I'm drunk off long hours of work and dreading the return to work tomorrow, so here's a thought: we should be a tax exempted class.
That'll immediately make all our lives better, wouldn't it?
But let's limit it to the 5 years PQEs (you gotta earn it), maintaining a practicing certificate, and also minimum pro bono hours threshold.
Posted Jul 31, 2023, 1:46 PM UTC
Thanks for your submission.
If this comment has been upvoted it is likely that your post includes a request for legal advice. Legal advice is not provided in this subreddit (please see this comment for an explanation why.)
If you feel you need advice from a lawyer please check out the legal resources megathread for a list of places where you can contact one (including some free resources).
It is expected all users of r/auslaw will not respond inappropriately to requests for legal advice, no matter how egregious.
This comment is automatically posted in every text submission made in r/auslaw and does not necessarily mean that your post includes a request for legal advice.
Please enjoy your stay.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Lol bs to that.
Lawyers make ridiculous amounts of 💰
Just use negative gearing like the politicians all do.
Something, something, rocks in your head if you don’t have strategies to minimise your tax, something something - Kerry Packer.
I seem to recall a High Court case from Uni days that specifically said that there is nothing wrong with working within the legislation to minimise one’s tax liabilities. I am all for embracing that wholeheartedly.
Totes, need to get on that strategy 💯
“A taxpayer may choose to organize his affairs in such a way as to take advantage of tax benefits provided by the "specific and particular" provisions of the Act, a principle”? Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Gulland ("Three Doctors case") (1985) 160 CLR 55.
Most lawyers (there are about 30,000 of all kinds in NSW alone) earn a very comfortable salary or wage. There’s no denying that and most lawyers once they hit about the 5 year mark will be in the top 10% of all earners.
That according to the ABS is around $130,000 or so. To become a 1 percenter, you need earn about $250,000. That’s also within the realm of possibility. Most lawyers earn within this range.
When non lawyers think “ridiculous amounts of money”, however, I am sure they are thinking of equity partners at top tiers or top commercial silks who can take home $1+ mil a year. There are maybe 500 of those people tops in NSW.
Essentially, you are out by an order of magnitude estimating the vast majority of lawyers’ income. The vast majority of lawyers are your neighbours living very normal middle class (in the Australian and British sense) lives on a comfortable but not extravagantly lavish wicket.
Anon don’t know bout you, but most of my assets are protected by this neat lil thing called “poverty”. Can’t afford it, don’t have it, don’t insure it etc etc.
But then who am I gonna audit?
Who are the Big 4 gonna suck off the public’s fat teats 🤷🏻♀️ won’t someone think of how PwC and their mates gonna pay for shit without government money?!
Why would we make lawyers a tax-exempted class when they're the most reliant on it?
Without a well-funded state, there's no way to enforce laws and contracts. What's more, whether you believe that life in lieu of a well-funded state would function through mutual assistance or force, meticulous paperpushers aren't exactly famous for either their friendliness and practical skills, or their machismo, and would very likely incur a significant drop in status.
most reliant on it
laughs in defence contractor
Claw I love me a social service, so imma have to pay the taxes. Can we still eat the rich though?
Only if you finish your vegetables
That’s one way to make the NDIS sustainable.
gif
Happy cake day
Claw I’m not a fan of fatty meat. Can I just do the butchering after the revolution?
From each according to their ability, to each according to their dietary preferences
Whilst not tax exempt, through careful (and legitimate) packaging I paid precisely fuck all tax (just the HECS got me). 100% of my income is tax payer funded :)
Eh, I used to deploy this line of argument when I was a social democrat in the halcyon days of my youth.
The basic problem with it is that the actual amount of state power a reasonably competent practitioner needs to earn a crust isn't that high.
Sure - you need at least a nightwatchman state (courts, police, millitary, etc). But you don't need a welfare state for people to need specialist legal advice. Cet par, I suspect the tax and transfer system reduces net demand for legal services too. Rich people/ companies are just more intensive users of legal services in the abstract than the poor.
Ok, but the minimum pro bono needs to be like 1/3 of the year to offest this.
I could live with this, more charitable (time or money) you are as an individual, the more rebate you get back off PAYG - I could live with this altruism 🤷🏻♀️
I would still be better off.
Snap, same!
No we shouldn't.
For a while computer programmers were tax free creative artists in Ireland.
The fact that I can't claim my collection of Armani suits as a tax deduction for compulsory work uniform expenses is simply outrageous.
In all seriousness, unless you own an equity stake in a law firm, you get pretty fucked over in the tax system as a lawyer compared to those in the trades and business owners.
It's not fair, but then there's really no political will to give white collar professions a fair go in the tax system. Look at the drama caused by the stage 3 tax cuts. If I recall correctly, some economists have argued that the tax cuts don't even really redress bracket creep in real terms, or at least that any relief will be short lived in real terms.
Ken Henry supports the stage 3's but says it doesn't address the underlying unfairness in the taxation system, which basically relies on individual taxation too much and does not tax resources and industry properly. I have heard him interviewed a few times on this (one example) and he makes a lot of sense. The real problem with the stage 3's is that it was stupid to legislate them so far in advance (it genuinely was a Morrison election ploy to wedge labor with) the discussion around them always involves a false dichotomy: it's tax cuts for the rich or proper funding for schools, NDIS, hospitals, etc.
Agreed, Wallaby. And don't get me started on the Div 293 kick in the balls and the PSI rules...
But it keeps the Guardians readership up. So there’s that.
This is a generalization but in broad terms a partner of a law firm can only minimise tax if they can establish a trust and you can only do that if one half of the couple doesn’t work / earn much. Which is never the case with a female partner of a law firm (ie their spouse usually also works). It’s very sexist actually.
There are unkind people who say that some members of the NSW bar already regard themselves as tax exempt............
Actually barristers are the only category of person I know of who must pay both GST and income tax. Which is a lot of tax. No wonder they get confused.
…solicitors also pay GST and income tax?
No they don’t. The individual solicitor pays income tax but their firm pays GST. Barristers don’t employ anyone so don’t operate as a partnership and can’t incorporate like say a plumber so they get hit twice.
The partners of the firm pay GST and income tax.
The owner of the corporation pays GST and income tax.
The sole trader solicitors pay GST and income tax.
Yes, there are options available to reduce tax liability which aren’t open to sole traders like barristers, but it isn’t a magical “you don’t pay GST and income tax” situation for solicitors.
The client/solicitor pays the actual GST. The barrister simply remits that amount to the ATO as the agent that charges and collects. They aren't paying anything in terms of being the one who must bear the financial defecit of making the payment, as the payment ultimately comes from the client/solicitor. That is, the Barrister should be setting his fees at the amount they seek payment for services and then add the GST component.
It is amazing that after 23 years of GST, people still conflate the supplier who collects and remits the GST as the purchaser of a goods or service who actually pays the GST.