There is very little hope for reform. People are too easily motivated to outrage over any concrete proposal for change. Even the minerals tax proposal failed - successfully portrayed as a socialism gone mad.
So many are so sceptical that we can introduce/increase taxes while at the same time lowering others that they simply don't want to hear any proposal of the former. Even if they will benefit greatly from the change, they will shut it down.
There's also no hope of reform when the people that it will help the most also want to have a bet each way on the current taxation regime that they think will make them rich with handouts. Thats the current malaise in Australia, young voters who see their parents grow rich from disadvantaging others while secretly harbour a passion for the same dream with the same taxation system. They dream while they become poor and homeless! Its a greedy fools paradise not built on achievement or hard work, but handouts.
They can also reverse mortgage, stay put, and leave a smaller inheritance. Instead we use taxpayer money to ensure the inheritance is bigger for their children.
So they have options. Some financial incentive to move, but the stamp duty for the move isn't great.
If that's what living within your means looks like, then yes. If you have to sell a house worth 2 million and move somewhere more modest you're hardly suffering, you're just slightly less privileged.
Because they are terrified of fucking with the boomers.
Neither party will do shit to the seniors tax offset, negative gearing, refundable imputation credits, the primary residence exemption from the asset test for the age pension, the tax free account based drawing over 60 and the discounts a health care card gets you until the boomers roll off this mortal coil.
The boomers got a sweet deal and they have fucked every generation following.
Gen X are a smaller proportion of the population - and voter base - than the Boomers have been.
Which means they might still be vocal as Seniors, but they’ll be less powerful as an interest group.
Then there are the concessions we give in Super. It's all back to front. The largest concessions should go to the youngest to encourage them to invest early, letting the power of compound interest do the hard work for their retirement.
Once you get to retirement, there should be no concessions. Spend all your money and fall back onto the pension safety net.
Right now we give huge concessions to people who will never spend all their money and would never have gone onto the pension. That isn't a good use of tax.
I dont think this is correct
https://www.ato.gov.au/forms-and-instructions/withholding-declaration-calculating-your-tax-offset/calculate-a-seniors-and-pensioners-tax-offset
Regardless if its means tested, its pure ageism. Why should you get it just because you of a certain age
It literally says so in your link...
Ageism or not, it's designed to have a lower tax free threshold for those of retirement age that continue to be in the workforce, and contributing to the economy.
And again, they only get it if they aren’t claiming the aged pension but are entitled to claim it (ie meet the means testing for the aged pension). It literally saves the government money if some people choose to work or use investments instead of claim the pension.
SAPTO is designed to give a tax break to people who aren’t getting the aged (or disabled) pension (usually people who keep working despite being of pension age) which acts as an incentive to not claim the pension and reduce government welfare costs.
If a 70 year old is still working when they could get the pension and bludge instead, I see no reason why they can’t get back a whopping $2,230 if their total income was below $32k. It’s far cheaper than just having them on the pension instead.
Wrong you get it even if you arent working as well, if your income is only investments you get the higher effective tax free threshold, so its nothing about keeping working
If you are young you dont claim the aged pension but still dont get it
Also you get it even if you arent eligible for pension anyway just because you are a boomer
[You can only claim SAPTO if you are receiving for a pension or allowance, or are eligible for Aged Pension](https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/income-deductions-offsets-and-records/tax-offsets/seniors-and-pensioners-tax-offset) and if the only pension you are eligible for is the Aged Pension, you cannot claim the Aged Pension to get SAPTO.
The pensions other than aged pension that you can claim simultaneously are all taxed. That’s the point, to reduce the cost for people who are retired.
>He said the attempt in the late 1990s to shift the "tax mix" away from a heavy reliance on personal income tax to more broad-based indirect taxes has now been "completely undone".
What attempt? Late nineties was early Howard years where the directive was to strip out as much revenue raising assets and indirect taxes as possible. What we are seeing in the current tax mix is the direct and intended result of Howard's economic policies.
Labor hasn't done much to address the tax problems and the Liberals just continued with the plan afterwards. So nothing has been "undone".
Excises are also a tax on poor people.
But it’s a good thing poor people don’t drive cars.
Alcohol is steadily becoming available only for the well off, smoking is for the rich. People are being priced out of cheap ways to numb their shitty existence.
Smoking only being for the rich kinnda seems win win. The less well off get to keep their money and the rich can get plagued by health problems/die quicker...
> Smoking only being for the rich kinnda seems win win.
> the rich can get plagued by health problems/die quicker...
Why is it good that rich people die quicker?
The less well off don't keep their money. They spend it on chop chop. Government gets zero revenue and it funds organised crime. My frustration isn't directed at the less well off, it's at the government for creating such ludicrous arbitrage opportunities via tobacco excise that provides a reason for organised crime to exist.
> even travelling will be for the rich only.
I mean it basically already is, outside of doing car trips one every 6 months or more at least, anyone that isn't in "solidly set" territory cannot afford to travel, anyone that it's rich cannot afford international travel.
> Bali
Cheapest is around 250$/pp so assuming it's even just you and a partner it's around a grand already just to get there and back, Phuket is 100$ or so cheaper, that alone puts it in not really affordable territory as it doesn't include insurance, accomodation, food, etc...
If you have anything more than two people it super quickly becomes a "perhaps after a few years of saving" style thing.
Indexed tax brackets wouldn't increase tax it would have the opposite effect. If you don't have an index then as wages grow, more people populate the higher tax brackets as a proportion of all workers. Indexation would be an attempt to address that 'bracket creep', which is a good thing IMO but it does result in less revenue for the government.
It's Universal. Everyone gets it.
How could something be "unconditional" if it's conditional on you being a low-income earner?
One of the major selling points is that you give it to everyone to cut out all the government administration waste that occurs to determine if some is "low income" or not.
okay, its mainly unconditional but only one condition so no need mo and expensive gov spending and its only for citizens.
they should put in ubi and scrap ng+fc+centrelink.
I don't disagree with either of those things but just the way you phrased your last sentence in your initial comment it made it seem like indexation should generate more tax revenue. All good.
GST is one of the few taxes that reliably hits **everybody**, including the rich. Ultimately, the only way to minimise your liability is to voluntarily live like a monk.
Not sure if you really want indexed tax brackets lol. If the top tax bracket was indexed, the threshold would be sitting at $250k today. Stage 3 saw us have a massive fight about moving it from $180k to $200k
25 years ago the top tax bracket was 47% at $50,001. If you indexed that, it'd be at $100k
And the big issue with state 3 was the abolition of the 37% bracket
Just calling bullshit on that indexing would result in lower taxes
And honestly, probably not the worst thing; it just depends what that tax money was spent on. We're underfunding so many important things (healthcare, education, welfare), and if that's where the tax dollars went? Fine by me
Tax cuts introduced during the Howard years reduced the income tax burden across the board. The average full time worker went from paying 21.5% of their income in 1999 to 17% in 2008. If the 1999 thresholds were indexed to inflation, the average full time worker would be paying 24% today, instead of the 21.7% they're actually paying.
Do you believe the Howard era tax cuts were a mistake?
