Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KyrosL who wrote (77026)	3/28/2008 12:17:42 PM
From: Moominoid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Inequality of wealth and income is lower here, especially if you ignore the 1% of the population living on aboriginal reserves. Actually, I don't think taxes are higher here. The total tax burden is similar. The top tax rate of 46.5% applies on incomes above $A180k that's a lower cut in point but is similar to the top rate in California, New York City, Vermont etc. But it is much easier to reduce the effective tax paid I think as there is no alternative minimum tax and a lot of the other limitations of deductions etc. in the US tax system. It's the upper middle class that is particularly tax burdened here rather than the rich or poor, relative to the US. The minimum wage is much higher than in the US, free health care (more or less) as you mention, much less autonomy of local government either at the city or state level means there is much more uniformity of education spending etc. And Australia only has one racial issue - indigenous vs. non-indigenous. The indigenous minority are only 2% of the population.