From: Unprogressive Australian Tax Brackets

avocadia : I\'d be interested to see:

I\'d be interested to see the same sort of chart, contribution by bracket, for the US and UK. When you chart out the number of people in the (approximate) brackets, it isn\'t all that surprising that the middle bracket contributes the most; 60% of tax payers are in that income range and earn 54% of taxable income. 10% of taxpayers are in the highest range, yet have 29% of taxable income, which kind of  explains why their contribution is so high.

Anyway, what I got most out of this was that I am against a flat tax like you suggested a couple of posts ago. I don\'t like the way the workers between $6000-$9824 would be paying 635% more than they do already; doing that will only mean more incentive to stay on welfare payments.

That verged on strawman, didn\'t it? Getting back to the point here, and I am so not a student of taxation, is to increase the threshold for the top two brackets out by 10K-15K each. The notion that someone on $60K (coincidently, what I earn) is a wealthy spiv is reasonably laughable. If I discounted credit debt and HECS debt, I still wouldn\'t be able to afford a mortgage, even in Campbelltown where I live. It doesn\'t matter where you stand on the notion of the Great Australian Dream of home ownership, if you can\'t afford a house you are not wealthy.

I\'m happy to pay a greater percentage than, say, your average call centre worker (coincidently, the majority of my co-workers); but what I am on is not wealthy.