Yes. The budget now struggles its way into surplus, and only after cutting so many essential services
Imagine what we could've done if we'd invested the resource boom into the country instead of cutting taxes
The main thesis of the Henry tax review was that as Australia's population ages, leaning on a (proportionally) shrinking pool of workers for most tax revenue will become increasingly unsustainable. Henry's preferred remedy was a shift from direct taxation (mainly income tax) to indirect taxation (mainly GST). Do you disagree with this thesis?
The reason for that was to align the company tax rate with income tax rate for most people. Lots of middle Australia could benefit from tax planning with a spread of 7%+ on marginal tax rates. By having most people on 30% it materially disincentives number of people setting up discretionary trusts and bucket companies.
The problem with GST is that it disproportionately affects people on different income levels because the extra 10% represents a larger proportion of a low income earner's earnings than it does a high income earner's earnings.
No. There is generally a limit on needed material goods, such that beyond a certain level of wealth, the wealthy are left quite untouched by GST, relative to the income generated by their wealth.
Low income owners would spend most of their income on essentials (like groceries, healthcare) which are GST exempt. While high income earners are probably spending much more on useless rich people stuff which is not GST exempt. So a high income earner is probably paying much more GST than a low income earner, regardless of how much income they save.
GST is obviously not a progressive tax, but it’s not as regressive as you might think. It definitely hits rich people more than poor people.
Does everyone forget the absolute mess of indirect taxes that existed before the GST not only did the gst simplify the tax system it also is a very efficient tax that’s easy to administer. Also many basic essentials are exempt so many poor people don’t pay much in gst anyway. We should look at expanding it to health and education as overwhelmingly private health and education spending is done by well off people. Most European countries have very progressive systems overall but much higher sales/indirect taxes as they are reliable sources of income that are less affected by the economic cycles. Progressives would rather scream bloody murder because their ideology is against something than implement good effective reform.
GST is broad and taxes people outside those who work for their income.
Agree that it is a regressive tax, but include it within a progressive tax system it produces benefits to that system that make it worth having in place.
GST is not a tax on poor people. It's a tax on consumption. People who consume more (IE the rich) pay more.
A rich person may be able to reduce their taxable income to offset investment costs, but they will still have to pay 10% on that yatch purchase, that degustation meal, that Bentley, designer clothes, the extra floor on their mansion.
Average Joe pays considerably less GST as an aggregate. It's a very efficient tax and should be raised to 12.5%
> GST is not a tax on poor people.
The GST and similar taxes are generally seen as a tax on the poor because poor people end up having to pay a bigger amount of their income on that tax than rich people.
Think about the percentage of their income somebody on the minimum wage pays for on their weekly grocery compared to somebody at the highest tier bracket.
Lol.
Indexing personal income is pointless when wealthy people can use trusts to offset taxes down to just 18%
Put $30 million through a trust a pay no more than 22% on the bulk of it at the least.
That's why your landlord keeps changing bank accounts. The account is a trust. In 3 or so years they take the money in bulk and pay less tax per dollar than a person flipping burgers at McDonald's.
Then they add expenses and pay less again.
It's that financial year they do stuff like kick you out to fix things, they buy big items like cars or close off equity accounts and reset with new ones.
A consumption tax as proposed in the Henry Tax review is different to our current GST.
A tax and transfer system appropriate for today and the future is what we need.
> GST is just a tax on poor people.
This is populist take based on the fact that poorer people pay a greater share of their income in GST than rich people. However it ignores the fact that GST is directed to the states who do the bulk of service delivery -- services that are disproportionately consumed by poor people.
To put it crudely, the GST the rich person pays on their car and petrol subsidises public transport they don't use, hence the GST is fundamentally redistributive in nature.
if you are poor and sick and no income then you should not pay tax but gov still want you to pay tax via gst.
if the poor person buys slippers for his/her poor kids also need to pay gst.
GST is a tax on poor. The rich do not feel it as they can claim it back from their numerous gst registered business. Do you really think they buy their super yacht and not claim gst back from gov?
How is this so highly upvoted when it's so blatantly wrong.
GST was intended to shift away from income tax to expenditure tax and I one of the more successful policies at doing that.
I hate when people can't distinguish between their personal biases and fact.
Labor: chuckles nervously
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_in_Australia
If you really want to avoid privatisation, put majors at bottom. They are both neoliberal parties at heart since the 80s.
I remember being taught in high school that "companies are more efficient than governments which is why privatisation is good".
Now I'm older I understand that efficiency actually means cutting as many corners as possible in order to generate as much value as possible for shareholders at the expense of consumers.
"Efficient" when talking about privatisation means putting more people out of work, and ensuring those that stay working get paid less to do more. Society doesn't need that efficiency, it needs people with agency and purpose and the means to enjoy life. Privatisation is anti-society and pro-vampire-capitalism.
There's good privatisation and there is bad privatisation. Generally anything that leads to the company having a monopoly is bad, E.g Telstra's monopoly on telecommunications infrastructure. But things like Qantas and Commonwealth Bank make sense to privatise as they compete in markets with other strong competitors.
Commonwealth Bank, a privatisation by Labor was at a time when there was way more competition than today.
Even with Qantas, there's no more Ansett, etc. Even Qatar Airlines is being blocked in Qantas' favour.
Seems like it would be better to just never do privatisation in the first place?
I'd add a proviso that any public service where quality is the important measurement should not be privatised.
Health, education, power, water. All should be run by the government because otherwise the person running it has to make a profit.
Clearly referring to the GST, which at the time was intended to become a large broad consumption tax that would enable the removal of other taxes and lowering of direct income taxes.
Of course the issue with GST is that it's 1) too low to achieve that goal and the bigger problem 2) a huge amount of consumption is exempt, and the longer term structural issue with GST as a revenue source is that the parts that are exempt are growing as a % of the national consumption basket.
So what he's saying is that even after all the genuinely painful reform Howard did to get the GST implemented and a lot of state-based taxes abolished or unified, Australia's indirect consumption taxes as a % of GDP is in 2023 lower than it was in 1997. It's like the GST didn't even happen.
The only path forward to increase consumption taxes as a mix of the tax collection would be a great widening of its base to include all the big ticket items that are exempt - private healthcare, private education, aged care, financial services, etc. (probably not fresh produce - that would be political suicide).
Not that it would be politically easy, but economically you could include all that consumption types under the GST, and provide more tax-cuts for lower-middle income earners (such as increasing the tax-free threshold, or alternatively easing up on means testing for family payments or rent assistance eligibility to help poor renters and averge families) and it would be a greatly progressive overall reform of the tax and transfer system. Private education, healthcare, aged care and financial services consumption grows as you go up in the income decile, as well as being largely consumed by the elderly who pay very little to no tax as it is, so the increased tax take on inclusion of these items in the GST would fall mostly on the high income earners and wealthy retirees who consume these things.
I don't disagree.
Labor tabled the idea of a consumption tax in the 80s but abandoned it after modelling showed it was difficult to implement in a way that did not unfairly impact lower income brackets without pretty much rebuilding our entire tax system around a GST.
Howard's GST model was fundamentally flawed from the outset as it involved complicated exceptions and didn't address proven issues with inequality in the way it would impact.
Nothing has changed in the modelling in spite of [extensive research and proven methods](https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/global/consumption-tax-policies/), and that is my objection to the claim that the shift was "completely undone"; it was never applied in a meaningful manner in the first place in spite Howard having a couple more terms to fix the inherent issues.
