Search

"There's no way": Man receives $52 billion tax bill

An American man has been left confused after receiving a letter from the government claiming he owed $52 billion in unpaid taxes. Barry Tangert got two letters in the mail from the state of Pennsylvania, opening the first to find a refund check from the federal government for over $900. His joy was short-lived though as he opened the second letter to find the income billing notice from the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue claiming that he owed a jaw-dropping $52,950,744,735.28 ($34,576,826,561.47 AUD). “I knew it was an obvious blunder. I don’t even make over $100,000 a year, so there’s no way I could owe anywhere near that,” Barry Tangert told local outlet News 8. The total sum was so large it didn’t even fit on a single line on the document. Tangert immediately knew it was a mistake, with the astonishing number being more than triple the $11 billion America’s richest man Elon Musk says he owed the government in 2022. How the error made it all the way to his doorstep is still a mystery to Tangert. “I don’t know if it was a computer glitch in the transmission or if it was an input error from my tax preparer,” Tangert said, noting that his tax preparer filed an amendment after noticing an error on his 2022 return. He reached out to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue’s customer service line, which also provided little help to the baffled man. “The first thing he said was, ‘You had a good year.’ And I said, ‘I wish,’” Tangert said. Fortunately, the state department has since resolved the issue, which it chalked up to wrong numbers simply being put into the system. Image credits: WGAL News 8

Money & Banking

"Proud to pay more": The billionaires who want to pay more tax

Over 250 millionaires and billionaires have issued an <a href="https://proudtopaymore.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">open letter</a> to global leaders encouraging them to implement wealth taxes to combat the cost-of-living crisis. This comes just as a report by the Oxfam Charity revealed that the global wealth of billionaires have only grown in the last three years despite inflation. The open letter, signed by super-rich individuals from 17 countries, includes signatories like Abigail Disney, the grand-niece of Walt Disney, Succession actor Brian Cox, and American philanthropist and Rockefeller family heir Valerie Rockefeller. They said that they would be "proud to pay more taxes" in order to address the inequality. "Elected leaders must tax us, the super rich," the letter read. "This will not fundamentally alter our standard of living, nor deprive our children, nor harm our nations' economic growth. "But it will turn extreme and unproductive private wealth into an investment for our common democratic future." Austrian heir Marlene Engelhorn is also among the voices demanding that they pay more in taxes. "I've inherited a fortune and therefore power, without having done anything for it. And the state doesn't even want taxes on it," Engelhorn, who inherited millions from her family who founded chemical giant BASF, said. The letter was released just as global leaders gather in Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum. Abigail Disney, whose net-worth is measured at more than $100 million, said that lawmakers need to come together to make a meaningful economic and social change. "There's too much at stake for us all to wait for the ultra rich to grow a conscience and voluntarily change their ways," she said. "For that reason, lawmakers must step in and tax extreme wealth, along with the variety of environmentally destructive habits of the world's richest." A recent <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/63fe48c7e864f3729e4f9287/t/6596bfb943707b56d11f1296/1704378297933/G20+Survey+of+those+with+More+than+%241+million+on+Attitudes+to+Extreme+Wealth+and+Taxing+the+Super+Rich.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">survey</a> of almost 2400 millionaires found that 74 per cent of them supported the introduction of a wealth tax to fund improved public services and deal with the cost-of-living crisis. The open letter also said that one-off donations and philanthropy "cannot redress the current colossal imbalance" of societal wealth. "We need our governments and our leaders to lead," the letter said. "The true measure of a society can be found, not just in how it treats its most vulnerable, but in what it asks of its wealthiest members." Images: Getty

Money & Banking

Ping, your pizza is on its way. Ping, please rate the driver. Yes, constant notifications really do tax your brain

