Just after the tycoon's death late last year there was a lot of press regarding his generosity to friends, hospitals and random people's plights. Then there was a semi-backlash about how he practised tax minimisation through all his business dealings and criticism about how the money he saved through that was far larger than anything he ever gave away (except to the casino). I think as long as his tax minimisation was perfectly legal, then he shouldn't come under fire for paying his share, however small it may appear considering his vast income. I mean, how many people would pay more tax than they're required to?
In addition to that, consider that the federal government has just posted a $10 billion surplus (I can't remember the exact figure but $10b is definitely lower than the figure given). Consider also that NSW is crying out for an injection of capital to cope with the three important things - transport, health and education. Okay, now would you rather pay a lot of tax and see it sit in government coffers or shell out a little bit and give directly to hospitals?
I only mention this to point out that I didn't earn a lot in the last financial year but I made a decision to continue regularly donating money to Oxfam and WWF and a few other charities throughout the year. When I did my tax online, the program suggested that my deductions were far too high for my income. I'm happy to say that there was no mistake. I'd rather control where my money goes than see it wasted on war and politicians' salary hikes - which I certainly didn't vote for. Just like Kerry Packer, if you move the decimal place to the left a bit.
1 comment:
I still stick to my opinion up there but I don't think taxpayers should have funded a state funeral for the man.
Post a Comment