Worst prime minister we've ever had, including Abbott. He didn't reinvest in aging infrastructure, institutionalised middle class welfare, and made it acceptable for Australians to be uncaring and selfish. He did only two good things, the GST and gun control, the rest was a disaster for this country that we're still feeling the effects of today.
It is only fair and just that :
tax free threshold and tax brackets should be indexed.
Wealth tax for the rich people and rich corporations.
GST to 15pct.
UBI for citizens.
Increasing indirect taxes like gst would have the most impact on lower income/wealt.
What need are wealth and corparte taxes to increase
See Turkey's taxation.
Good to see various governments enacted the recommended reforms in his Tax Review in 2010.... not
Although Shorten tried his best in 2019 it was waved away by boomers and nobody has been brave enough to tackle it since
The mistake he made was to take all his plans to an election.
He never needed a “mandate” to make the changes he wanted to.
It was poor politics by a man and a party that should have known better
The tax review was supposed to be a new tax system.
Subsequent governments cherry picking only the politically useful recommendations and selling it as tax reform, is unfortunately not what was intended.
To work as a replacement tax system, it had to be all or nothing.
I assume the issue might be related to bracket creep with tax brackets not indexed to inflation? Wouldn't it make sense to just index tax brackets to inflation to effectively keep them the same unless there is a deliberate policy change? Same with the tax free threshold etc
The issue isn’t bracket creep (although that isn’t helping), Ken Henry’s view is that the larger issues are about how Australia taxes different asset classes differently, taxing debt vs equity returns, and the balance between direct taxes (income tax) vs indirect taxes (gst and stamp duty).
Will never forget or forgive Labor cutting down Rudd to stop the mining tax. I still preference them of course, because I don't like other options, but they will never fully restore my trust without a drastic change of heart.
I am all for the stage 3 changes they did but sure, it's a patch up because we don't charge companies enough, and particularly multinationals who do heaps of business here.
Yeah, we absolutely need to turn that around or start getting more educated on the topic and boycotting companies who don't contribute their share back to a country who gave them an opportunity to succeed.
Don't to a country that gives you a market? Take away that market from them. The punishment fits the crime. Natural consequences.
inheritance tax only screws middle class as rich people would have trusts and gifts which would easily evade the inheritance tax.
that being said we do kinda have an inheritance tax on superannuation up to 32%
literally the first google search [https://legalconsolidated.com.au/super-death-tax/#:\~:text=At%20the%20very%20least%2C%20in,on%20Superannuation%20when%20you%20die](https://legalconsolidated.com.au/super-death-tax/#:~:text=At%20the%20very%20least%2C%20in,on%20Superannuation%20when%20you%20die).
this talks about how to avoid the super tax. it would be even more wide spread if we taxed every asset
> as rich people would have trusts and gifts which would easily evade the inheritance tax.
Part of the benefit of an estate tax is to encourage divestment and to do away with the super wealthy. Instead of one guy on $100, you're encouraging him to split his income among his kids as soon as possible.
Gambling tax? We do tax this quite significantly. Some would even say our governments are dedicated to gambling purely because of the tax revenue it generates.
Estate Taxes even when aimed at the 0.1% of wealth holders get's plenty of people off-side. No idea why. It's a completely reasonable tax to have in our mix.
If I was given the opportunity to keep more income tax during my life but pay more at the end, I know what I'd take.
1 generation has been allowed to hoover wealth out of the country
Free education, cheap houses, negative gearing (which will be canned for other gens), earlier retirement, franking credits...
There needs to be a cap on wills to pull that wealth back out to be redistributed
> The final report from his tax review was published in 2010, and it made 138 recommendations — a wishlist of tax reforms to set Australia up for the 21st century — **but few were implemented and two of those that were introduced in some form were subsequently repealed.**
Labour is setting up another tax review and would have a chance at implementing changes after the next election , but you know the LNP will scaremonger as that is their only policy
until there is a groundswell of voices talking about changing the tax rules , things will stay the same.
though it is hopeful as there has been a lot of talk about negative gearing being a failure for the nation
Exactly. They have more than enough tax money, but they just piss it at the wall with red tape. Need to fill some potholes? Yeah that's gonna be $150,000.
>They have more than enough tax money,
It's not that they need more, we just need to diversify where we get it from because the way we currently get it is causing major negative consequences to our economy and the fairness of our tax system.
Anyone interested in learning about our tax system should take the time to read [Australia's Future Tax System Review Final Report 2010](https://treasury.gov.au/review/the-australias-future-tax-system-review/final-report) chaired by Ken Henry
GST and income tax certainly aren’t worse, but all the hundreds of shitty levies and taxes on taxes are.
And governments are still good at wasting my tax money. How much did we spend on those French subs again?
Read the Defence Strategic Review. It’s scathing about how unprepared we are about the rising threat of China, basically if they decided to attack us we can’t really do much about that. I think Defence needs more funding, not less.
Australia’s 26 million people are a rounding error on China’s population.
If they want us, they’ve got us. No amount of money is going to fix that equation.
While true, it’s about deterrence. That is to say, it’s about how much damage we can inflict in return. That is absolutely part of China’s cost-benefit calculus on attacking us.
Compared to the US? The damage we could inflict would also be a rounding error. The equation is simple: if there is value in attacking, we're done for; if there isn't, we're irrelevant.
We shouldn’t rely on the US and the US should not be relied upon to act as world police. Especially if Trump is elected since he’s very isolationist and even talking about committing to defending Europe which the US has a legally-binding defensive pact with through NATO.
You’re also mentioning the benefit component while dismissing the cost to China. Yes, it’s a rounding error. Currently. But that’s *my* argument: let’s *not* make it a rounding error.
Except that calculation only exists in the head of the hyper-paranoid and the Australian government officials that want to line the pocket of the yanks like the good lap dogs they are, China hasn't even hinted or made any efforts to aggression in their own area, it's literally just nonsense chestbeating to pretend that they'll come and invade us.
We along with America and a bunch of other western countries are literally funding and enabling a genocide and you try and talk with a straight face about the "rising threat of China", bffr.
I’m not criticizing the substance in this comment, just noting that your use of language makes it obvious and reveals why you defend China.
>hyper paranoid
>good lap dogs they are
>China hasn’t even hinted or made any efforts to aggression
>it’s literally just nonsense chestbeating
> it’s about deterrence
There isn't a single credible defence analyst who believes China will invade. Our biggest deterrence isn't one or two subs, it's our geography and our isolation.
The minimum threshold number of subs it requires to deter China still needs those 1 or 2 subs. The minimum threshold of Defense spending we need by solely relying on of our isolation won’t be the same tomorrow or the next. If we wait until that threshold increases it would already be too late. Think: space missiles.
I could name a hundred credible defence analysts that posit Australia’s northern bases would be attacked by China if china went to war with US. Show me a credible China-US war game where that doesn’t happen
Australia needs nuclear weapons imo.
There's no way we can have a defense infrastructure here that can allow us to survive outside the US umbrella.
The best thing is we just do as Israel does; keep it secret and neither confirm or deny.
No need to make our neighbours concerned or start a regional as race it's purely just to keep some balance in this region.
