You are here

World Revision - Sponsor a Millionaire II

Well my post on sponsoring a millionaire seems to have struck a chord. It’s also attracted a few messages from people accusing me of not telling the full story – so here is their side of the story:

"You won't like this, it would be too much for you to tell others the truth. Bill BS Shorten and Labor tell part of the story but not the outcome. They don't want you to know, thanks to legislation established and passed by the Liberal National Party, to stop companies from Profit Shifting, The Australian Taxation Office was able to take Chevron to Court, winning the case and now Chevron has to pay the ATO $310 Million in tax and fines.

For those who see the PM a rich man and only doing for himself, I would like to be able to show you he donates $500,000+ a year to charity. Yes, he is a rich man but there is nothing forcing him and his wife to do this."

And here is my response:

As a matter of fact I do want to hear what you have to say. Education is an ongoing process and one doesn’t learn anything by only listening to the likeminded.
Firstly, I don’t have a problem with Turnbull, Rinehart, Palmer, or anyone else being rich. I have a problem with them increasing the average costs of Australian households, most of whom would never dream of having such wealth, by more than $3,000 a year so that they can have a tax cut.
You’re not the first person to point out their donations to charity but let’s put that in perspective:
A quick perusal of Malcolm Turnbull’s Register of Members Interests on the APH website shows he has investments conservatively estimated at $200 million. So a donation of $500,000 equates (conservatively) to about 0.25% of his net worth.
I won’t disclose my own net worth (suffice to say that none of it’s in an offshore account) but I do sponsor a child through World Vision and make ad hoc contributions throughout the year, which amounts to an annual charitable donation of about 1% of my earnings.
Now I’m not claiming kudos for this, much less a write up in the Telegraph, but it does demonstrate that a flat rate, such as a GST increase, has a far greater impact on families like mine than it does on families such as the Turnbulls, Rineharts and Palmers.
Secondly, regarding the Chevron case, which is still pending appeal, this stemmed from an ATO investigation which predates the election of the Abbott government. In fact Chevron’s defence was based on an argument that the legislation under which they were charged, passed under the Gillard government (which the Coalition voted against), was unconstitutional due to it being applied retrospectively, an argument the court rejected (

I can assure you all my posts are well researched but if you’re concerned that people aren’t getting the full picture you’re welcome to post a comment on them. Provided it’s done in a respectful manner I will respond in kind.

Commenting on this Blog entry will be automatically closed on January 13, 2016.