and half my brain cells too
Silly masseuses: should've 'swapped services' - no money (or credit), no accounting, no diary entries.
That's a "Win - Win" (for masseuses) & Lose (for the Tax Man)" situation. Not that the Tax Man can 'lose' something he never received in the first place. It truly is a "mind game".
I always find two more glaringly obvious errors in the 'taxes take half my income' argument.
1) they start by using the marginal tax rate, rather than average
2) they assume the only thing they ever purchase is fuel, perhaps the second highest taxed item in Australia after tobacco.
This scenario is intended to target midwits, and tradies living out in the 'burbs.
Here’s a cracker: Franked dividends. “Tax free” because “the company already paid tax on that money”. But we are talking about *your* income, not the companies income. It’s a scam for the rich sold with the same double counting. (*actual policy in Australia)
> If count a person’s tax from one transaction when they are the seller, and another transaction when they are the buyer, you are double-counting the tax but not the payments.
> If you did this for everyone, and added it all up, your number would be exactly twice as high as the total amount of tax raised.
"Double-entry accounting" wink wink wink
Economists don't study "people", they study "things", called consumers, producers, etc. to whom they ascribe "properties" or "attributes" rather than their feelings, emotions, etc. Personal perspective determines what people see. For example, no object has a 'left' or 'right' side, until someone applies their 'personal perspective' to it.
When I purchase anything with 10% tax added into the sale price, I SEE part of my income funding the tax payment enforced on the seller (who gets the price he wanted anyway). This means, the price I paid was higher than what he really wanted to charge.
When I SEE a tax deduction recorded on my pay-slip, I SEE part of my income disappearing before I get my hands on it. That is "lost income" to me. I'm not double-counting tax, I'm assessing my assets and liabilities as an individual.
I can open a personal account and record 'losses to tax' which would include all "taxes DEDUCTED from receipts" as well as "tax components ADDED to purchase prices".
I find your explanation as confusing as the "problem." I suggest, just saying (if you need to take on this solecism at all) that, no, taxes in Australia are only x%.
Your solo footnote uses "money" (not "credit") to modify the noun, "balances" - a surprisingly common failing of economists. Maintaining the "credit-is-NOT-money" distinction may help you unravel the magical mysteries of banking since, what are "created and destroyed within this system of payments via lending and repayment ..." are "credit" balances, which are nothing more than bank liabilities.
So, my question for you is: "Can anyone "lend" their liability - as banks claim to do?"
This question arises from a statement in the article ,“Money creation in the modern economy” - by the Monetary Analysis Directorate of the Bank of England, in its Quarterly Bulletin, in 2014 [Volume 54 No. 1, at p.16] - thus: “Bank deposits are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, *not an asset that could be lent out*.” [my *emphasis* added.]
If they double counted then the petrol cost would have included excise, gst, and income tax in the price, but the tweeter included income tax on their end only. It's possible you're the one getting tricked by myltiple transactions.
The tweeter still needs to produce ~$100 worth of labor to get ~$30 worth of fuel. Calling them an idiot for noticing that is ironic.