 'restless' and think about revolting ;)

Wrong approach! Spend more money on job creation!

Don't forget though that social grants mainly go to pensioners, people with disabilities, foster parents and children. Job creation isn't easily going to help those people.
(I guess in the long term it may help future pensioners)
 
"Ad valorem excise duties on computer monitors – some of which are used as television screens - will be reinstated at a flat rate of 7%. "
is this to fund the hopeless SABC ?

they can only do dalas reruns for so long their license to show has expired they need to renew them to show it again
 
I'm very stupid with this. But why create more jobs in the government when taxes pay government salaries?

Hence the additional Taxes ;) I wonder how much longer this circus is going to sell tickets?
 
Hence the additional Taxes ;) I wonder how much longer this circus is going to sell tickets?

NAtionalize.

Down with privatation.

How can I see this and the government not? The lack of education. 1+1= 11?
 
This budget is far worse than I expected..
 
Most people working for companies are on a "total package " type scheme nowadays . They split pension contribution into employee and employer contributions at the moment. With a bit of creative package restructuring most people should be able to get around the tax change. I think current limitation is 7.5% and new law says individuals can go to 22.5%

It would be interesting to see if employers can still force employees to be a part of their in-house pensions schemes after this comes into effect. I have yet to come across one that gives any kind of decent return

[I'm no tax expert and I don't contribute to a pension scheme so all of the above may be absolute horse*****]

Yeah, I spoke to our in house accountant and he explained that while it would be taxed as a fringe benefit, you also get the rebate for anything below 22.5%, so for most folks it actually cancels out and you won't see a difference on your payslip.
 
Don't forget though that social grants mainly go to pensioners, people with disabilities, foster parents and children. Job creation isn't easily going to help those people.
(I guess in the long term it may help future pensioners)

A lot of people receiving these grants support households filled with employable people of younger age. Grants often stretch much furhter than just the recipient.
 
Yeah, I spoke to our in house accountant and he explained that while it would be taxed as a fringe benefit, you also get the rebate for anything below 22.5%, so for most folks it actually cancels out and you won't see a difference on your payslip.

tx
 
Motor vehicle owners, already hard hit by the oil price increase, face an increase in the fuel levy by 10c/l on petrol and diesel effective from 6 April 2011. The Road Accident Fund levy will be increased by 8c/litre on the same date

So 18c per liter more. Plus a 60c increase. And they still want me too pay toll fees.

Imagine how food prices will sky rocket this year. :(
 
Hence the additional Taxes ;) I wonder how much longer this circus is going to sell tickets?

I have 10 mice they get one acorn each for running on a wheel. They have to pay 1/4 of that too the wheel keepers too oil the wheels for that they employ 10 wheel keepers. The wheel keepers are paid 44% more than the mice running on the wheel.

Seems to be a failed recipe?
 
A lot of people receiving these grants support households filled with employable people of younger age. Grants often stretch much furhter than just the recipient.

I know, to be fair, analysts seem to agree that the focus of this budget is job creation.
Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan was unambiguous about the country's fiscal plans for the coming year -- the focus will be on job creation, particularly for the youth. "The president has clearly stated that job creation is our number one priority. This budget outlines what the government's capabilities and finances can do to support the delivery of jobs," he said in his budget speech delivered in Parliament on Wednesday

http://mg.co.za/article/1970-01-01-gordhans-budget-pushes-job-creation/

Social grants are necessary in addition to job creation. There are millions of orphans and people too old to work, for example. People with disabilities. The state must do what it can to assist in supporting peole who are unable to support themselves. The amount of the grant is so small anyway, it's there to assist them not provide everything for them.
 
I know, to be fair, analysts seem to agree that the focus of this budget is job creation.


http://mg.co.za/article/1970-01-01-gordhans-budget-pushes-job-creation/

Social grants are necessary in addition to job creation. There are millions of orphans and people too old to work, for example. People with disabilities. The state must do what it can to assist in supporting peole who are unable to support themselves. The amount of the grant is so small anyway, it's there to assist them not provide everything for them.

