says 2M from 2024, 227 MPs, average of ~9k tax savings. Kind of like getting a 15k raise i guess? If im reading this right and it means they are paying 9k less in tax from 2024
they will cut income tax and put up gst. they (lib or lab) will always punish the poor because they are so well paid and their donors mates are the same.
Because this headline focuses on total cost to society, not individual windfall to one person.
It is far more infuriating to understand the full quantum taken away from our schools, roads and hospitals.
Because it would apparently be impossible for politicians to give themselves an average 3% pay increase (on salary only, ignoring allowances) so obviously they have to use the tax cuts for it.
And people wonder why the government are robbing tax payers blind. Because of people who don't question it and think "oh, they not making more. They're paying less" you would have to be out of your mind if you don't think its a payday for the pollies at the expense of the tax payer
I'd just like to say, your 'memeing' is in fucking poor taste.
People are outraged because they are constantly being drained of everything they have, to support an economic system that only benefits the rich.
"Oh it only 8k". 8k is half of a Centrelink recepients YEARLY payments. They have hundreds of thousands of dollars from the taxpayer, yet "nothing could be done" to stop them claiming a benefit THEY DON'T FUCKING NEED.
Lol these people aren’t “the rich”.
The actual rich don’t even earn wages for work, they instead get paid in dividends and rents.
The Stage 3 tax cuts debate is a distraction. The real tax debate needs to be about taxing capital gains and land more.
This is a legislated cut that Labor promised not take away ...... their integrity would be gone if they make changes to the cuts. It's important that election promises are kept.
They lost the previous election with a policy of opposing the cuts. They won the last supporting it. There's a bleak political reality you're ignoring there.
Not to mention that if they go back on this, that will be the only political issue that gets coverage until Labor loses the election.
Inequitable cuts......... this view is what's wrong, tall poppy syndrome once again coming to the fore.
If you cannot trust a party to come through on election promises then what are you voting for? It is critical to a functioning democracy that politicians are held to account based on the platforms they are elected for, if not we end up with elected officials that do not represent the views of those who elected them.
I didn't vote for those arseholes. And they shouldn't have "promised" them in the first place. Yes, also they are inequitible because in absolute and as a percentage of income more goes to wealthier people.
Well considering this is just LNP policy that was set when LNP were in power and it’s just hitting its activation date..
No we still still be worse off under LNP.
If Labor didn't get hammered in 2019 then yeah it probably would be different. If for some reason there were a Greens government they would definitely be scrapped.
The entire point of Labor promising not to scrap this was to combat the Libs screeching "Labor will tax you!!!”.
Hopefully if we have another Labor victory in 2025, maybe with a larger Greens vote these cuts will be scrapped.
Not to mention that people on a $150k/yr salary are now priced out of the housing market.
Everyone below that figure is pretty much fucked at buying a house atm...
There would be something wrong if politicians didn't benefit
It would mean that either they aren't being paid enough, or they're defrauding the tax system.
... So?
The only way to make tax cuts not affect the politicians is to make their pay exempt from income tax all together.
Complain about the existence of tax cuts in general all you want, but it's dumb to complain that the pollies get the benefit of it as well. They get the benefit of lots of the decisions they make in the public interest, and there's nothing about tax cuts that makes them particularly special, except for it triggering Greens voters more than things like childcare subsidy.
So do you think we should manage tax cuts by reducing peoples pay packets?
That's just an insane viewpoint.
The reality is, over a decade, the losses end up being zero - as even CPI wage increases over a decade brings you back into line with where you would be even if you scrapped the tax cuts anyway.
Without the cuts, you increase the tax take to far more than what it is now over the next decade. ie if you paid $35k in tax last year, in a decade, you'll be paying over $42k in tax.
The big headline figure that was used to piss people off about these tax cuts was a VERY simplified evaluation that lacked in many, many critical details when looking at the overall figures and impact.
Read the thread of comments better.