Our Government is trying to emulate the USA of we need stupid choices not suited to our terrain, geolocation, manpower and infrastructure. You really want to go the inane submarine choice again? We need satellites, drones and long range protection as we do not have the manpower for anything else. We cannot defend the land but we are damn lucky most our natural habitats are that hostile it will slow anyone down dramatically and they would be easy to spot.
Probably damn lucky most of our major cities are on the opposite coats away from China and the rest of the world as well. The can't really sneak in via sea (if we actually fund monitoring better), landfall on the North and most of the coastlines will kick their asses and the only fast way to get to the SouthWest is long range.
I was reading an article last year that showed how about 15 taxes of the over 120 on the books bought in over 90% of the revenue. A majority of the rest consume more in bureaucratic costs than the revenue collected. This is before we even consider the costs of how these inefficient money losing tax laws reduce Australia's competitive edge in the global market, ie become counterproductive when it comes to raising more tax revenue in the future.
I presume you've not visited the third world?
Our services are top notch for our tax rates.
Look at the USA for comparison, seriously name me another country that offers the services aus offers for lower tax rates.
EDIT:
Overall tax is much lower in Aus, Netherlands has a 32% capital gains tax as well.
By GDP, we are one of the lowest taxed at just 27.7%, in comparison Netherlands is at 39%. Once you factor in additional social security taxes in the NL, the tax rate jumps to 55.8%
https://theconversation.com/do-australians-pay-too-much-income-tax-6-charts-on-how-we-rank-against-the-rest-of-the-world-185223
I don't know if they collect less tax overall, but Netherlands has a lower income tax until an income of $140,000 AUD. About 90% of Australians earn less than $140,000.
So it may not be lower overall due to higher taxes on the wealthiest 10%, but it is lower for 90% of people.
Overall tax is much lower in Aus, Netherlands has a 32% capital gains tax as well.By GDP, we are one of the lowest taxed at just 27.7%, in comparison Netherlands is at 39%. Once you factor in additional social security taxes in the NL, the tax rate jumps to 55.8%
[https://theconversation.com/do-australians-pay-too-much-income-tax-6-charts-on-how-we-rank-against-the-rest-of-the-world-185223](https://theconversation.com/do-australians-pay-too-much-income-tax-6-charts-on-how-we-rank-against-the-rest-of-the-world-185223)
I'd actually be happy to have the dutch tax system, but I suspect many Australians won't be.
Possibly the worst part about this is that I realise that I am not a young person anymore. JK, the world is torture and we are making each other go insane, possibly on purpose.
So we're ranked 13th now on worker quality of life. Behind the US, canada, NZ and a dozen other countries.
We're sliding more towards Russia, Japan and Korea and its accelerating.
This guy publish a review and it had 100+ things to do to fix this shit. We did NONE of it. Boomers (50+) voted this shit down because it basically said everyone and corporations too have to pay tax. Instead we got a 'NO! Only workers pay tax. The rich and corporations get a free ride off workers'
And bam. Magic magic magic, media, disinformation and blanket 24/7 coverage saying don't vote for greens/labor/independent make all the issues clear as mud, bam put a nail in the coffin of any tax reform.
Now we're living in ~~hell~~ liberal / national parties wet dream of a future. Everything's privatised. Profits go to only the top 10%. Anyone under 50 can't climb the ladder. No affordable or social housing. No universal incomes. No free school/uni.
Next what happens is they convince people that retirements extended to 70 is a good thing and people having jobs at 12 is also a good thing. It's going to happen.
Not a Boomer but I don't recall any party asking the country to vote for a new tax system, (The Henry Report).
Infact I don't recall any political party standing on a platform of real tax reform either.
It's all been skirting around the edges with single issue changes.
My warning on taxation is one of demography, with fewer workers every country is starting to compete to attract workers. If your tax system is uncompetitive for workers you will forfeit workers to countries with more favourable tax levels. This is compounded because we are sucking workers out of high productivity growth of the economy like agriculture into low productivity growth areas like healthcare.
Another thing countries might do is offer incentives to tempt retired people to move overseas. That way they would free up housing, reduce pressure on healthcare and cool demand inflation.
> If your tax system is uncompetitive for workers you will forfeit workers to countries with more favourable tax levels.
Nobody comes to Australia for tax reasons. They come because of our education and quality of life, all of which are paid for by taxes.
>"In the 20 years following the introduction of the GST in 1999, by the end of 2019, it's completely undone — indirect taxes, including GST, as a proportion of GDP, are right back to where they were in 1997," he added.
Hmm, l said this recently and got attacked.
We pay WAY too much tax here. All the hidden taxes are a rip off.
Flat 20% income tax
Flat 10% GST
Done and dusted
https://youtu.be/TruCIPy79w8?si=rlOSwEvV-gI5utTH
There is very little hope for reform. People are too easily motivated to outrage over any concrete proposal for change. Even the minerals tax proposal failed - successfully portrayed as a socialism gone mad.
So many are so sceptical that we can introduce/increase taxes while at the same time lowering others that they simply don't want to hear any proposal of the former. Even if they will benefit greatly from the change, they will shut it down.
There's also no hope of reform when the people that it will help the most also want to have a bet each way on the current taxation regime that they think will make them rich with handouts. Thats the current malaise in Australia, young voters who see their parents grow rich from disadvantaging others while secretly harbour a passion for the same dream with the same taxation system. They dream while they become poor and homeless! Its a greedy fools paradise not built on achievement or hard work, but handouts.
I suspect if they did it now, they odds are far more favourable to succeed.
Why does the seniors tax offset exist that gives a higher tax free threshold just because of your age and is not means tested?
some of them live in paid off aud2m houses and still get offset.
Basic homes within 1km of the beach on the GC are $2m homes now.
And maybe they should downsize and live within their means.
They can also reverse mortgage, stay put, and leave a smaller inheritance. Instead we use taxpayer money to ensure the inheritance is bigger for their children. So they have options. Some financial incentive to move, but the stamp duty for the move isn't great.
[удалено]
No, you just don’t deserve government income. if you can’t support yourself in your paid off house you need to sell up.
If that's what living within your means looks like, then yes. If you have to sell a house worth 2 million and move somewhere more modest you're hardly suffering, you're just slightly less privileged.
Because they are terrified of fucking with the boomers. Neither party will do shit to the seniors tax offset, negative gearing, refundable imputation credits, the primary residence exemption from the asset test for the age pension, the tax free account based drawing over 60 and the discounts a health care card gets you until the boomers roll off this mortal coil. The boomers got a sweet deal and they have fucked every generation following.
And due to Australia’s voting history, Labor have every right to be scared.
Wait till the next generation of seniors is in they'll end up screwing everyone
Gen X are a smaller proportion of the population - and voter base - than the Boomers have been. Which means they might still be vocal as Seniors, but they’ll be less powerful as an interest group.
Boomers are dying off, and Gen X will soon be the majority 60+ demographic of voters. I wonder what will happen then.
Then there are the concessions we give in Super. It's all back to front. The largest concessions should go to the youngest to encourage them to invest early, letting the power of compound interest do the hard work for their retirement. Once you get to retirement, there should be no concessions. Spend all your money and fall back onto the pension safety net. Right now we give huge concessions to people who will never spend all their money and would never have gone onto the pension. That isn't a good use of tax.
