Could the taxpayer be subsidizing Qantas

[relax737]

Could the Taxpayer be Subsidising Qantas Companies?

Jetstar and National Jet pilots now have to pay for their own endorsements. Allegedly the pilots pay the cost of their endorsements via salary sacrifice. This must conceivably lower the tax that the pilot pays, even if they are paying off a significant "loan", this loan being in the vicinity of $20 - 30,000.

As much as I strongly disagree with pilots paying for their endoresments, particuarly in light of the fact that the Qantas group of companies has just made hundreds of millions of dollars profit in the last year, why should we taxpayers be subsidising these companies training costs?

Does anyone know if this also reduces the companies payroll tax?

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Why should taxpayers foot the bill for company cars paid for under salary sacrifice schemes run by most large companies?

Or Laptops.

Or why should they underwrite large capital gains in investments through negative gearing?

Picking on pilots who need a rating to gain employment should be the last of your worries.

PS and I agree that pilots should not have to pay for ratings.....

[Metro Boy]

But the difference is that the companies are shirking their responsibilities and throwing the training costs back on to the taxpayer. I bet this doesn't happen in other industries.

[lackov]

You're trying to cloud a few issues for the sake of supporting your argument.

Do you really think that those airlines who do pay for their pilots endos (such as QF mainline) don't write the whole lot off on tax? It's an operating expense like any other. I wouldn't really be worried about whether some poor new-hire for Virgin or JStar dares claim a training cost on their tax return. If you've got a beef in the governments role in such stuff then maybe IR laws are a better place to sniff around.

I dont like paying for endo's either, but if you're gonna argue something it has to make sense.

[Metro Boy]

Companies pay 30% tax yet individuals pay up to 48.5%, so they are throwing it back on to the taxpayer.

[Keg]

No Virgin or J* F/O is paying 48.5% in tax from flying income! :eek: :{ :E

[lackov]

Metro Boy,

You seem to be going off anecdotal and/or sensationalistic information. Check the figures and you'll find that what Keg says is very true. 48.5% is the top bracket of income tax and is certainly not payable on an entire Virgin or J* wage. It in fact only applies to the last 20 odd grand or so. Again, make sure your argument makes sense before trying to construct it. www.ato.gov.au might help you do that. Everyones tax case is different of course, but typically pilots in the 50 to 100k bracket usually end up paying somewhere in the order of 30% give or take.

I dont understand what the real point of your argument is.

[chief wiggum]

last I heard, NJS were refunding the pilots who have paid their endorsements. Seems they are being "bonded" instead.

[confoutre]

relax 737, I'm not sure I completely understand your point. I think you saying that the pilots don't pay tax on the money they spend for their endorsements. I have to say that is not different to any other profession. The majority of people in other professions have to fork out of their own pockets the cost of postgraduate qualifications. Doctors, lawyers, accountants etc that do postgraduate training have to pay for courses and examinations and unless they are really stupid they will be claiming this back on tax too! Should the tax payer be "subsidising" these groups too? Maybe it's okay because they aren't part of QANTAS group.....

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

I think the point being made is that the companies are abrogating their responsibilities by throwing THEIR training costs on to the employee.

[confoutre]

Just read the other replies properly - seems like I wasn't the only one who didn't understand the original post. By the way, I claim back laundry expenses whenever I put in my tax return. Should the taxpayers (aren't I one of them) be subsidising me??......

[Waka Rider]

Bit of a curve ball here. Do you fellas that pay for your type ratings have to give your three months notice if a bigger fish gives you a call? I would have thought by paying for your training you could just p:mad: ss off out the door without having to give notice.

[Woomera]

"I bet this doesn't happen in other industries."

It does.

If the company were not claiming the tax deduction on training, the pilot would be claiming the cost as a tax deduction - probably at a higher rate of tax!

What difference?

Lakov - deductions do not come off the average rate of personal tax, they come "off the top" - off at the highest rate paid.

What is the point of this thread?

Woomera

[lackov]

Woomera,

I never stated anything about the mechanics of tax deductions, or which tax segment they are applied to. All I did was give a rough ball-park figure as to what someone in a very broad income category might pay. I also said that everyone's tax case was different. Deductions are obviously but one thing that throw around the final amount of tax you pay as a percentage of your income.

I don't think this thread has a point. It sure as hell doesn't have a lot of facts!