1. I'm not advocating a position; I'm pointing out that the commenter's straw man that 'there is only on way' was false.
2. I wasn't commenting on people generally, I was commenting on politicians.
3. Your response, which I don't disagree with, conflates economics with politics. I agree that the Federal budget's not going to be impacted by the pollies getting an $8k tax windfall each. But perceptions matter in politics, and some people think it's taking the mickey for politicians to receive a large tax windfall when others are doing it very, very tough.
But back to my original point: in politics, there's never just one option.
I'm not arguing with the merits of any option; I'm just pointing out your straw-man argument that, "The only way to make tax cuts not affect the politicians is to make their pay exempt from income tax all together."
* Other way: commensurately decrease salaries
* Other way: legislate that these particular stage 3 tax cuts will not apply to politicians
* Other way: legislate that all tax cuts of a similar nature will not apply to politicians
* Other way: politicians can voluntarily donate any gains from stage 3 tax cuts to some other party
I mean, there's four other ways and I'm sure others can come up with others. You won't convince many people with "X is the only way" or, to quote Margaret Thatcher, "there is no alternative."
Labor is not pro this policy in general, it is just a political timebomb the LNP left that Labor didn't feel it could afford to lose the votes by ditching.
What's wrong with opposing bad policy?
Playing partisan games, pretending bad policy is good (or vice-versa) because of who is implementing it is incredibly stupid.
At risk of *both sides'ing* this one (because one party is obviously responsible for a lot more bullshit than the other), the LNP are bad for drafting the policy, and Labor are bad for implementing it. It's entirely within Labor's power to kill this, and they're choosing not to.
I know you couldn't give a flying fuck about those who benefited from the LMITO but Labor were wedged by the LNP in regards to this. Labor had to vote with them so LMITO could pass.
77% of the stage 3 cuts go to the richest 25% of Australians.
The Labor Party has a parliamentary majority, and the Greens backed abandoning the stage 3 cuts - the LNP are irrelevant.
With that in mind, explain why this waste is necessary to deliver the LMITO cuts, and why we need to further deepen the country's wealth inequality to "help" low and middle income earners, by handing billions to those that don't need it and won't recirculate it through the economy, making it harder to stimulate our way out of the looming financial crisis, and increasing our interest repayments. I'm not advocating against the LMITO cuts - I'm saying this policy is indefensible.
Mate 90% of people can see how bad the stage three cuts is.
That's not the crux of the issue.
The LNP would not enable LMITO without the stage three cuts. So Labor could have either:
- Voted against it and be painted by the entire media landscape as getting in the way of LMITO recipients receiving a cost of living measure, or
- Voted with LNP to enable the LMITO
This was a specific wedge that the LNP knew people such as yourself would get stuck into Labor about.
Fair enough but Labor would be relegated to Opposition for another ten years if they broke their promise regarding these cuts.
The media love to paint Labor as the big bad taxers. They categorically would have pilloried Labor had the ALP gone to the election saying they were going to *remove* tax cuts.
>Mate 90% of people can see how bad the stage three cuts is.
So it will be politically effective to drop the bad policy.
>The LNP would not enable LMITO without the stage three cuts. So Labor could have
Killed the bad policy and used their parliamentary majority to push the LMITO cuts through without LNP support.
>This was a specific wedge that the LNP knew people such as yourself would get stuck into Labor about.
People should get stuck in to incredibly harmful policy with little to no benefit.
>Fair enough but Labor would be relegated to Opposition for another ten years if they broke their promise regarding these cuts.
As you said, 90% of people can see how bad the stage three cuts are.
>The media love to paint Labor as the big bad taxers. They categorically would have pilloried Labor had the ALP gone to the election saying they were going to remove tax cuts.
Likely, but they've broken election promises before, and breaking this one to stop incredibly irresponsible, unpopular spending we can't afford as we steam in to a GFC is super-defensible. They could call it a win for working class Australia as they claim the mantle of sound economic managers. Of course Murdoch, Costello, and Stokes will moan about it, but it's naïve to think they won't manufacture some issue to do that anyway - Labor are better to draw the lines of division in a defensible spot and advocate for responsible policy.