A ping from the pizza company. A couple of pings from your socials. Ping, ping, ping from your family WhatsApp group trying to organise a weekend barbecue. With all those smartphone notifications, it’s no wonder you lose focus on what you’re trying to do do. Your phone doesn’t even need to ping to distract you. There’s <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-28923-001">pretty good</a><a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/691462">evidence</a> the mere presence of your phone, silent or not, is enough to divert your attention. So what’s going on? More importantly, how can you reclaim your focus, without missing the important stuff? <h2>Is it really such a big deal?</h2> When you look at the big picture, those pings can really add up. Although estimates vary, the average person checks their phone <a href="https://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/30085/1/PubSub7601_Andrews.PDF">around 85 times</a><a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/trapped-in-the-net-are-we-all-addicted-to-our-smartphones-20190531-p51t44.html">a day</a>, roughly once every 15 minutes. In other words, every 15 minutes or so, your attention is likely to wander from what you’re doing. The trouble is, it can take <a href="https://lifehacker.com/how-long-it-takes-to-get-back-on-track-after-a-distract-1720708353">several minutes</a> to regain your concentration fully after being <a href="https://www.ics.uci.edu/%7Egmark/chi08-mark.pdf">interrupted</a> by your phone. If you’re just watching TV, distractions (and refocusing) are no big deal. But if you’re driving a car, trying to study, at work, or spending time with your loved ones, it could lead to some fairly substantial problems. <h2>Two types of interference</h2> The pings from your phone are “exogenous interruptions”. In other words, something external, around you, has caused the interruption. We can <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-46276-9_21">become conditioned</a> to feeling excited when we hear our phones ping. This is the <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00015.x">same pleasurable feeling</a> people who gamble can quickly become conditioned to at the sight or sound of a poker machine. What if your phone is on silent? Doesn’t that solve the ping problem? Well, no. That’s another type of interruption, an internal (or endogenous) interruption. Think of every time you were working on a task but your attention drifted to your phone. You may have fought the urge to pick it up and see what was happening online, but you probably checked anyway. In this situation, we can become so strongly conditioned to expect a reward each time we look at our phone we don’t need to wait for a ping to trigger the effect. These impulses are powerful. Just reading this article about checking your phone may make you feel like … checking your phone. <h2>Give your brain a break</h2> What do all these interruptions mean for cognition and wellbeing? There’s increasing evidence push notifications are associated with <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352853217300159">decreased productivity</a>, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958820300051">poorer concentration</a> and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927537116300136">increased distraction</a> at work and school. But is there any evidence our brain is working harder to manage the frequent switches in attention? One study of people’s brain waves <a href="https://www.hindawi.com/journals/cin/2016/5718580/">found</a> those who describe themselves as heavy smartphone users were more sensitive to push notifications than ones who said they were light users. After hearing a push notification, heavy users were significantly worse at recovering their concentration on a task than lighter users. Although push notification interrupted concentration for both groups, the heavy users took much longer to regain focus. Frequent interruptions from your phone can also leave you <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563219302596">feeling stressed</a> by a need to respond. Frequent smartphone interruptions are also associated with <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131519301319">increased FOMO</a> (fear of missing out). If you get distracted by your phone after responding to a notification, any subsequent <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2050157921993896">procrastination</a> in returning to a task can also leave you feeling guilty or frustrated. There’s <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563219300883">certainly evidence</a> suggesting the longer you spend using your phone in unproductive ways, the lower you tend to rate your wellbeing. <h2>How can I stop?</h2> We know switching your phone to silent isn’t going to magically fix the problem, especially if you’re already a frequent checker. What’s needed is behaviour change, and that’s hard. It can take several attempts to see lasting change. If you have ever tried to quit smoking, lose weight, or start an exercise program you’ll know what I mean. Start by turning off all non-essential notifications. Then here are some things to try if you want to reduce the number of times you check your phone: <ul> <li> charge your phone overnight in a different room to your bedroom. Notifications can prevent you falling asleep and can repeatedly rouse you from essential sleep throughout the night </li> <li> interrupt the urge to check and actively decide if it’s going to benefit you, in that moment. For example, as you turn to reach for your phone, stop and ask yourself if this action serves a purpose other than distraction </li> <li> try the <a href="https://www.themuse.com/advice/take-it-from-someone-who-hates-productivity-hacksthe-pomodoro-technique-actually-works#:%7E:text=The%20Pomodoro%20Technique%20is%20a,are%20referred%20to%20as%20pomodoros">Pomodoro method</a> to stay focused on a task. This involves breaking your concentration time up into manageable chunks (for example, 25 minutes) then rewarding yourself with a short break (for instance, to check your phone) between chunks. Gradually increase the length of time between rewards. Gradually re-learning to sustain your attention on any task can take a while if you’re a high-volume checker. </li> </ul> Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/ping-your-pizza-is-on-its-way-ping-please-rate-the-driver-yes-constant-notifications-really-do-tax-your-brain-193952" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Technology

Climate change: the fairest way to tax carbon is to make air travel more expensive

Despite the fact that poorer people generally <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.12">have lower emissions</a>, taxes on the carbon dioxide (CO₂) our activities emit tend to affect people on low incomes <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2cb1">more</a> than richer people. Having less money means you can ill afford a switch to an untaxed alternative, like an electric car, or pay for carbon-saving measures like home insulation. You are also more likely to struggle to use less of an essential good like petrol or gas for heating, even if the price goes up. Carbon taxes on energy that people use in their homes – for heating, cooking or watching TV – charge consumers for the emissions per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity, gas or oil used. Economists would say that these kinds of carbon taxes are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2cb1">regressive</a>, because using energy to heat and power your home is a necessity and poorer people will use a much higher share of their income to pay for these things – and the taxes – than richer people. While total emissions have been <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0419-7">falling</a> in several rich countries over the last few years, emissions from cars and other means of transport are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abee4e">growing</a>. The rise in air travel emissions has been especially rapid: a roughly <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117834">sevenfold increase</a> between 1960 and 2018 globally. What’s more, the fuels for heating and powering homes or driving cars are taxed, but the fuel airlines use is exempt due to <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-a-1940s-treaty-set-airlines-on-a-path-to-high-emissions-and-low-regulation-148818">an international agreement</a> from 1944. And although Europeans generally <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937801831238X?via%3Dihub">disapprove</a> of carbon taxes, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09669582.2022.2115050">our study</a> has revealed one type which could prove popular. In the first analysis of its kind to consider the effect on different income bands, we found that carbon taxes on air travel – what we describe as luxury emissions – nearly always affect the rich more. <h2>Tax burdens from air travel</h2> Our research examined how the burden from four different taxes on air travel would fall across income groups in the UK. It shows that all of these taxes are progressive: they burden richer people more than poorer people as a proportion of income. This is because people on higher incomes are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2021.05.008">much more likely to fly</a>, and fly more often. Air travel taxes that apply to passengers could be levied on the emissions of each passenger per flight. People could also be taxed according to the distance they travel, or their seat class. An aeroplane’s economy class occupies the least space per person, while business- and first-class passengers take up more room and so are responsible for more emissions than the average passenger. A person could also be taxed for the number of flights they take. A <a href="https://afreeride.org/">frequent flyer levy</a> would exempt the first return flight a person takes in a year, but would tax subsequent flights at an increasing rate. We found that taxes that take both flight emissions and the number of flights per passenger into account distribute the tax burden fairest. The reason for this is that frequent air travel (all flights after the first return flight) is even more unequally distributed in society: the top 10% of emitters are responsible for 60.8% of flight emissions but for 83.7% of emissions from frequent flights. Who else except the wealthy is likely to be affected by taxes on air travel? We found that, in the UK, university graduates, employed people, young and middle-aged adults, residents of London, as well as first- and second-generation migrants are also more likely to fly than their counterparts, regardless of income. Our results showed that recent migrants with friends and family abroad are relatively likely to fly often, even when on a low income. So allowances or extra support for recent migrants could make the design of such taxes fairer. Overall, taxes on air travel are far more socially just than taxes on necessities such as home energy use and could curb luxury emissions in a way that nurtures broad support for more sweeping decarbonisation measures such as those designed to limit car travel, like <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-022-01057-y">expanding bus and cycling lanes</a>. So why do politicians and others claim, as former UK treasury minister Robert Jenrick did in 2019, that air travel taxes <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8128492/labour-holiday-tax-family-break/">disproportionately hit the poor</a>? It’s possible that they underestimate how little people in low-income groups actually fly, perhaps due to their typically middle- and upper-class backgrounds. A less charitable interpretation is that they have ulterior motives for opposing such taxes. Social scientists claim that exaggerating or misrepresenting the social justice consequences of environmental policy is one of the most common <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-denial-hasnt-gone-away-heres-how-to-spot-arguments-for-delaying-climate-action-141991">arguments </a>used to stall vital action on climate change. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-the-fairest-way-to-tax-carbon-is-to-make-air-travel-more-expensive-191632" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Travel Tips