This is fair enough but has to be done in such a fashion that people don't expect hand outs all the time. I know there are people that are on disability because they cannot perform the job they were trained for - however they can be retrained to work around this. Someone with a bad back can be taught to handle phones in a call centre. It provides them with a steady income and the chair can be purchased so that the pain doesn't become more. With the state of the world today it is absolutely necessary to have as many people functioning in positions that provide an income (even if it is meager). The tax pool is not an endless stream of income. I refer back to this analogy I received by mail from a friend:

Tax explained in beers

Suppose that every evening, 10 men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to R100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this :- The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay R1. The sixth would pay R3. The seventh would pay R7. The eighth would pay R12. The ninth would pay R18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay R59. So, that's what they decided to do.......

The 10 men drank in the bar every evening and 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 beer by R20". Drinks for the 10 men would now cost just R80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the R20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that R20 divided by six is R3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

Therefore, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing. The sixth now paid R2 instead of R3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid R5 instead of R7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid R9 instead of R12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid R14 instead of R18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid R49 instead of R59 (16% saving). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a rand out of the R20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got R10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a rand too. It's unfair - he got 10 times more benefit than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get R10 back, when I got only R2? The wealthy always win!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax 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 drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists, labour unions and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

-David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics. For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible
 
Can anyone explain this in simple(r) terms ?
Does this refer to dividends to be taxed in the hands of the shareholder receiving it ?

"To support job creation, a youth employment subsidy in the form of a tax credit costing R5bn over three years will be introduced. It will be administered by the SA Revenue Service through the PAYE system."

What this means is that companies who employ "youths" get tax credits, which means they pay a little less tax. What this does is it encourages companies to employ the young over the old as ultimately it costs "less" to employ.

The problem is, whilst it might "support job creation" by creating an incentive to employ the "youth", it means a "youth" might get a job over an older person, leaving the older person unemployed. So in other words, technically looking at like for like, this is no overall impact on jobs, as a "youth" is only getting a job that an older person has lost.

IMPORTANT UNDERSTANDING: The moral here is the government has to take to create. Thus when the state says they created 150 000 more jobs, they did so pay taking from the private sector, which results in job losses. However we cannot know how many jobs are lossed. Thus we do not know if the overall system has any overall positive effect on job creation. It is a myth perpetuated by the government worlwide.

"Dividends tax becomes effective from April 1 2012 and secondary tax on companies will be discontinued from that date. "

Ok. At the moment I think STC is 10%. So if a company declares R100 000 in dividends, it pays out R100 000 to you and R10 000 (10%) to the state. So the company is out of pocket R110 000.

With the new withholding tax, if a company declares R100 000, it pays out to you R90 909.09 (R100 000 / 110% * 100%) and pays the state the difference of R9 090.90. Meaning so now the individual is essentially taxed on dividends earned (You now get less dividends) and the company pays it over to SARS on your behalf (Preventing you from not paying).
 
Last edited:
This is fair enough but has to be done in such a fashion that people don't expect hand outs all the time. I know there are people that are on disability because they cannot perform the job they were trained for - however they can be retrained to work around this. Someone with a bad back can be taught to handle phones in a call centre. It provides them with a steady income and the chair can be purchased so that the pain doesn't become more. With the state of the world today it is absolutely necessary to have as many people functioning in positions that provide an income (even if it is meager). The tax pool is not an endless stream of income. I refer back to this analogy I received by mail from a friend:

Tax explained in beers

Suppose that every evening, 10 men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to R100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this :- The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay R1. The sixth would pay R3. The seventh would pay R7. The eighth would pay R12. The ninth would pay R18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay R59. So, that's what they decided to do.......

The 10 men drank in the bar every evening and 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 beer by R20". Drinks for the 10 men would now cost just R80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the R20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that R20 divided by six is R3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

Therefore, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing. The sixth now paid R2 instead of R3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid R5 instead of R7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid R9 instead of R12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid R14 instead of R18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid R49 instead of R59 (16% saving). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a rand out of the R20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got R10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a rand too. It's unfair - he got 10 times more benefit than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get R10 back, when I got only R2? The wealthy always win!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax 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 drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists, labour unions and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

-David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics. For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

Thank you kind sir - now that is a good explanation, and yes, for all those who read the refutation, Kamerschen denies having written the original - it does however still make the point that, all things being equal, the more tax you pay, the more you 'benefit' from a tax break (and rightly so)
 
Last edited:
The best way to grow the economy would be to get back the million or so educated south africans who are making other countries richer.
 
Last edited:
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X