-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Main reasons you wouldn't get an EV?
Government Taxes
- Thread starter Naztyb
- Start date
LancelotSA
Banned
It would differ from individual to individual. Do you smoke? Drink? Sin taxes. What are your earnings? Income tax rate. Are you over 65? Higher tax rebates. etc etc
Nerfherder
Honorary Master
Different taxes are used for different things.
No real point in dissecting all that, you pay even more taxes in other countries.
No real point in dissecting all that, you pay even more taxes in other countries.
Jola
Honorary Master
I don't think so.
After paying for private security services, private medical aid, schooling, private pensions, etc, (also forms of tax, as public services are inadeqate) SA taxes are by far the highest in the world.
Those figures would easily exceed the taxes in a country like Sweden, where the taxes may be high, but there is no need to pay for the other items, it's all-inclusive.
F
Fudzy
Guest
Care to back this up with a case study?
One could also ask for evidence showing how much the average south african pays on taxes when including VAT, fuel tax and import duties etc. in order to prove we pay less. If we don't know how much we exactly play how can anyone make a claim either way?
When one includes the fact that most people would prefer to pay for private medical care and and private education, the total amount/percentage spent to have the same lifestyle as others overseas should be compared.
If it is higher, then the question becomes where does all the tax money go to?
Jola
Honorary Master
That's obvious, no need to ask that question.
ToAsTeD
Expert Member
nice shinny mercs, bmw's and audi's for our MP's. Come on, dont you read the news daily 
Ou grote
Honorary Master
Look at your payslip
davemc
Executive Member
2009 actual and the 2010 estimates are here: http://www.treasury.gov.za/documents/national budget/2009/enr/enr.pdf
The government treasury is responsible for adding up the totals and estimating how much can be redistributed to the elite every year.
Anyways : 2009 saw taxpayers (individuals and companys) bringing in R642 billion.
R383 billion of that was from individuals.
R154 billion from VAT
R24 billion from the fuel levy.
Information on 2010 is a bit difficult to find.
The government treasury is responsible for adding up the totals and estimating how much can be redistributed to the elite every year.
Anyways : 2009 saw taxpayers (individuals and companys) bringing in R642 billion.
R383 billion of that was from individuals.
R154 billion from VAT
R24 billion from the fuel levy.
Information on 2010 is a bit difficult to find.
Sweden taxes 2002
Personal income tax:
31% between 0 to 232,600 Krona (243,254 ZAR)
51% between 232,600 and 374,000 Krona (391,130 ZAR)
56% above 374,000 Krona
Personal deductions vary between 8,600 and 18,100 Krona.
A health tax is levied at 1.5%. There is also a real estate tax.
VAT:
25% on all good except 12% for food and 6% for domestic passenger transport,news papers, books and magazines.
Source: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Sweden-TAXATION.html
Doesn't look that bad to me.
Personal income tax:
31% between 0 to 232,600 Krona (243,254 ZAR)
51% between 232,600 and 374,000 Krona (391,130 ZAR)
56% above 374,000 Krona
Personal deductions vary between 8,600 and 18,100 Krona.
A health tax is levied at 1.5%. There is also a real estate tax.
VAT:
25% on all good except 12% for food and 6% for domestic passenger transport,news papers, books and magazines.
Source: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Sweden-TAXATION.html
Doesn't look that bad to me.
Jola
Honorary Master
No, certainly a lot less than what you pay here, considering what you get for it.
I would pay that any day if I could get those benefits.
Pegging
Honorary Master
- Joined
- May 17, 2004
- Messages
- 26,947
- Reaction score
- 43,503
Being around Swedish women alone makes it worthwhile..
Chicken Boo
Senior Member
you mean because it's a civilized first world government vs corrupt third world system?
Many people attribute the success of Scandivanian countries to "the right mix" of socialism and capitalism.
The problem is that it couldn't be further from the truth. The only reason why they are successful is because the "non-socialist" areas of the economy are so pro-market and so productive it allows for large amounts of spending by government. Without capitalism and pro-market induced productivity none of it is possible. (If you don't make money how can you "pay"(tax) for social services?)
We must also remember that although the % tax level is high, at the end of the day they still take far more to the bank in terms of "real" income. By real income, I mean purchasing power. They can buy far more with the money they take home than we can. Lets be honest, if you were earning millions of rands per year and were living quite comfortably and public sectors services worked, would you be complaining so much? It would "seem" petty wouldn't it.