“Truly grotesque”: Ivana Trump’s golf course burial may help Trump get tax breaks

Ivana Trump, who <a href="https://www.oversixty.co.nz/news/news/ivana-trump-s-cause-of-death-revealed" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed away</a> aged 73 in her New York home in mid-July, has been buried on the grounds of her ex-husband Donald Trump’s golf club - and the choice of burial plot may grant the former US president some long-sought tax breaks. Ivana is the first person known to have been buried at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, a state where land taxes are notoriously high. But, cemetery land is exempt from all taxes, rates and assessments, with the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/31/donald-ivana-trump-cemetery-golf-course-taxes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Guardian</a> reporting that Ivana’s grave would therefore have “advantageous tax implications”. According to <a href="https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/465718872" target="_blank" rel="noopener">documents</a> published by ProPublica, the Trump family trust has previously sought to classify a nearby property in Hackettstown, New Jersey, as a cemetery company. Brooke Harrington, a professor of sociology at Dartmouth College, tweeted that she investigated claims that the placement of Ivana’s grave would benefit Trump. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> As a tax researcher, I was skeptical of rumors Trump buried his ex-wife in that sad little plot of dirt on his Bedminster, NJ golf course just for tax breaks. So I checked the NJ tax code & folks...it's a trifecta of tax avoidance. Property, income & sales tax, all eliminated. <a href="https://t.co/VDZBlDyuhQ">pic.twitter.com/VDZBlDyuhQ</a> — Brooke Harrington (@EBHarrington) <a href="https://twitter.com/EBHarrington/status/1553533320469905409?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 31, 2022</a></blockquote> “As a tax researcher, I was skeptical of rumors Trump buried his ex-wife in that sad little plot of dirt on his Bedminster, NJ golf course just for tax breaks,” she tweeted. “So I checked the NJ tax code & folks...it's a trifecta of tax avoidance. Property, income & sales tax, all eliminated.” In 2012, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2012/02/03/146342330/fairway-to-heaven-trump-eyes-a-golf-course-burial" target="_blank" rel="noopener">US radio station NPR reported</a> that Trump planned to build a mausoleum on the property, with the proposal later expanding to potentially containing 1000 possible graves. The plan, which attracted local objections, was later dropped and replaced with a design for a 10-plot private family cemetery” in the same spot before changing again into a proposal for a commercial 284-plot cemetery. Images of Ivana’s final resting place have begun circling online, with many calling out her family for its plain appearance in comparison to memorials to everything from Richard Nixon’s dog to Internet Explorer. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> Internet Explorer got a nicer burial than Ivana Trump. <a href="https://t.co/tm5T1hX1bH">pic.twitter.com/tm5T1hX1bH</a> — Thomas (@tarnished_usa) <a href="https://twitter.com/tarnished_usa/status/1553121815517601794?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 29, 2022</a></blockquote> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> Top: Richard Nixon’s dog ‘Checkers’ grave. Donald Trump’s first wife Ivana’s on his golf course. <a href="https://t.co/Rh9q96B8H0">pic.twitter.com/Rh9q96B8H0</a> — Hoodlum 🇺🇸 (@NotHoodlum) <a href="https://twitter.com/NotHoodlum/status/1553490177120681985?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 30, 2022</a></blockquote> “Not sure which is more shocking - - that Trump had Ivana buried on his golf course for a tax write-off or that her three kids thought this was okay,” investigative journalist Victoria Brownworth <a href="https://twitter.com/VABVOX/status/1554049715184062465" target="_blank" rel="noopener">tweeted</a>. “You don’t have to be an Ivana fan to find this truly grotesque.” “You should be ashamed of yourself. This is a public display of your complete disgrace towards your own mother,” another person <a href="https://twitter.com/keraz37/status/1553538090609827842">tweeted</a>, along with a photo of Ivana’s plot surrounded by patchy grass and a golf court in the background. Image: Twitter