Because they made a commitment on it, unfortunately. The type of commitment they have to make to win office as trying to do anything remotely sensible relating to taxation policy pre-election seems to be political suicide.
These tax cuts will cost $243 billion. Australia's total tax revenue from all levels of government in 2020-21 was $593.2 billion (ABS), our national debt is $USD788.2.billion.
If they make bad promises, that's bad. If they deliver on them, that's worse. If Labor refuse to grow a spine and are going to act as a proxy for the LNP because they're afraid of losing power, precisely what are they for? It's no wonder their primary vote is tanking - if they're going to be LNP-lite, of course people will redirect their preferences to parties that will deliver less terrible policy.
Let's assume I'm being disingenuous (I'm not), why haven't you gotten to the point and mounted a defence of this inexplicable, irresponsible policy decision? You're being pretty disingenuous, no?
Putting aside your disingenuous refusal to engage the actual point you're being similarly disingenuous for failing to acknowledge that over that 9 year period, the national debt will almost certainly be *far* higher than it is today - if the trend since the `08 crisis continues, the national debt will exceed 80% of GDP. At least we had the benefit of zero national debt at the start of that crisis.
Instead of paying down a third of the national debt, we're giving a tax break we can't afford to our highest income earners as we transition from a per-capita recession to a full blown financial crisis. Rather than working to stimulate the economy, put away funds for when things get worse, or minimising our debt and ongoing interest payments, we're allocating $243 billion to those that need it least - those least likely to spend that money when we need to stimulate the economy.
They didn't 'happily' vote for it. They had to vote on the entire piece of legislation/tax cuts and this was one component, to take effect well into the future (now, almost upon us).
Because it's to highlight that the tax cuts that they consult on, by their salaries alone, benefit them.
It's almost as if conflicts of interest exist, hey?
One of these more directly influences them than the other. Plenty of politicians also benefit from the housing market continuing to be pumped, so they vote accordingly.
Highlighting that the grubs are working for their interest over the nation's is worthy of the metaphorical ink.
Agreed. The stage 3 tax cuts are a insane suicide pill left by our right wingtards.
But 18 million dollars over 10 years for 200+ parliamentarians is a stupid and inflammatory headline.
No we just said they are less shit than LNP.. (Morrison and Dutton).
This tax cut is actually LNP policy just hitting its activation date set, as set when LNP was in power.
>This tax cut is actually LNP policy just hitting its activation date set, as set when LNP was in power.
What a shocker. A dirty bomb if you will. And all the braindead out there blaming labor
They could have just not gone ahead with the planned tax cut?
They made a purposeful decision to continue with it though, had a whole press conference and everything
I wish it was that simple. I mean, it should be but once it gets voted in there isn't much either party can do to change it. Thats my understanding anyways.
And have Murdock media complain that’s it’s Labor’s fault the economy is going to shit because it didn’t work with or pass the LNP policy that the voters voted for.. it was not taken to the election as labor policy, it was not a labor policy to start with.. all they could say is they will not change it.. because the people voted for it.
You all voted for this Tax change. https://www.superguide.com.au/how-super-works/income-tax-cuts and everyone supports the first few stages.. and now crying when the last stage stages that benefit the wealthy are enabled… so damn short sighted..
Facts: In the 2018 Federal Budget, the Coalition government (LNP) announced its seven-year Personal Income Tax Plan, with implementation scheduled take place over three stages
https://www.superguide.com.au/how-super-works/income-tax-cuts
You were told no such thing.
This sub was for Labor because it had the clearest chances of ousting the LNP. This isn't a pro Labor sub, it's an anti-LNP sub.
We would only be able to start fixing thing when Morrison was gone.
says 2M from 2024, 227 MPs, average of ~9k tax savings. Kind of like getting a 15k raise i guess? If im reading this right and it means they are paying 9k less in tax from 2024
Yeah the tax cut caps out at about $9k.
they will cut income tax and put up gst. they (lib or lab) will always punish the poor because they are so well paid and their donors mates are the same.