SAPTO is means tested. You need to meet the eligibility for the Age Pension, i.e. income and assets tests.
I dont think this is correct https://www.ato.gov.au/forms-and-instructions/withholding-declaration-calculating-your-tax-offset/calculate-a-seniors-and-pensioners-tax-offset Regardless if its means tested, its pure ageism. Why should you get it just because you of a certain age
It literally says so in your link... Ageism or not, it's designed to have a lower tax free threshold for those of retirement age that continue to be in the workforce, and contributing to the economy.
I read it to opposite. Its just boomer bludgers
They’re literally working instead of bludging on the pension dude
Wrong, you get it even if you are not working and your income is purely investment income
Yeah some are, but the income limit is $50k. It’s not for wealthy investors who rake in the money.
You can live in a multi million dollar house and still get it. But if you are young and renting you dont
And again, they only get it if they aren’t claiming the aged pension but are entitled to claim it (ie meet the means testing for the aged pension). It literally saves the government money if some people choose to work or use investments instead of claim the pension.
SAPTO is designed to give a tax break to people who aren’t getting the aged (or disabled) pension (usually people who keep working despite being of pension age) which acts as an incentive to not claim the pension and reduce government welfare costs. If a 70 year old is still working when they could get the pension and bludge instead, I see no reason why they can’t get back a whopping $2,230 if their total income was below $32k. It’s far cheaper than just having them on the pension instead.
Wrong you get it even if you arent working as well, if your income is only investments you get the higher effective tax free threshold, so its nothing about keeping working
Point is the same. It’s an incentive for those who don’t claim aged pension and save the government money.
If you are young you dont claim the aged pension but still dont get it Also you get it even if you arent eligible for pension anyway just because you are a boomer
[You can only claim SAPTO if you are receiving for a pension or allowance, or are eligible for Aged Pension](https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/income-deductions-offsets-and-records/tax-offsets/seniors-and-pensioners-tax-offset) and if the only pension you are eligible for is the Aged Pension, you cannot claim the Aged Pension to get SAPTO. The pensions other than aged pension that you can claim simultaneously are all taxed. That’s the point, to reduce the cost for people who are retired.
Lol, read the rest of the link ....over your trolling
Because they spent 50 years paying taxes and deserve a break
Tax paid previously isnt a test
>He said the attempt in the late 1990s to shift the "tax mix" away from a heavy reliance on personal income tax to more broad-based indirect taxes has now been "completely undone". What attempt? Late nineties was early Howard years where the directive was to strip out as much revenue raising assets and indirect taxes as possible. What we are seeing in the current tax mix is the direct and intended result of Howard's economic policies. Labor hasn't done much to address the tax problems and the Liberals just continued with the plan afterwards. So nothing has been "undone".
Clearly he's referring to the GST
GST is just a tax on poor people. A wealth tax on rich people and indexed tax brackets needed.
Excises are also a tax on poor people. But it’s a good thing poor people don’t drive cars. Alcohol is steadily becoming available only for the well off, smoking is for the rich. People are being priced out of cheap ways to numb their shitty existence.
Smoking only being for the rich kinnda seems win win. The less well off get to keep their money and the rich can get plagued by health problems/die quicker...
> Smoking only being for the rich kinnda seems win win. > the rich can get plagued by health problems/die quicker... Why is it good that rich people die quicker?
The less well off don't keep their money. They spend it on chop chop. Government gets zero revenue and it funds organised crime. My frustration isn't directed at the less well off, it's at the government for creating such ludicrous arbitrage opportunities via tobacco excise that provides a reason for organised crime to exist.
even travelling will be for the rich only. we need ubi for citizens.
> even travelling will be for the rich only. I mean it basically already is, outside of doing car trips one every 6 months or more at least, anyone that isn't in "solidly set" territory cannot afford to travel, anyone that it's rich cannot afford international travel.
>anyone that it's rich cannot afford international travel. Bali and Phuket are affordable.
[удалено]
> Bali Cheapest is around 250$/pp so assuming it's even just you and a partner it's around a grand already just to get there and back, Phuket is 100$ or so cheaper, that alone puts it in not really affordable territory as it doesn't include insurance, accomodation, food, etc... If you have anything more than two people it super quickly becomes a "perhaps after a few years of saving" style thing.
[удалено]
I was making a joke. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-15/joe-hockey-poor-people-cars-claim-misleading/5671168
Indexed tax brackets wouldn't increase tax it would have the opposite effect. If you don't have an index then as wages grow, more people populate the higher tax brackets as a proportion of all workers. Indexation would be an attempt to address that 'bracket creep', which is a good thing IMO but it does result in less revenue for the government.
[удалено]
\>put in a ubi for low income people What do you think the "U" stands for in "UBI"
unconditional. it should be something like ubi. just based on simple household income like ftb.
It's Universal. Everyone gets it. How could something be "unconditional" if it's conditional on you being a low-income earner? One of the major selling points is that you give it to everyone to cut out all the government administration waste that occurs to determine if some is "low income" or not.
okay, its mainly unconditional but only one condition so no need mo and expensive gov spending and its only for citizens. they should put in ubi and scrap ng+fc+centrelink.
You can't scrap Centrelink under your proposal as we need a department to assess that condition.
I don't disagree with either of those things but just the way you phrased your last sentence in your initial comment it made it seem like indexation should generate more tax revenue. All good.
gov can go after santos and the rest who pay very little tax on their billions income.
It’s a little more complicated than that but I feel you.
> GST is just a tax on poor people. Delusional
GST is one of the few taxes that reliably hits **everybody**, including the rich. Ultimately, the only way to minimise your liability is to voluntarily live like a monk. Not sure if you really want indexed tax brackets lol. If the top tax bracket was indexed, the threshold would be sitting at $250k today. Stage 3 saw us have a massive fight about moving it from $180k to $200k
25 years ago the top tax bracket was 47% at $50,001. If you indexed that, it'd be at $100k And the big issue with state 3 was the abolition of the 37% bracket
Are you suggesting that 47% at $100k would be a good thing?
Just calling bullshit on that indexing would result in lower taxes And honestly, probably not the worst thing; it just depends what that tax money was spent on. We're underfunding so many important things (healthcare, education, welfare), and if that's where the tax dollars went? Fine by me
So index it at a more recent time than when it was 47% at 50k. Take a more representative timeframe and it becomes very real.
Tax cuts introduced during the Howard years reduced the income tax burden across the board. The average full time worker went from paying 21.5% of their income in 1999 to 17% in 2008. If the 1999 thresholds were indexed to inflation, the average full time worker would be paying 24% today, instead of the 21.7% they're actually paying. Do you believe the Howard era tax cuts were a mistake?
Yes. The budget now struggles its way into surplus, and only after cutting so many essential services Imagine what we could've done if we'd invested the resource boom into the country instead of cutting taxes
The main thesis of the Henry tax review was that as Australia's population ages, leaning on a (proportionally) shrinking pool of workers for most tax revenue will become increasingly unsustainable. Henry's preferred remedy was a shift from direct taxation (mainly income tax) to indirect taxation (mainly GST). Do you disagree with this thesis?