Money & Banking

How to leave a financial legacy in a tax-effective manner

The taxman needn’t be the biggest beneficiary of your financial legacy – so long as your plans are properly enacted while you still walk the earth. While Australia doesn’t have an inheritance tax per se, there are a range of other tax implications and inheritance rules to consider – which may determine how, and even if, you leave a financial legacy for your loved ones. Where there’s a will In 2015, it was estimated that just over half of Australians (59 per cent) have a will. I’d wager a good chunk of those are outdated too – not reflecting separations, remarriage or additions to the family. Most people without a will aren’t choosing to avoid one, but apathy about the need for one has set in. It is difficult to leave a financial legacy – other than confusion and conflict – if you don’t have a current will in place upon your death. Not only does it outline your wishes as to who gets what, it forces you to consider how each asset will be passed down and minimise the taxes and other costs your beneficiaries will inherit. Remember too that your beneficiary may be subject to Capital Gains Tax (CGT) on assets they sell. For example, if you leave someone a rental property, they will likely have to pay CGT when they sell it for the time you owned it – even if they made it their primary residence. That could come as a nasty shock to them. Nothing and no one is equal Not all assets are treated equally; neither are all beneficiaries. For instance, certain entities are governed separately from your will. Superannuation is perhaps the main one, but so too are trusts and companies. Hence you should nominate beneficiaries of these entities to ensure they pass on to your intended recipients. Otherwise, they may be subject to a forced sale – wiping out your legacy. Keep them updated too – otherwise your ex could get an unintended windfall. For jointly owned properties, whether you are tenants in common or joint tenants will determine whether they have automatic right of survivorship. A superannuation death benefit may or may not be taxable, depending on various factors at the time of your death. And if you leave an asset to charity that is subject to CGT, it is your estate – not the charity – which bears the tax burden. So, you may want to leave extra cash in your estate to cover this. Keeping assets in the family A financial legacy usually involves family and passing assets down through generations. How these assets are structured often dictates the ease and cost of doing so. As superannuation is treated outside of a will, it can be great for distributing money within a blended family to ensure everyone is provided for. Self-managed super funds (SMSFs) can include multiple generations but may add complexity when someone retires and begins drawing down super before others do. Or if the asset is illiquid. Conversely, family trusts can offer more flexibility for family-owned assets than super but may not provide the same tax benefits. Also consider how any children or grandchildren under 18 are provided for – and who oversees their inheritance until they turn 18. Testamentary Discretionary Trusts (TDTs) can be useful, taxing assets at the adult rate instead of the higher child tax rate. Good business Ownership structures and new management can affect the profitability and even viability of a business as a going concern, as well as its goodwill among customers, staff, and suppliers. Family businesses should have a plan for who will assume operational control, and whether each director will inherit an equal share. For business partnerships, consider buy/sell agreements to manage insurance policies and ownerships to surviving business partners and your spouse or children. Meanwhile, examine financial and tax implications too. Outstanding director loans to you can affect the tax status of both the business and your personal estate. And commercial transactions may attract transfer duties or stamp duty. Helen Baker is a licensed Australian financial adviser and author of the new book, On Your Own Two Feet: The Essential Guide to Financial Independence for all Women (Ventura Press, $32.99). Helen is among the 1% of financial planners who hold a master’s degree in the field. Proceeds from book sales are donated to charities supporting disadvantaged women and children. Find out more at www.onyourowntwofeet.com.au Image: Shutterstock

Money & Banking

Progressive in theory, regressive in practice: that’s how we tax income from savings

We’re told Australia has a progressive tax system – the more you earn, the higher the rate. And that’s certainly the case for earnings from wages. An Australian on A$35,000 sacrifices 21 cents out of each extra dollar they earn whereas an Australian on $90,000 sacrifices 39 cents. That’s how it’s meant to be for income from savings, but in practice it isn’t. Fresh calculations released this morning by the <a href="https://taxpolicy.crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/taxstudies_crawford_anu_edu_au/2020-07/20271_anu_-_ttpi_policy_report-ff2.pdf">Tax and Transfer Policy Institute</a> at the Australian National University show that low income Australians in the bottom tax bracket pay a higher marginal rate of tax on income from savings than high earners in the top tax bracket. It is because of exemptions and special rates, and the alacrity with which high earners take advantage of them. <h2>Super gives the most to the highest earners</h2> The taxation of superannuation drives the results. Super contributions are generally taxed at a flat rate of 15%. For low earners on an income tax rate of zero, 15% would constitute a considerable extra impost did the government not refund the difference with a <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W9FN4deDYY9q0ooFDPNqq1CvYAUz90Ao/view">tax offset</a> that cuts the effective rate to zero. High earners on the 47% marginal rate do much better. The tax rate of 15% offers substantial tax relief. For them, it is an effective rate of minus 32%. Other tax concessions are directed at older Australians, who are often on higher incomes than younger Australians. <h2>Highest bracket, lowest rate</h2> Our calculation of the marginal effective annual tax rates actually paid on income from savings is published in a report entitled <a href="https://taxpolicy.crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/taxstudies_crawford_anu_edu_au/2020-07/20271_anu_-_ttpi_policy_report-ff2.pdf">the taxation of savings in Australia: theory, current practice and future policy directions</a>. It shows that the marginal tax rate high earners pay on additional savings held over a twenty year period is 5.3% of income, on average, whereas for low earners in the bottom (zero) tax bracket it’s 12.2%. Low earners in the second lowest tax bracket are paying 13.8%. <hr /> Marginal effective tax rates actually paid on income from savings, by bracket <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/348198/original/file-20200718-15-e3c10t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/348198/original/file-20200718-15-e3c10t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="" /></a> Authors’ calculations using data from the Australian Survey of Income and Housing, 2019. <a href="https://taxpolicy.crawford.anu.edu.au/" class="source">TTPI Policy Report 01-2020</a> <hr /> <h2>The way forward: a dual income tax system</h2> Our report proposes taxing all types of saving at the same flat low rate. This dual income tax system (a progressive rate for wages and salaries, a flat rate for income from savings) has been used in Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark since the early 1990s. Elements of it are used in Austria, Belgium, Italy, Greece and the Netherlands. If the rate were 10% • all interest payments would be taxed at 10% • all dividends, both domestic and foreign, would be taxed at a rate of 10% • all capital gains (including owner-occupied housing) would be taxed at 10% • superannuation contributions would be made from after-tax income and then earnings in the accounts taxed at 10% • rent and capital gains on investment properties would be taxed at 10% • the imputed rent from owner-occupied housing (the benefit home owners get from not having to pay rent that is taxed) would be calcuated and taxed at a rate of 10%. An alternative would be to raise the same amount through a broad-based land tax. Our calculations suggest that if the tax were applied broadly at a rate of 6.2%, it would raise as much as is raised now from taxes on income from savings. If income from owner-occupied housing were excluded, the rate would need to be 10.2%. But there is no particular reason for the rate to be set to generate as much from savings income as it does now. It could be set to raise more, or to raise less. The design and implementation of a dual income tax should be considered alongside broader changes to the tax and transfer system. In particular, it should be combined with removing opportunities to re-classify income for tax minimisation purposes. We outline some of the considerations <a href="https://taxpolicy.crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/taxstudies_crawford_anu_edu_au/2020-07/20271_anu_-_ttpi_policy_report-ff2.pdf">in our report</a>. In the meantime, as steps towards a flatter fairer system of taxing income from savings, the government could consider better targeting superannuation subsidies, replacing real estate stamp duty with land tax and including the family home in the means tests for pensions and other age-related benefits. Our current approach to taxing income from savings is a mess at best and a serious driver of intergenerational inequality at worst. Some savings tax arrangements are progressive, taxing higher incomes more heavily, and some are regressive. We want to encourage and reward savings. But we also need to remove the crazy incentives that impel ordinary Australians to take part in distorting and costly tax planning schemes. Our report outlines a way forward, and steps to get there.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/142823/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/robert-breunig-167291">Robert Breunig</a>, Professor of Economics and Director, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/crawford-school-of-public-policy-australian-national-university-3292">Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kristen-sobeck-714969">Kristen Sobeck</a>, Senior Research Officer, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/crawford-school-of-public-policy-australian-national-university-3292">Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-varela-1136772">Peter Varela</a>, Research Fellow, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/crawford-school-of-public-policy-australian-national-university-3292">Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/progressive-in-theory-regressive-in-practice-thats-how-we-tax-income-from-savings-142823">original article</a>. Image: Shutterstock