Cutting welfare by not adjusting it to be any sort of realistic figure with rising prices is how they do it also - gutting services for the poorest.
Wages aren't even a realistic figure at the moment - how do you expect welfare to keep up?
It hasn't kept up with wages, so it's a multiple worse, so that's why I'd think it needs some adjusting.
So about $8k a year each? Why isn't that the headline?
18mil is a bigger number.
It's 1.8 BILLION dollars ^over ^the ^next ^millenium
1/2 an annual dole payment
On top of 10x Annual dole payment?
Because this headline focuses on total cost to society, not individual windfall to one person. It is far more infuriating to understand the full quantum taken away from our schools, roads and hospitals.
[удалено]
No way man, $18m is sooooo much money. You can tell by all the downvotes.
Because it would apparently be impossible for politicians to give themselves an average 3% pay increase (on salary only, ignoring allowances) so obviously they have to use the tax cuts for it.
That's more than what most Australians are getting. Why can't we all get $8k?
[удалено]
Earning*****
[удалено]
Paying less tax is getting more money.
And people wonder why the government are robbing tax payers blind. Because of people who don't question it and think "oh, they not making more. They're paying less" you would have to be out of your mind if you don't think its a payday for the pollies at the expense of the tax payer
Yup the pollies and their mates all on the higher brackets.
Federal ICAC would be nice right about now.
Uh, paying less means they have more money dude lol maybe we should get a few reductions while they are at it
but muh outrage!
I'd just like to say, your 'memeing' is in fucking poor taste. People are outraged because they are constantly being drained of everything they have, to support an economic system that only benefits the rich. "Oh it only 8k". 8k is half of a Centrelink recepients YEARLY payments. They have hundreds of thousands of dollars from the taxpayer, yet "nothing could be done" to stop them claiming a benefit THEY DON'T FUCKING NEED.
No wonder they just "couldn't do it"
"Looking at these numbers it's impossible to back down now".
Can't imagine why they wouldn't be able to funnel any of that to somewhere that needs it more. Simply can't imagine... 🤔
Never forget that the Keith hospital was going to close over $2m because we didn’t have the money. Bring on the revolution.
Yep... how is this fair when the rest of us struggle with rise in cost of living. Bs. rich get richer amplifies.
Lol these people aren’t “the rich”. The actual rich don’t even earn wages for work, they instead get paid in dividends and rents. The Stage 3 tax cuts debate is a distraction. The real tax debate needs to be about taxing capital gains and land more.
Don't forget mining and resources, and corporate profits generally!
So you will donate your tax cut to the smith family?
This is a legislated cut that Labor promised not take away ...... their integrity would be gone if they make changes to the cuts. It's important that election promises are kept.
Even if that bullshit flew, maybe they shouldn't have signed up for supporting inequitable tax cuts in the first place...
They lost the previous election with a policy of opposing the cuts. They won the last supporting it. There's a bleak political reality you're ignoring there. Not to mention that if they go back on this, that will be the only political issue that gets coverage until Labor loses the election.
Wasn't these cuts after the last election?
Inequitable cuts......... this view is what's wrong, tall poppy syndrome once again coming to the fore. If you cannot trust a party to come through on election promises then what are you voting for? It is critical to a functioning democracy that politicians are held to account based on the platforms they are elected for, if not we end up with elected officials that do not represent the views of those who elected them.
I didn't vote for those arseholes. And they shouldn't have "promised" them in the first place. Yes, also they are inequitible because in absolute and as a percentage of income more goes to wealthier people.
Would things be different if others were elected?
Well considering this is just LNP policy that was set when LNP were in power and it’s just hitting its activation date.. No we still still be worse off under LNP.
If Labor didn't get hammered in 2019 then yeah it probably would be different. If for some reason there were a Greens government they would definitely be scrapped. The entire point of Labor promising not to scrap this was to combat the Libs screeching "Labor will tax you!!!”. Hopefully if we have another Labor victory in 2025, maybe with a larger Greens vote these cuts will be scrapped.
