Tax and Public transport

[Emmie]

This is a follow up to something Nick Earls said, but I felt it would be off topic to continue with it where it was:

- Some of my public transport use is recreational, and some is work-related. With work-related travel, I keep the tickets as tax-deductible receipts. How will I do that with a Go Card? And don?t tell me I?d need to maintain two Go Cards, one for work and one for pleasure.

My short response to that is - I've got a car, and some use of that car is work-related, while most is not.  It's perfectly possible to diarise/keep a log book/whatever, and claim for the work-related expenses on public transport accordingly.

But my long response is - there is something terribly wrong about the tax system, when claims for car-related work expenses are SO much more generous than for the use of public transport.  I have had the experience of travelling from home in Sandgate to a job in Ipswich.  If I take the train, I can claim maybe $20 expenses; drive a car, and I can claim per kilometre, and in fact if I take the bigger, less fuel efficient 6 cylindar car, I can claim a higher mileage.  Throw in the cost of parking at the other end, and I'm looking at maybe $80 in tax claims.  As well as generously contributing to the pollution and congestion on the Ipswich motorway, of course.

[Derwan]

Can I just confirm - are people claiming travel between workplaces (or running an errand for work) - or are they claiming travel to/from work?

You cannot claim travel to/from your normal workplace.

Emmie - you may be able to claim a larger deduction by driving - but you are probably spending more (especially with parking) to drive.

Spend $20 on PT, you might get $8 back (depending on your tax bracket) - overall spend $12.  Claim $80 for driving - lets say you really spend $60 (including car servicing, etc), you might get $32 back - overall spend $28.

[dwb]

Should this thread be under "Open Forum"?

[dwb]

The Henry tax review will no doubtedly have something to say about FBT, even Infrastructure Australia is keen to get some changes here (it is such an obvious one after all!).

Timeline for the Henry review is available at http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/Content.aspx?doc=html/timeline.htm

But in regards to taxation, well I believe some sort of regional based land tax should contribute to PT specifically. It should be earmarked. Service delivery should relate to the area it is charged (broadly) and the levy rate should probably be dependent on both a PT index and land use type, so that for instance a commercial property close to a very high frequency/quality PT interchange pays more than a semi-rural resident in an owner-occupier house (but the semi-rural owner occupier still pays something even if their service level is close to zero locally, as they are part of the region that broadly benefits from PT services).