Retirement Income

Tax avoidance, evasion, and the Pandora Papers

What’s the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion? The difference used to matter. Evasion was illegal. It meant not paying tax that was due. Avoidance meant arranging your affairs so tax wasn’t due. Australian media mogul Kerry Packer used the distinction as a complete defence when he told a <a rel="noopener" href="https://youtu.be/LnwYoOeWZGA?t=312" target="_blank">parliamentary committee</a> in 1991 he was "not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Of course, I am minimising my tax. Anybody in this country who does not minimise his tax wants his head read". The Pandora Papers — the biggest-ever leak of records showing how the rich and powerful use the financial system to maximise their wealth — shows the distinction has lost its meaning. The dump of almost <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.icij.org/investigations/pandora-papers/" target="_blank">12 million documents</a> lays bare the ways in which 35 current or former leaders and 300 high-level public officials in more than 90 countries have used offshore companies and accounts to protect their wealth. Only in some of the cases could their activities be categorically declared illegal. Tax havens are legal Here’s how tax havens are used. Trusts and companies are set up in places with low tax rates and secrecy laws such as the Bahamas, Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, the US state of Delaware and the Republic or Ireland. If, for example, a wealthy celebrity or a politician wants to buy a new yacht or a luxury villa but doesn’t want to pay tax or stamp duty or expose their wealth to scrutiny they can get their lawyer or accountant to do it through such a trust. For somewhere between <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.icij.org/investigations/pandora-papers/global-investigation-tax-havens-offshore/" target="_blank">US$2,000 and US$20,000</a> to set up the trust, the name of the real owner or beneficiary can be hidden. It isn’t illegal for the celebrity or a politician to move their money (so long as it is theirs to begin with). Assets within the trust are subject to local tax laws (sometimes zero tax) and local secrecy laws (sometimes complete secrecy). Legal, but used by criminals These legal means of using complex networks of secret entities to move around money are the same as those used by criminals. Alongside the likes of India’s cricket superstar Sachin Tendulkar, Colombian pop singer Shakira and Elton John in the Panama Papers are Italian crime boss <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.icij.org/investigations/pandora-papers/global-investigation-tax-havens-offshore/" target="_blank">Raffaele Amato</a>, serving a 20-year jail sentence for weapons and drugs trafficking, and the deceased British art dealer <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oct/05/offshore-trusts-used-pass-on-looted-khmer-treasures-leak-shows-douglas-latchford" target="_blank">Douglas Latchford</a>, suspected of smuggling looted treasures and money laundering. <img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/425189/original/file-20211007-13-1cp8an9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="Colombian singer Shakira is one of the celebrities named in the Pandora Papers as using offshore companies. Others are Elton John, Ringo Starr, Julio Iglesias and Claudia Schiffer." /> Colombian singer Shakira is one of the celebrities named in the Pandora Papers as using offshore companies. Others are Elton John, Ringo Starr, Julio Iglesias and Claudia Schiffer. Gregory Payan/AP It’s far from clear these arrangements should be legal The big question raised by the Pandora Papers is why any hiding of private wealth from tax authorities ought to be legal. The International Monetary Fund estimated in 2019 that tax haven deprived governments globally of <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2019/09/tackling-global-tax-havens-shaxon.htm" target="_blank">US$500 billion to US$600 billion</a> per year. To put that into perspective, the estimated cost of vaccinating the world against COVID-19 is <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/11/briefing/biden-g7-vaccine-donations.html" target="_blank">US$50-70 billion</a>. <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/425571/original/file-20211009-23-13m746j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/425571/original/file-20211009-23-13m746j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" alt="" /></a> OECD chief Mathias Cormann has brokered a deal for a global minimum corporate tax rate. OECD (CC BY-NC 3.0 IGO) Some of what’s been uncovered in the Pandora Papers is illegal (“evasion”) but much might not be (“avoidance”, aided by anonimity). The effect is the same. Dollars that ought to have been paid in tax are withheld and used for the benefit of people who aren’t keen to admit to owning them. Over the weekend the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, now led by Australian Mathias Cormann, brokered a deal under which 136 countries agreed to charge multinational corporations a tax rate of at least <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.oecd.org/tax/international-community-strikes-a-ground-breaking-tax-deal-for-the-digital-age.htm" target="_blank">15%</a>, making tax havens harder to find. Ireland, previously used as tax haven, signed up. The nations concerned did this because because, even where legal, the use of tax havens costs billions. We’ll soon have to consider removing a distinction in law that vanished in practice some time ago.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/169353/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alex-simpson-225991" target="_blank">Alex Simpson</a>, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174" target="_blank">Macquarie University</a> This article is republished from <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/the-pandora-papers-show-the-line-between-tax-avoidance-and-tax-evasion-has-become-so-blurred-we-need-to-act-against-both-169353" target="_blank">original article</a>. Image: Aekawit Rammaket/Shutterstock