When you take into account what they take home and what they can buy with it, due to the fact that they are educated and productive, and include the fact that public services in their countries work, and thus one doesn't have to buy alternatives on the market, you see why they are so "successful" and very happy with the way things are.
As for how "important" socialist programs are. Remember this: In the 18th and 19th century the most literate and educated population was produced in the united states. It was done almost entirely by private education.
A discussion on Scandinavian Countries and Socialism can be found below. 8 pages long and lots of resources for anyone bothered.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5616.aspx
If you want to respond on the forum on the link above, tread carefully. If you post there you are expected to have a certain degree of understanding in political philosophy and economic theory, otherwise they will tear your "logic" apart.
The problem is that it couldn't be further from the truth. The only reason why they are successful is because the "non-socialist" areas of the economy are so pro-market and so productive it allows for large amounts of spending by government. Without capitalism and pro-market induced productivity none of it is possible. (If you don't make money how can you "pay"(tax) for social services?)
We must also remember that although the % tax level is high, at the end of the day they still take far more to the bank in terms of "real" income. By real income, I mean purchasing power. They can buy far more with the money they take home than we can. Lets be honest, if you were earning millions of rands per year and were living quite comfortably and public sectors services worked, would you be complaining so much? It would "seem" petty wouldn't it.
When you take into account what they take home and what they can buy with it, due to the fact that they are educated and productive, and include the fact that public services in their countries work, and thus one doesn't have to buy alternatives on the market, you see why they are so "successful" and very happy with the way things are.
As for how "important" socialist programs are. Remember this: In the 18th and 19th century the most literate and educated population was produced in the united states. It was done almost entirely by private education.
A discussion on Scandinavian Countries and Socialism can be found below. 8 pages long and lots of resources for anyone bothered.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5616.aspx
If you want to respond on the forum on the link above, tread carefully. If you post there you are expected to have a certain degree of understanding in political philosophy and economic theory, otherwise they will tear your "logic" apart.
Last edited:
Ronjay
Expert Member
There is just one problem with this though, no one is forcing you to send your kids to private schools or pay for private pensions etc. Whereas taxes are compulsory, so even though public services are woefully inept, these things are luxuries that you choose to provide for your family, and many do not. That's like saying I'm taxed by the government because I spent R600000 on a Merc to keep my family safe because other cars are woefully inept with safety features. It's my choice to drive a Merc and so I must live with my decision.
Yes public services are really cr@p in this country but if you can afford to pay for private pensions and private education, I'm pretty sure you would be doing this any way, regardless of whether they are cr@p or not. One does want the best for ones family after all. The other thing is, comparing our taxes to more richer countries is never going to work as there rates of unemployment are smaller, salaries are higher, no hindering laws on buisnesses and the list goes on and on.
Some of your above analysis is right on track and some not.
You see the private sector in education has to compete with the public sector. By compete they have to offer better value to the consumer in terms of the consumers valuations. Value is subjective and a function of price and quality.
Now lets say public education is really good and "free"(In that you don't pay directly). Now private insitutions have to compete with public education by luring potential consumers away. Now they cannot compete on price, since they cannot offer free education. So they are left with competing on quality. In order to provide a significant difference in the quality provided they have to lure the best teachers away from public schools with much higher salaries and buy the best facilities and equipment. The significantly raises the cost of private education.
So the extreme high costs of private education will seem obscene compared to "free" good quality education. Even middle class and "richer" families will go to public education rather than pay extreme prices for private education(Which are already extreme)
The fact that their taxes are already used to pay for public education will also entice them to "make use of what they pay for". Everyone wants their money to do more and more. More people will use public education if their taxes are used for it, rather than fork out "again" for private education.
You make it seem like the CHOICE too provide private education and healthcare is theirs to make and they shouldn't complain when they aren't FORCED into this choice. That logic would be correct if it wasn't for the fact that taxation is compulsory. Freedom is about choice. The more choices one has the better off they are. If they didn't have taxes to pay they would have even more choices of private institutions due to more purchasing power. People aren't complaining about having and making the choice. We are complaining that we have no choice when it comes to taxes and these are used to provide "useless" systems in our valuations of public education and healthcare. Quality education is important to us, we don't want to be forced to pay for poor education.