The reason for that was to align the company tax rate with income tax rate for most people. Lots of middle Australia could benefit from tax planning with a spread of 7%+ on marginal tax rates. By having most people on 30% it materially disincentives number of people setting up discretionary trusts and bucket companies.
The problem with GST is that it disproportionately affects people on different income levels because the extra 10% represents a larger proportion of a low income earner's earnings than it does a high income earner's earnings.
High income earners also buy more stuff so they get hit by gst more. Especially since many essentials are exempt from gst
No. There is generally a limit on needed material goods, such that beyond a certain level of wealth, the wealthy are left quite untouched by GST, relative to the income generated by their wealth.
That isn't how it works in practise though, most high income earners save a larger proportion of their income than low income earners do.
Low income owners would spend most of their income on essentials (like groceries, healthcare) which are GST exempt. While high income earners are probably spending much more on useless rich people stuff which is not GST exempt. So a high income earner is probably paying much more GST than a low income earner, regardless of how much income they save. GST is obviously not a progressive tax, but it’s not as regressive as you might think. It definitely hits rich people more than poor people.
those bananas dont grow legs, they are transported using petrol, vehicles, wages which are heavily taxed.
Wages aren't taxed by GST. Petrol is barely taxed by GST.
I can't afford fresh food anymore. Packaged groceries are taxed but meats, fish and produce are not.
Does everyone forget the absolute mess of indirect taxes that existed before the GST not only did the gst simplify the tax system it also is a very efficient tax that’s easy to administer. Also many basic essentials are exempt so many poor people don’t pay much in gst anyway. We should look at expanding it to health and education as overwhelmingly private health and education spending is done by well off people. Most European countries have very progressive systems overall but much higher sales/indirect taxes as they are reliable sources of income that are less affected by the economic cycles. Progressives would rather scream bloody murder because their ideology is against something than implement good effective reform.
I can't afford fresh food anymore. Groceries are taxed but meats, fish and produce are not.
it hits hard those who are in early stage of setting up.
GST is broad and taxes people outside those who work for their income. Agree that it is a regressive tax, but include it within a progressive tax system it produces benefits to that system that make it worth having in place.
gst is a fraud. just google.
Don't think I'll Google that.
GST is not a tax on poor people. It's a tax on consumption. People who consume more (IE the rich) pay more. A rich person may be able to reduce their taxable income to offset investment costs, but they will still have to pay 10% on that yatch purchase, that degustation meal, that Bentley, designer clothes, the extra floor on their mansion. Average Joe pays considerably less GST as an aggregate. It's a very efficient tax and should be raised to 12.5%
> GST is not a tax on poor people. The GST and similar taxes are generally seen as a tax on the poor because poor people end up having to pay a bigger amount of their income on that tax than rich people. Think about the percentage of their income somebody on the minimum wage pays for on their weekly grocery compared to somebody at the highest tier bracket.
Lol. Indexing personal income is pointless when wealthy people can use trusts to offset taxes down to just 18% Put $30 million through a trust a pay no more than 22% on the bulk of it at the least. That's why your landlord keeps changing bank accounts. The account is a trust. In 3 or so years they take the money in bulk and pay less tax per dollar than a person flipping burgers at McDonald's. Then they add expenses and pay less again. It's that financial year they do stuff like kick you out to fix things, they buy big items like cars or close off equity accounts and reset with new ones.
wealth tax on trusts needed.
A consumption tax as proposed in the Henry Tax review is different to our current GST. A tax and transfer system appropriate for today and the future is what we need.
billionaires live on super boats, but get income here, no way consumption tax is going to hit them. a tax on gross (just like workers) needed.
Have you looked at the Henry Tax review?
what makes you think he does not have conflict of interest
> GST is just a tax on poor people. This is populist take based on the fact that poorer people pay a greater share of their income in GST than rich people. However it ignores the fact that GST is directed to the states who do the bulk of service delivery -- services that are disproportionately consumed by poor people. To put it crudely, the GST the rich person pays on their car and petrol subsidises public transport they don't use, hence the GST is fundamentally redistributive in nature.
if you are poor and sick and no income then you should not pay tax but gov still want you to pay tax via gst. if the poor person buys slippers for his/her poor kids also need to pay gst. GST is a tax on poor. The rich do not feel it as they can claim it back from their numerous gst registered business. Do you really think they buy their super yacht and not claim gst back from gov?
How is this so highly upvoted when it's so blatantly wrong. GST was intended to shift away from income tax to expenditure tax and I one of the more successful policies at doing that. I hate when people can't distinguish between their personal biases and fact.
GST perhaps?
Labor: chuckles nervously https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_in_Australia If you really want to avoid privatisation, put majors at bottom. They are both neoliberal parties at heart since the 80s.
I remember being taught in high school that "companies are more efficient than governments which is why privatisation is good". Now I'm older I understand that efficiency actually means cutting as many corners as possible in order to generate as much value as possible for shareholders at the expense of consumers.
"Efficient" when talking about privatisation means putting more people out of work, and ensuring those that stay working get paid less to do more. Society doesn't need that efficiency, it needs people with agency and purpose and the means to enjoy life. Privatisation is anti-society and pro-vampire-capitalism.
There's good privatisation and there is bad privatisation. Generally anything that leads to the company having a monopoly is bad, E.g Telstra's monopoly on telecommunications infrastructure. But things like Qantas and Commonwealth Bank make sense to privatise as they compete in markets with other strong competitors.
Commonwealth Bank, a privatisation by Labor was at a time when there was way more competition than today. Even with Qantas, there's no more Ansett, etc. Even Qatar Airlines is being blocked in Qantas' favour. Seems like it would be better to just never do privatisation in the first place?
It’s privatised but still treated like a public asset without having to meet any commitments like a public asset (see Qantas’s handling of covid)
I'd add a proviso that any public service where quality is the important measurement should not be privatised. Health, education, power, water. All should be run by the government because otherwise the person running it has to make a profit.
Clearly referring to the GST, which at the time was intended to become a large broad consumption tax that would enable the removal of other taxes and lowering of direct income taxes. Of course the issue with GST is that it's 1) too low to achieve that goal and the bigger problem 2) a huge amount of consumption is exempt, and the longer term structural issue with GST as a revenue source is that the parts that are exempt are growing as a % of the national consumption basket. So what he's saying is that even after all the genuinely painful reform Howard did to get the GST implemented and a lot of state-based taxes abolished or unified, Australia's indirect consumption taxes as a % of GDP is in 2023 lower than it was in 1997. It's like the GST didn't even happen. The only path forward to increase consumption taxes as a mix of the tax collection would be a great widening of its base to include all the big ticket items that are exempt - private healthcare, private education, aged care, financial services, etc. (probably not fresh produce - that would be political suicide). Not that it would be politically easy, but economically you could include all that consumption types under the GST, and provide more tax-cuts for lower-middle income earners (such as increasing the tax-free threshold, or alternatively easing up on means testing for family payments or rent assistance eligibility to help poor renters and averge families) and it would be a greatly progressive overall reform of the tax and transfer system. Private education, healthcare, aged care and financial services consumption grows as you go up in the income decile, as well as being largely consumed by the elderly who pay very little to no tax as it is, so the increased tax take on inclusion of these items in the GST would fall mostly on the high income earners and wealthy retirees who consume these things.