Money & Banking

Picasso’s daughter exchanges famous artworks for a tax bill settlement

The French Government has negotiated a unique deal with Pablo Picasso’s daughter, Maya Ruiz-Picasso, to settle an inheritance tax bill. France is set to receive six paintings, two sculptures and a sketchbook by the world-famous artist, as French finance minister Bruno Le Maire announced during a press conference at the PIcasso Museum. “It is an honour for our country to welcome these new artworks by Picasso. They will enrich and deepen our cultural heritage,” Le Maire wrote on Twitter. Le Maire presented one of the artworks at the press conference: the 1938 painting called Child with a Lollipop Sitting Under a Chair. According to Picasso’s grandson Olivier Widmaier-Picasso, the painting depicts his mother Maya as a child. French citizens have been permitted to settle debts similar to Maya’s with a payment of profitable art, books, and collectibles of national importance since 1968. The collective total of the nine objects given by Picasso's daughter was not publicly disclosed. According to France’s culture minister Roselyne Bachelot, the artworks will enter the national collections at Paris’s Musée Picasso in 2022, and will be exhibited as a whole to the public in the spring of 2022. “It is with deep emotion that I come to celebrate the entry into the national collections of the works,” said Bachelot, who called the donation an “exceptional event.” Image credit: French Ministry of Culture

Art

50% of Australians are prepared to pay more tax to improve aged care workers’ pay, survey shows

The final report from the aged care royal commission this week was damning. Speaking of a system in crisis, it calls for an urgent overhaul. The Morrison government has been facing difficult questions regarding which of the 148 recommendations it will adopt. It also needs to grapple with how to pay for the much-needed changes. On this question, the royal commissioners disagree. Commissioner Lynelle Briggs calls for a levy of 1% of taxable personal income, while commissioner Tony Pagone recommends the Productivity Commission investigate an aged care levy. A 1% levy could cost the median person who already pays the medicare levy about $610 a year, while boosting funds for the aged care sector by almost $8 billion a year. So far, the government has played down the idea of new taxes. There is a view this would be hard sell for a Coalition elected, at least in part, to lower taxation. But as debate continues about how to make the changes we need to aged care (and not just talk about it), our research suggests many Australians support a levy to improve the quality and sustainability of our aged care system. Our research In September 2020, we surveyed over 1,000 Australians aged 18 to 87 years, representative by age, gender and state. We wanted to find out how the pandemic influenced attitudes to health, well-being and caring for others. Our findings indicated overwhelming public support for aged care reform, to ensure all older Australians are treated with dignity. The vast majority of our respondents (86%) either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” Australia needed more skilled and trained aged care workers. On top of this, 80% thought aged care workers should be paid more for the work that they did. More than 80% also either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that nurses working in aged care should be paid at an equivalent rate to nurses working in the health system. Currently, nurses working in aged care are paid, on average, about 10-15% less. The crunch point Importantly, 50% of our respondents showed a willingness to pay additional tax to fund better pay and conditions for aged care workers. Of those willing to pay more tax, 70% were willing to pay 1% or more per year. This finding supports previous larger-scale research we undertook for the royal commission, before the pandemic. Here we found similar levels of public support for increased income tax contributions to support system-wide improvements. This suggests politicians seem to underestimate the public appetite for improvements to the system, and people’s willingness to contribute to achieve this. Changing ideas about economic ‘success’ Our survey findings also highlighted a growing recognition among Australians of the importance of a broader range of social and economic goals. For some time, economists, academics, organisations and peak bodies have been calling for a move away from traditional economic indicators (such as economic growth and expanding gross domestic product) at any cost, towards a broader definition of success. This would see governments focus on policies that promote a more equal distribution of wealth and well-being, where the fundamentals of community cohesion are highly valued and our natural resources are protected. We asked our survey respondents to rank the relative importance of seven key areas of public policy in framing Australia’s pathway to recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, including: <ul> <li>dignity (people have enough to live in comfort, safety and happiness)</li> <li>nature and climate (a restored natural world which supports life into the future)</li> <li>social connection (a sense of community belonging and institutions that serve the common good)</li> <li>fairness (equal opportunity for all Australians and the gap between the richest and the poorest greatly reduced)</li> <li>participation (having as much control over your daily life as you would want)</li> <li>economic growth (an increase in the amount of goods and services produced in Australia), and</li> <li>economic prosperity (full employment and low inflation levels). The criteria ranked most important by the largest proportion of our survey respondents were dignity (20.1%) and fairness (19.3%).</li> </ul> Traditional economic indicators were not the highest priorities for the Australians we surveyed. Instead, economic growth and prosperity were only ranked as a top priority by 15.3% and 15.2% of our respondents respectively. This suggests the general public recognises the importance of moving beyond the traditional markers of a successful society. What Australians want Our research shows significant aged care reform is entirely consistent with the current priorities of the Australian public. The burning question now is whether the Morrison government will step up to the challenge. Written by Rachel Milte and Julie Ratcliffe. This article first appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/50-of-australians-are-prepared-to-pay-more-tax-to-improve-aged-care-workers-pay-survey-shows-156299">The Conversation</a>.

Retirement Income

Iconic tourist destination slugging visitors with a “tourist tax”

The popular tourist destination of Venice has announced that they are going to start charging day-trippers a new tax from July 1st, 2020. The day-trip tax for tourists was announced about a year ago, but the implementation of the tax has been delayed as authorities argued about how it would be enforced. However, city officials have announced that while they’ll confirm the exact fee closer to the date, they will be charging between 3 and 10 euros ($AUD 4.90 to $16.30) a day for day-trip visitors. Overnight tourists or visitors will be exempt as they already pay tax as a part of their accommodation fees. There are also exemptions to be expected for those visiting Venice to work, study or visit family. As Venice is a canal city that’s been popular amongst tourists, the floating city is struggling under the weight of overtourism. With more than 20 million people visiting the destination each year, this is a far cry of their estimated permanent population of 260,000. Locals have even begun to protest the amount of tourists who come and visit Venice. A Venice local named Tommaso, who attended a <a href="https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/ships-out-of-the-lagoon-locals-march-against-cruise-ships-in-venice/news-story/5d646acacc7f5110c95da8fa069e3f2d">protest at St Mark’s Square in June</a>, said Venice’s lagoon has “never been so full”, leaving the city and locals at the “mercy of mass tourism”.