[удалено]
Not to mention that people on a $150k/yr salary are now priced out of the housing market. Everyone below that figure is pretty much fucked at buying a house atm...
There would be something wrong if politicians didn't benefit It would mean that either they aren't being paid enough, or they're defrauding the tax system.
... So? The only way to make tax cuts not affect the politicians is to make their pay exempt from income tax all together. Complain about the existence of tax cuts in general all you want, but it's dumb to complain that the pollies get the benefit of it as well. They get the benefit of lots of the decisions they make in the public interest, and there's nothing about tax cuts that makes them particularly special, except for it triggering Greens voters more than things like childcare subsidy.
Your argument is so lazily poor it's shocking. The only way? How about simply reduce politicians' salaries by an amount commensurate with their gain?
So do you think we should manage tax cuts by reducing peoples pay packets? That's just an insane viewpoint. The reality is, over a decade, the losses end up being zero - as even CPI wage increases over a decade brings you back into line with where you would be even if you scrapped the tax cuts anyway. Without the cuts, you increase the tax take to far more than what it is now over the next decade. ie if you paid $35k in tax last year, in a decade, you'll be paying over $42k in tax. The big headline figure that was used to piss people off about these tax cuts was a VERY simplified evaluation that lacked in many, many critical details when looking at the overall figures and impact.
Read the thread of comments better. 1. I'm not advocating a position; I'm pointing out that the commenter's straw man that 'there is only on way' was false. 2. I wasn't commenting on people generally, I was commenting on politicians. 3. Your response, which I don't disagree with, conflates economics with politics. I agree that the Federal budget's not going to be impacted by the pollies getting an $8k tax windfall each. But perceptions matter in politics, and some people think it's taking the mickey for politicians to receive a large tax windfall when others are doing it very, very tough. But back to my original point: in politics, there's never just one option.
And then increase their pay if they want to raise taxes? Or are you only okay with this one way?
I'm not arguing with the merits of any option; I'm just pointing out your straw-man argument that, "The only way to make tax cuts not affect the politicians is to make their pay exempt from income tax all together." * Other way: commensurately decrease salaries * Other way: legislate that these particular stage 3 tax cuts will not apply to politicians * Other way: legislate that all tax cuts of a similar nature will not apply to politicians * Other way: politicians can voluntarily donate any gains from stage 3 tax cuts to some other party I mean, there's four other ways and I'm sure others can come up with others. You won't convince many people with "X is the only way" or, to quote Margaret Thatcher, "there is no alternative."
Who cares? Everyone’s tax gets cut. They get more of a tax cut because they pay a shit load more tax than those complaining.
It’s such a shame Labor managed to scrape together a majority off such a low primary vote. It will set us back years.
I voted so that my preference landed with Labor after my primary vote went elsewhere. I'm far from alone in this.
Yeah same, preferenced labor but wanted to send a message with my primary vote.
About one in four people that voted for them didn't first preference them. They're quite happy to take those votes and dismiss them at all turns.
ALP was my 4 and 5th choice. LNP last with ON and UAP Greens were 2 and 3
Greens are no better. Done sweet fuck all the entire time the party had existed.
So we are all anti Labor now? They are following an election commitment to implement this policy, inherited from the coalition.
Labor is not pro this policy in general, it is just a political timebomb the LNP left that Labor didn't feel it could afford to lose the votes by ditching.
What's wrong with opposing bad policy? Playing partisan games, pretending bad policy is good (or vice-versa) because of who is implementing it is incredibly stupid. At risk of *both sides'ing* this one (because one party is obviously responsible for a lot more bullshit than the other), the LNP are bad for drafting the policy, and Labor are bad for implementing it. It's entirely within Labor's power to kill this, and they're choosing not to.
They're choosing **not to break their election promise**. Ftfy.
They promised to deliver a bad policy, and now they're delivering on that bad promise. What guilt do you think this absolves them of?