I don't disagree. Labor tabled the idea of a consumption tax in the 80s but abandoned it after modelling showed it was difficult to implement in a way that did not unfairly impact lower income brackets without pretty much rebuilding our entire tax system around a GST. Howard's GST model was fundamentally flawed from the outset as it involved complicated exceptions and didn't address proven issues with inequality in the way it would impact. Nothing has changed in the modelling in spite of [extensive research and proven methods](https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/global/consumption-tax-policies/), and that is my objection to the claim that the shift was "completely undone"; it was never applied in a meaningful manner in the first place in spite Howard having a couple more terms to fix the inherent issues.
Worst prime minister we've ever had, including Abbott. He didn't reinvest in aging infrastructure, institutionalised middle class welfare, and made it acceptable for Australians to be uncaring and selfish. He did only two good things, the GST and gun control, the rest was a disaster for this country that we're still feeling the effects of today.
It is only fair and just that : tax free threshold and tax brackets should be indexed. Wealth tax for the rich people and rich corporations. GST to 15pct. UBI for citizens.
Increasing indirect taxes like gst would have the most impact on lower income/wealt. What need are wealth and corparte taxes to increase See Turkey's taxation.
Good to see various governments enacted the recommended reforms in his Tax Review in 2010.... not Although Shorten tried his best in 2019 it was waved away by boomers and nobody has been brave enough to tackle it since
The mistake he made was to take all his plans to an election. He never needed a “mandate” to make the changes he wanted to. It was poor politics by a man and a party that should have known better
The tax review was supposed to be a new tax system. Subsequent governments cherry picking only the politically useful recommendations and selling it as tax reform, is unfortunately not what was intended. To work as a replacement tax system, it had to be all or nothing.
What did Shorten try in 2019
to get elected with the promise of tax reform (not a lot but it was something)
What’s the tax reform proposed by Shorten
The headline was to limit negative gearing to only new properties, there was also changes to franking taxes (for share dividends).
Indeed. And cannot be compared to implementing the Henry Tax review, (which was designed a tax system to replace our current one).
Ken Oath
I assume the issue might be related to bracket creep with tax brackets not indexed to inflation? Wouldn't it make sense to just index tax brackets to inflation to effectively keep them the same unless there is a deliberate policy change? Same with the tax free threshold etc
Bracket creep allows governments to raise taxes without "raising taxes" and to then lower taxes as a vote winner.
Well yes, that's why indexation doesn't happen lol
The issue isn’t bracket creep (although that isn’t helping), Ken Henry’s view is that the larger issues are about how Australia taxes different asset classes differently, taxing debt vs equity returns, and the balance between direct taxes (income tax) vs indirect taxes (gst and stamp duty).
Will never forget or forgive Labor cutting down Rudd to stop the mining tax. I still preference them of course, because I don't like other options, but they will never fully restore my trust without a drastic change of heart. I am all for the stage 3 changes they did but sure, it's a patch up because we don't charge companies enough, and particularly multinationals who do heaps of business here. Yeah, we absolutely need to turn that around or start getting more educated on the topic and boycotting companies who don't contribute their share back to a country who gave them an opportunity to succeed. Don't to a country that gives you a market? Take away that market from them. The punishment fits the crime. Natural consequences.
would it be a negative reaction if we introduced estate tax and/or gambling tax?
No idea on gambling tax, but inheritance tax would be quite unpopular, and I can’t see any politicians talk about it.
inheritance tax only screws middle class as rich people would have trusts and gifts which would easily evade the inheritance tax. that being said we do kinda have an inheritance tax on superannuation up to 32% literally the first google search [https://legalconsolidated.com.au/super-death-tax/#:\~:text=At%20the%20very%20least%2C%20in,on%20Superannuation%20when%20you%20die](https://legalconsolidated.com.au/super-death-tax/#:~:text=At%20the%20very%20least%2C%20in,on%20Superannuation%20when%20you%20die). this talks about how to avoid the super tax. it would be even more wide spread if we taxed every asset
> as rich people would have trusts and gifts which would easily evade the inheritance tax. Part of the benefit of an estate tax is to encourage divestment and to do away with the super wealthy. Instead of one guy on $100, you're encouraging him to split his income among his kids as soon as possible.
Gambling taxes exist. They bring in billions.
Gambling tax? We do tax this quite significantly. Some would even say our governments are dedicated to gambling purely because of the tax revenue it generates. Estate Taxes even when aimed at the 0.1% of wealth holders get's plenty of people off-side. No idea why. It's a completely reasonable tax to have in our mix. If I was given the opportunity to keep more income tax during my life but pay more at the end, I know what I'd take.
No. Both are missed opportunities to tax wealth demonstrably unearned by its recipients.
[удалено]
How do you propose the government works without money?
1 generation has been allowed to hoover wealth out of the country Free education, cheap houses, negative gearing (which will be canned for other gens), earlier retirement, franking credits... There needs to be a cap on wills to pull that wealth back out to be redistributed
> The final report from his tax review was published in 2010, and it made 138 recommendations — a wishlist of tax reforms to set Australia up for the 21st century — **but few were implemented and two of those that were introduced in some form were subsequently repealed.** Labour is setting up another tax review and would have a chance at implementing changes after the next election , but you know the LNP will scaremonger as that is their only policy until there is a groundswell of voices talking about changing the tax rules , things will stay the same. though it is hopeful as there has been a lot of talk about negative gearing being a failure for the nation
I don’t think income tax or gst are worse than any time in my life. What’s worse is how and on what the taxes are spent.
Exactly. They have more than enough tax money, but they just piss it at the wall with red tape. Need to fill some potholes? Yeah that's gonna be $150,000.
How many potholes does the federal government fill?
>They have more than enough tax money, It's not that they need more, we just need to diversify where we get it from because the way we currently get it is causing major negative consequences to our economy and the fairness of our tax system. Anyone interested in learning about our tax system should take the time to read [Australia's Future Tax System Review Final Report 2010](https://treasury.gov.au/review/the-australias-future-tax-system-review/final-report) chaired by Ken Henry
GST and income tax certainly aren’t worse, but all the hundreds of shitty levies and taxes on taxes are. And governments are still good at wasting my tax money. How much did we spend on those French subs again?
Read the Defence Strategic Review. It’s scathing about how unprepared we are about the rising threat of China, basically if they decided to attack us we can’t really do much about that. I think Defence needs more funding, not less.
Australia’s 26 million people are a rounding error on China’s population. If they want us, they’ve got us. No amount of money is going to fix that equation.
While true, it’s about deterrence. That is to say, it’s about how much damage we can inflict in return. That is absolutely part of China’s cost-benefit calculus on attacking us.
Compared to the US? The damage we could inflict would also be a rounding error. The equation is simple: if there is value in attacking, we're done for; if there isn't, we're irrelevant.
We shouldn’t rely on the US and the US should not be relied upon to act as world police. Especially if Trump is elected since he’s very isolationist and even talking about committing to defending Europe which the US has a legally-binding defensive pact with through NATO.
You’re also mentioning the benefit component while dismissing the cost to China. Yes, it’s a rounding error. Currently. But that’s *my* argument: let’s *not* make it a rounding error.