Travel Trouble

5 ways to be smarter with your super

Super is the centrepiece of retirement planning but all too often, it is left to linger in the background instead of being given the attention it deserves. After all, with your money and retirement lifestyle at stake, it’s worth finding ways to streamline your super and to take advantage of opportunities to make it work harder for you. These five tips will help you get started. 1. Maximise tax advantages As employees, we often treat our super as something our employer takes care of, and a cursory glance at our annual statement may be the only attention we give it. What you might not know is that recent changes to tax incentives have created potential opportunities to give your super a real boost. As of July 2017, employees can make tax-deductible (concessional) super contributions on top of the compulsory contributions their employers make. This effectively means that the government is making a potentially huge contribution to your retirement benefits through the tax system — an opportunity simply too big to ignore. Another way for employees to use the tax system to enhance their super is through salary sacrificing. This is a formal arrangement you make with your employer to direct some of your pre-tax salary toward super contributions, thereby reducing your salary for tax purposes. Choosing whether you should make deductible contributions or salary sacrifice will depend on your individual circumstances, so consult a financial adviser to help make the right choice. 2. Advantages of after-tax contributions While making concessional contributions is a great way to boost your super using the tax system, there are limits on the level of contribution you can make each year and still receive concessional treatment. If you are approaching retirement, you may want to load your super beyond these concessional limits. Fortunately, you can make after-tax (non-concessional) contributions to do this. While these contributions don’t benefit from tax deductibility, they do have the significant advantage of avoiding the 15 per cent contributions tax, so that the full value of your contribution reaches your superannuation account. Consult a financial adviser to help determine how you can best balance your pre and post-tax super contributions, and stay within the limits for optimal tax efficiency. 3. Consolidate and save If your super is spread across multiple accounts due to changes in employment over the years, chances are you could be frittering away valuable retirement savings in unnecessary costs. You pay administration and other fees on each super account you have, and may also have multiple insurance premiums deducted from those accounts. The solution is to consolidate your super into one fund. To do this, you first need to find out how much you have in each account, and identify if you have any lost or forgotten super accounts. Seek assistance from a financial adviser to assist with this, as well as consolidating those accounts into one fund to increase cost efficiencies and better focus your investment strategy. 4. Access government support If you are a low or middle-income earner, there are government schemes in place that can significantly improve your super situation. For example, you may be able to make non-concessional contributions of up to $1000, and qualify for a government co-contribution of up to $500 toward your super. This scheme is currently available to anyone who earns less than $51,813 (for the 2017-2018 financial year). Another option is the spouse contribution scheme, which allows you to contribute up to $3000 to your spouse’s super account and receive a tax rebate of 18 per cent (up to a maximum $540) if your spouse earns less than $37,000. The rebate amount tapers off if your spouse earns more than $37,000 and they become ineligible once they reach $40,000. 5. Review your insurance in super Having proper levels of life and disability insurance is a foundational principle of any personal financial plan. Your super may include insurance cover, but is the amount appropriate for your needs? As you go through stages of life, your cover needs can vary dramatically and in later years, you may end up with more insurance than you need. The only way to determine the right level of cover is to have a proper insurance needs analysis done. Engage a qualified financial adviser to perform this for you — it could mean having a greater proportion of your super contributions going toward your retirement rather than being lost on unnecessary premiums. What are your top tips for getting your super in shape? Let us know in the comments below. This article was republished with permission of <a href="https://www.wyza.com.au/articles/money/financial-planning/five-ways-to-be-smarter-with-your-super.aspx">Wyza.com.au.</a>

Retirement Life

Another holiday hotspot is considering taxing tourists

One of the world's hottest and most expensive holiday destinations could soon become a little more expensive. Overwhelmed by a record number of visitors in spite of its far-flung location, Iceland's government is considering ways of raising taxes in the tourism sector. The alternative would be to limit sightseers' access to the country's most popular spots. "The sector and all of us have to be careful not to become victims of our own success," Thordis Kolbrun Reykfjord Gylfadottir, Iceland's tourism minister, said in a recent interview in Reykjavik. A currency plunge and its location for scenes featuring in the popular TV series Game of Thrones helped create a tourism boom, with visitors' numbers growing exponentially - from 490,000 in 2010 to an estimated 2.3 million this year. That's a lot, considering Iceland's population totals less than 340,000. Tourism is now the country's main export, bringing in a forecast 45 percent of foreign exchange – or $5.1 billion (560 billion kronur) – in 2017, according to Islandsbanki, the country's second-largest lender. Still, Gylfadottir worries that overcrowding may ruin the experience for visitors and spoil natural treasures. Among the country's most popular destinations are Thingvellir, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and Jokulsarlon, an otherworldly glacier lagoon on that island's southeastern coast now at the center of a legal dispute. The minister is calling on her partners in government and the tourism industry to be "brave." "Some areas are simply unable to facilitate 1 million visitors every year," she said. "If we allow more people into areas like that, we're losing what makes them special – unique pearls of nature that are a part of our image and of what we're selling." he coalition government is considering a number of options. They include forcing bus companies and tour operators into buying a special license or hiking the existing levy on hotel rooms. Ministry officials say the hotel tax generated 400 million kronur in revenue in 2016 and could bring in as much as 1.2 billion kronur this year. Iceland's previous government attempted and failed to pass a bill that would have required all visitors – Icelanders and foreigners – to purchase a "nature pass" priced at $14. Any tax hike would add to the already considerable bills tourists have to foot when visiting the country. A taxi ride from the airport to the city center costs around $150; while hotel rooms are as much as a third more expensive than comparable accommodation in other Nordic capitals and the price of alcoholic beverages is more than double the EU average, according to Islandsbanki. The ministry says proceeds of any new levy would be used to improve infrastructure and facilities. "When we talk about charging for access, to me that relates more to controlling the number of people entering particular areas - which we need to do," Gylfadottir said. "We also need to ensure that tourists that come here get a positive experience during their stay." Tourism officials are aware they can't push their luck. Since the start of the tourism boom, Iceland's currency has surged, making it an even more expensive destination than it already is. The recent lifting of capital controls, while bringing a degree of normalcy to the economy, has so far failed to reverse the trend. That in itself may be enough to curb foreigners' enthusiasm. Written by Omar Valdimarsson. First appeared on <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/" target="_blank">Stuff.co.nz</a>.