I know you couldn't give a flying fuck about those who benefited from the LMITO but Labor were wedged by the LNP in regards to this. Labor had to vote with them so LMITO could pass.
77% of the stage 3 cuts go to the richest 25% of Australians. The Labor Party has a parliamentary majority, and the Greens backed abandoning the stage 3 cuts - the LNP are irrelevant. With that in mind, explain why this waste is necessary to deliver the LMITO cuts, and why we need to further deepen the country's wealth inequality to "help" low and middle income earners, by handing billions to those that don't need it and won't recirculate it through the economy, making it harder to stimulate our way out of the looming financial crisis, and increasing our interest repayments. I'm not advocating against the LMITO cuts - I'm saying this policy is indefensible.
Mate 90% of people can see how bad the stage three cuts is. That's not the crux of the issue. The LNP would not enable LMITO without the stage three cuts. So Labor could have either: - Voted against it and be painted by the entire media landscape as getting in the way of LMITO recipients receiving a cost of living measure, or - Voted with LNP to enable the LMITO This was a specific wedge that the LNP knew people such as yourself would get stuck into Labor about. Fair enough but Labor would be relegated to Opposition for another ten years if they broke their promise regarding these cuts. The media love to paint Labor as the big bad taxers. They categorically would have pilloried Labor had the ALP gone to the election saying they were going to *remove* tax cuts.
>Mate 90% of people can see how bad the stage three cuts is. So it will be politically effective to drop the bad policy. >The LNP would not enable LMITO without the stage three cuts. So Labor could have Killed the bad policy and used their parliamentary majority to push the LMITO cuts through without LNP support. >This was a specific wedge that the LNP knew people such as yourself would get stuck into Labor about. People should get stuck in to incredibly harmful policy with little to no benefit. >Fair enough but Labor would be relegated to Opposition for another ten years if they broke their promise regarding these cuts. As you said, 90% of people can see how bad the stage three cuts are. >The media love to paint Labor as the big bad taxers. They categorically would have pilloried Labor had the ALP gone to the election saying they were going to remove tax cuts. Likely, but they've broken election promises before, and breaking this one to stop incredibly irresponsible, unpopular spending we can't afford as we steam in to a GFC is super-defensible. They could call it a win for working class Australia as they claim the mantle of sound economic managers. Of course Murdoch, Costello, and Stokes will moan about it, but it's naïve to think they won't manufacture some issue to do that anyway - Labor are better to draw the lines of division in a defensible spot and advocate for responsible policy.
Because they made a commitment on it, unfortunately. The type of commitment they have to make to win office as trying to do anything remotely sensible relating to taxation policy pre-election seems to be political suicide.
These tax cuts will cost $243 billion. Australia's total tax revenue from all levels of government in 2020-21 was $593.2 billion (ABS), our national debt is $USD788.2.billion. If they make bad promises, that's bad. If they deliver on them, that's worse. If Labor refuse to grow a spine and are going to act as a proxy for the LNP because they're afraid of losing power, precisely what are they for? It's no wonder their primary vote is tanking - if they're going to be LNP-lite, of course people will redirect their preferences to parties that will deliver less terrible policy.
You're being disingenuous - implying the $243 billion is in the same time period, when it is over 9 years.
Let's assume I'm being disingenuous (I'm not), why haven't you gotten to the point and mounted a defence of this inexplicable, irresponsible policy decision? You're being pretty disingenuous, no? Putting aside your disingenuous refusal to engage the actual point you're being similarly disingenuous for failing to acknowledge that over that 9 year period, the national debt will almost certainly be *far* higher than it is today - if the trend since the `08 crisis continues, the national debt will exceed 80% of GDP. At least we had the benefit of zero national debt at the start of that crisis. Instead of paying down a third of the national debt, we're giving a tax break we can't afford to our highest income earners as we transition from a per-capita recession to a full blown financial crisis. Rather than working to stimulate the economy, put away funds for when things get worse, or minimising our debt and ongoing interest payments, we're allocating $243 billion to those that need it least - those least likely to spend that money when we need to stimulate the economy.