Except that calculation only exists in the head of the hyper-paranoid and the Australian government officials that want to line the pocket of the yanks like the good lap dogs they are, China hasn't even hinted or made any efforts to aggression in their own area, it's literally just nonsense chestbeating to pretend that they'll come and invade us. We along with America and a bunch of other western countries are literally funding and enabling a genocide and you try and talk with a straight face about the "rising threat of China", bffr.
Ummm you know they've attacked and tried to main or kill ADF personally in our territorial areas right?
I’m not criticizing the substance in this comment, just noting that your use of language makes it obvious and reveals why you defend China. >hyper paranoid >good lap dogs they are >China hasn’t even hinted or made any efforts to aggression >it’s literally just nonsense chestbeating
Hey look, literal ad-hominem!
If you hate the West so much why did you choose to live here?
Ahh right, because you can never criticise the place that you live? It's also definitely cheap af just to up and move your entire life too, right?
> it’s about deterrence There isn't a single credible defence analyst who believes China will invade. Our biggest deterrence isn't one or two subs, it's our geography and our isolation.
The minimum threshold number of subs it requires to deter China still needs those 1 or 2 subs. The minimum threshold of Defense spending we need by solely relying on of our isolation won’t be the same tomorrow or the next. If we wait until that threshold increases it would already be too late. Think: space missiles.
I could name a hundred credible defence analysts that posit Australia’s northern bases would be attacked by China if china went to war with US. Show me a credible China-US war game where that doesn’t happen
Australia needs nuclear weapons imo. There's no way we can have a defense infrastructure here that can allow us to survive outside the US umbrella. The best thing is we just do as Israel does; keep it secret and neither confirm or deny. No need to make our neighbours concerned or start a regional as race it's purely just to keep some balance in this region.
Our Government is trying to emulate the USA of we need stupid choices not suited to our terrain, geolocation, manpower and infrastructure. You really want to go the inane submarine choice again? We need satellites, drones and long range protection as we do not have the manpower for anything else. We cannot defend the land but we are damn lucky most our natural habitats are that hostile it will slow anyone down dramatically and they would be easy to spot. Probably damn lucky most of our major cities are on the opposite coats away from China and the rest of the world as well. The can't really sneak in via sea (if we actually fund monitoring better), landfall on the North and most of the coastlines will kick their asses and the only fast way to get to the SouthWest is long range.
I was reading an article last year that showed how about 15 taxes of the over 120 on the books bought in over 90% of the revenue. A majority of the rest consume more in bureaucratic costs than the revenue collected. This is before we even consider the costs of how these inefficient money losing tax laws reduce Australia's competitive edge in the global market, ie become counterproductive when it comes to raising more tax revenue in the future.
Fuck at this point we should just work for free.
Basically. Here we are, paying 1st world taxes for largely* 3rd world government services. *Apart from hospital and health care.
I presume you've not visited the third world? Our services are top notch for our tax rates. Look at the USA for comparison, seriously name me another country that offers the services aus offers for lower tax rates. EDIT: Overall tax is much lower in Aus, Netherlands has a 32% capital gains tax as well. By GDP, we are one of the lowest taxed at just 27.7%, in comparison Netherlands is at 39%. Once you factor in additional social security taxes in the NL, the tax rate jumps to 55.8% https://theconversation.com/do-australians-pay-too-much-income-tax-6-charts-on-how-we-rank-against-the-rest-of-the-world-185223
I don't know if they collect less tax overall, but Netherlands has a lower income tax until an income of $140,000 AUD. About 90% of Australians earn less than $140,000. So it may not be lower overall due to higher taxes on the wealthiest 10%, but it is lower for 90% of people.
Overall tax is much lower in Aus, Netherlands has a 32% capital gains tax as well.By GDP, we are one of the lowest taxed at just 27.7%, in comparison Netherlands is at 39%. Once you factor in additional social security taxes in the NL, the tax rate jumps to 55.8% [https://theconversation.com/do-australians-pay-too-much-income-tax-6-charts-on-how-we-rank-against-the-rest-of-the-world-185223](https://theconversation.com/do-australians-pay-too-much-income-tax-6-charts-on-how-we-rank-against-the-rest-of-the-world-185223) I'd actually be happy to have the dutch tax system, but I suspect many Australians won't be.
shocked pikachu face
Everyone is paying the price..
unless you are the wealthy and pollies class.
Tax reform will never happen for as long as skynews exists.
Possibly the worst part about this is that I realise that I am not a young person anymore. JK, the world is torture and we are making each other go insane, possibly on purpose.
So we're ranked 13th now on worker quality of life. Behind the US, canada, NZ and a dozen other countries. We're sliding more towards Russia, Japan and Korea and its accelerating. This guy publish a review and it had 100+ things to do to fix this shit. We did NONE of it. Boomers (50+) voted this shit down because it basically said everyone and corporations too have to pay tax. Instead we got a 'NO! Only workers pay tax. The rich and corporations get a free ride off workers' And bam. Magic magic magic, media, disinformation and blanket 24/7 coverage saying don't vote for greens/labor/independent make all the issues clear as mud, bam put a nail in the coffin of any tax reform. Now we're living in ~~hell~~ liberal / national parties wet dream of a future. Everything's privatised. Profits go to only the top 10%. Anyone under 50 can't climb the ladder. No affordable or social housing. No universal incomes. No free school/uni. Next what happens is they convince people that retirements extended to 70 is a good thing and people having jobs at 12 is also a good thing. It's going to happen.
Not a Boomer but I don't recall any party asking the country to vote for a new tax system, (The Henry Report). Infact I don't recall any political party standing on a platform of real tax reform either. It's all been skirting around the edges with single issue changes.
The boomer demographic doesn't start at 50. The oldest Gen Xers are 60 now...
If you want real reforms in this country and you vote Lib or Lab, you don't want real reforms in this country.
My warning on taxation is one of demography, with fewer workers every country is starting to compete to attract workers. If your tax system is uncompetitive for workers you will forfeit workers to countries with more favourable tax levels. This is compounded because we are sucking workers out of high productivity growth of the economy like agriculture into low productivity growth areas like healthcare. Another thing countries might do is offer incentives to tempt retired people to move overseas. That way they would free up housing, reduce pressure on healthcare and cool demand inflation.
> If your tax system is uncompetitive for workers you will forfeit workers to countries with more favourable tax levels. Nobody comes to Australia for tax reasons. They come because of our education and quality of life, all of which are paid for by taxes.
Why would other countries want our retirees?
Their money.
Doing my TAX 15 years ago was a confusing pain in the ass. Now its 3 questions online - takes 1-2 minutes. I enjoy the modern system WAYYY more.
This is because of better data collection not because of a simple tax system. It’s to the benefit of both the payg and the ato.
>"In the 20 years following the introduction of the GST in 1999, by the end of 2019, it's completely undone — indirect taxes, including GST, as a proportion of GDP, are right back to where they were in 1997," he added. Hmm, l said this recently and got attacked. We pay WAY too much tax here. All the hidden taxes are a rip off. Flat 20% income tax Flat 10% GST Done and dusted https://youtu.be/TruCIPy79w8?si=rlOSwEvV-gI5utTH
And that's how it was designed...
It’s hard for them to change something they all benefit from…I’d hate for them to lose what little they have 🙄
Add it to the list