International Travel

10 travel fees you may not know about

From hidden departure taxes to not factoring in tolls on your road trips, these are the most often-overlooked travel fees. 1. Airport transportation If you’re taking any type of transport to and from the airport, you’ll be paying at least $20 extra each way in standard fees. The best way to avoid the “airport tax” is to call ahead to your hotel to see if they can arrange airport transfers or pre-book any shutter services or shared vans. 2. Entry and departure tax Many countries have an entry and departure tax that vary by length of stay. It’s typically paid at the airport, although sometimes it is included in the airfare. Do your research beforehand as most developing nations will want cash in local currency for this charge. 3. Visa Most countries require a visa for entry and some countries will require you to apply for a visa before you visit the country. Make sure you read up on any visa requirement well before you trip. 4. Data usage on mobile phones If you use your mobile phone’s data on an international trip without an international plan or the country’s local SIM card, you’ll be left with a huge phone bill. A basic international plan will give you “cheap” data in case of emergency and will save you big in the long run if you do ended up having to use your mobile for some reason. 5. Tipping Each country’s tipping policy is different – in some countries it is rude to tip, and in other’s it’s mandatory to tip. Do you research beforehand and if visiting a destination like the US, budget at least 15 per cent into your meals and services budget. 6. Parking and tolls When people plan road trips, they often budget for petrol and meal breaks, but often forget about tolls and parking fees. Both of these can sure add to the cost of your road trip so don’t get caught out and do you research. 7. Transaction and ATM fees When travelling abroad, you’ll most likely encounter ATM fees and foreign transaction fees, which can add up. Currency exchange companies can also charge outrageously high exchange rates, so it is best to get your money in order before jetting off. 8. Airport prices Everyone knows that prices are higher at the airport so avoid buying things like books, neck pillows or souvenirs last minute. 9. Emergencies You never know what will happen so if you’re travelling, don’t skip the travel insurance. Without insurance, if for any reason you need medical attention or lose something, it could end up costing you thousands. 10. Local taxes Taxes vary by country and state, so don’t be surprised if you don’t pay taxes on something in your country and have to in another country. While most countries include taxes into the listed price of an item, make sure you check so you’re not caught out with extra expenses. Have you arranged your travel insurance yet? Tailor your cover to your needs and save money by not paying for things you don’t need. <a href="https://elevate.agatravelinsurance.com.au/oversixty?utm_source=over60&utm_medium=content&utm_content=link1&utm_campaign=travel-insurance">Click here</a> to read more about Over60 Travel Insurance. For more information about Over60 Travel Insurance, call 1800 622 966. Related links: <a href="/travel/travel-tips/2015/10/travel-fails/"></a> <a href="http://www.oversixty.co.nz/travel/international-travel/2015/12/iconic-destinations-falling-apart/">6 iconic destinations that are falling apart</a> <a href="/travel/travel-tips/2015/10/travel-fails/"></a> <a href="http://www.oversixty.co.nz/travel/international-travel/2015/12/best-countries-to-visit-in-2016/">Top 10 countries to visit in 2016</a> <a href="/travel/travel-tips/2015/10/travel-fails/"></a> <a href="http://www.oversixty.co.nz/travel/international-travel/2015/12/best-countries-to-visit-in-2016/">10 best-value travel destinations for 2016</a>

International Travel

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Entertainment

Property

Information

Keep up to date

Search

"There's no way": Man receives $52 billion tax bill

"Proud to pay more": The billionaires who want to pay more tax

Ping, your pizza is on its way. Ping, please rate the driver. Yes, constant notifications really do tax your brain

Climate change: the fairest way to tax carbon is to make air travel more expensive

“Truly grotesque”: Ivana Trump’s golf course burial may help Trump get tax breaks

How to leave a financial legacy in a tax-effective manner

Progressive in theory, regressive in practice: that’s how we tax income from savings

Tax avoidance, evasion, and the Pandora Papers

Picasso’s daughter exchanges famous artworks for a tax bill settlement

50% of Australians are prepared to pay more tax to improve aged care workers’ pay, survey shows

Iconic tourist destination slugging visitors with a “tourist tax”

5 ways to be smarter with your super

Another holiday hotspot is considering taxing tourists

10 travel fees you may not know about

News

Shop

Catalogues

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Entertainment

Property

Information

Keep up to date

Search

"There's no way": Man receives $52 billion tax bill

"Proud to pay more": The billionaires who want to pay more tax

Ping, your pizza is on its way. Ping, please rate the driver. Yes, constant notifications really do tax your brain

Climate change: the fairest way to tax carbon is to make air travel more expensive

“Truly grotesque”: Ivana Trump’s golf course burial may help Trump get tax breaks

How to leave a financial legacy in a tax-effective manner

Progressive in theory, regressive in practice: that’s how we tax income from savings

Tax avoidance, evasion, and the Pandora Papers

Picasso’s daughter exchanges famous artworks for a tax bill settlement

50% of Australians are prepared to pay more tax to improve aged care workers’ pay, survey shows

Iconic tourist destination slugging visitors with a “tourist tax”

5 ways to be smarter with your super

Another holiday hotspot is considering taxing tourists

10 travel fees you may not know about

Join Over60