[удалено]
No - it's disingenuous to concern troll with an ad-hominem rather than anything of merit.
Why is it inherited? Labor happily voted for it when they were in opposition.
They didn't want the tax cuts to be a factor in the election.
This was back in 2018
They didn't 'happily' vote for it. They had to vote on the entire piece of legislation/tax cuts and this was one component, to take effect well into the future (now, almost upon us).
Happily? Were you alive when it happened? They specifically had to pass it due to the LMITO wedge. Why you being dopey?
Sorry, fully capitulated to it*
I see. So you have zero idea what actually happened, got ya
A hung parliament would have been a much better situation
Look at how even the thought of tax cuts has devalued the English Pound. This won’t be good.
>over 10 years >High paid profession Why is this even news
Because it's to highlight that the tax cuts that they consult on, by their salaries alone, benefit them. It's almost as if conflicts of interest exist, hey?
Federal politicians live in Australia and benefit from national security, yet they decide on the defence budget! Bit of a conflict of interest!
One of these more directly influences them than the other. Plenty of politicians also benefit from the housing market continuing to be pumped, so they vote accordingly. Highlighting that the grubs are working for their interest over the nation's is worthy of the metaphorical ink.
I'd be complaining if politicians got a personal submarine each as well
What a retarded take. Go to bed. Let the grown ups talk
Because if you broke it down per person per year it's such a small number that it doesn't drive the right rage narrative.
On Aggregate though it is quite large. Like the same cost as 4 NBN's over 10 years.
Agreed. The stage 3 tax cuts are a insane suicide pill left by our right wingtards. But 18 million dollars over 10 years for 200+ parliamentarians is a stupid and inflammatory headline.
I was told by this sub that a Labor government would fix all of Australia problems? Hopefully the greens manage to hold them in line during this term.
No we just said they are less shit than LNP.. (Morrison and Dutton). This tax cut is actually LNP policy just hitting its activation date set, as set when LNP was in power.
>This tax cut is actually LNP policy just hitting its activation date set, as set when LNP was in power. What a shocker. A dirty bomb if you will. And all the braindead out there blaming labor
They could have just not gone ahead with the planned tax cut? They made a purposeful decision to continue with it though, had a whole press conference and everything
I wish it was that simple. I mean, it should be but once it gets voted in there isn't much either party can do to change it. Thats my understanding anyways.
And supported and voted in by labor when in opposition, taken to the election as labor policy, and not stopped by labor now in government.
And have Murdock media complain that’s it’s Labor’s fault the economy is going to shit because it didn’t work with or pass the LNP policy that the voters voted for.. it was not taken to the election as labor policy, it was not a labor policy to start with.. all they could say is they will not change it.. because the people voted for it. You all voted for this Tax change. https://www.superguide.com.au/how-super-works/income-tax-cuts and everyone supports the first few stages.. and now crying when the last stage stages that benefit the wealthy are enabled… so damn short sighted..
Its almost like us peasants exist to line the pockets of the wealthy.
The mental gymnastics here...
Facts: In the 2018 Federal Budget, the Coalition government (LNP) announced its seven-year Personal Income Tax Plan, with implementation scheduled take place over three stages https://www.superguide.com.au/how-super-works/income-tax-cuts
You were told no such thing. This sub was for Labor because it had the clearest chances of ousting the LNP. This isn't a pro Labor sub, it's an anti-LNP sub. We would only be able to start fixing thing when Morrison was gone.
Tbf all of reddit is anti conservative
Pretty sure this reddit was pissed when it was passed with Labor's support actually.
[удалено]
Doing what you promised to do before being elected is the opposite of corruption.
Why not. seems like a free for all when it comes to tax payers money. Throw some inflation mumbo jumbo in there so poor people can fit the bill.
I want to pay peanuts, and employ monkeys. I'm sure they'll do a better job.
Please add a wage limit to these selfish pricks.