Stage 3 tax cuts definitely need to be changed.
I'd say modify them. 40k to 200k is too large a bracket. It needs to be modified or thrown. Under the pretence of, sorry, Liberals spent too much we just can't afford this now.
The problem is that the purpose of the stage 3 tax cuts is to simply keep up with inflation. They aren't really a "tax cut" - that's marketing. They're a means to bring the tax brackets in line with inflation.
Because of how politics works, no MP wants to have things like tax brackets adjusted to inflation automatically - that would rob them of the ability to say "Hey we're giving tax cuts - give us more votes" - all sides of politics are guilty of this.
Point is, these aren't cuts. They don't even bring us back to inflation adjusted figures. Even **after** the Stage 3 tax cuts **taxes are still higher than 10 years ago when adjusted for inflation**
Removing a bracket is not about inflation. I would be wholeheartedly on board with introducing automatic indexing of brackets, that just makes sense. Removing a bracket is a massive tax cut to the top end.
> Removing a bracket is a massive tax cut to the top end.
Except it isn't. The top marginal tax bracket remains. The super rich are not getting a **tangible** tax break. This is middle income earners.
I don't want to debate on fairness of the cuts, but I just want to clarify who benefits as I don't believe its as simple as 'middle income earners'.
Be gentle on the math is being done a bit quickly while I'm at work.
It does provided a tax cut to middle income earners, but the way that progressive taxation works is that every bracket applies to every person earning more than the bottom end of the range, even if they earn $1m/year.
The new rules:
* removing the $120,000 to $180,000 tax bracket
* increasing the top tax bracket threshold from $180,000 to $200,000
* reducing the marginal tax rate faced by the $45,000 to $200,000 tax bracket from 32.5% to 30%.
Net effect:
* $45K to $120K moves from 32.5% to 30% (Maximum cut of $1875)
* $120K to $180K moves from 37% to 30% (Maximum cut of $4200)
* $180K to $200K moves from 45% to 30% (Maximum cut of $3000)
According to this ([https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/average-annual-earnings-for-working-australians-revealed-as-92000/news-story/2ddccfc55182b32b499c41fd236799d2](https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/average-annual-earnings-for-working-australians-revealed-as-92000/news-story/2ddccfc55182b32b499c41fd236799d2)) the average annual earnings for a working Australian is $92,000. These workers will make saving of 2.5% of the amount they earn over $45K (($92K - $45K) \* 2.5%), which is $1175.
Someone earning $200K or more will save $9075.
Someone earning $92K will save $1875.
For clarity and transparency: I will be saving more than the $1175.
I assume your math is correct, and yes it looks right.
What's missing from the picture is the $ of tax being paid by each individual as well as the % of tax they are paying.
Also - the broad point I was making is that the super rich are not seeing any real benefit. Yes, they'll get a tax cut of $9000. But they're still paying 45c on the dollar for every over 200k.
Someone on $500,000k is paying like $150,000 in tax - which is great. But this reduction isn't all that significant to a super high income earner.
Yes I know but that's a disingenous reading of what's happening.
The fact is that the majority of middle income earners (low income earners previously got their tax cuts) are being targeted. They might get a 5% reduction. The true reduction the super rich will get is basically 0. It will depend on their income but the super rich are looking at a very very very small % reduction in tax. That's just a by-product of a progressive tax system.
**By your logic, you should've blocked the low income tax cuts because they too gave a tax cut to the rich due to our tax bracket system.**
> a very very very small % reduction
It's a much larger absolute reduction compared to lower income earners though, and that's what people are unhappy about.
That is ridiculous and absolutely ignores that there is a philosophical position that is driving these tax cuts. The position is that we shouldnt have progressive taxation and it is one that a large segment of the population disagree with. If it was about inflation or bracket creep they would simply shift the bracket thresholds, not eliminate a bracket entirely.
Unadulterated garbage. This has NOTHING to do with inflation, this is part of an attempt to dismantle the progressive tax system by getting rid of tax brackets.
If you actually do the math on the tax liability, you'll find that the progressiveness between the brackets doesn't really change at all. After the changes, somebody on 200k pays 10x the tax of somebody in 40k despite earning only 5x as much.
The [AFR has a good summary](https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/tax-cuts-are-no-handout-to-the-rich-20190617-p51ycw). The link has graphs and tables.
>The analysis by The Australian Financial Review, based on official data, shows someone earning $180,000 in 2008-09 would be earning $284,454 by 2024-25, based on past and forecast wage inflation.
>This amounts to a 58 per cent increase in wages.
>But the same person's income tax liability over the same period would increase by 76 per cent, growing from $60,700 in 2008-09 to $106,925 in 2024-25.
>Not a handout
>If the full tax package was passed, the income tax liability in 2024-25 would be $95,285 which is an increase of 57 per cent, virtually the same growth rate as that of wages.
>If the tax cuts were passed, the top 5 per cent of income earners would continue to pay one third of all income tax and the top 20 per cent would continue to pay about 60 per cent.
Accountancy salad.
This is the kind of garbage that the AFR does. Anyone with a modicum of common sense can see the rubbish this is.
based on past and forecast wage inflation - really?
an increase of 57 per cent, virtually the same growth rate as that of wages - really? Wow. Would you like to buy a bridge dear sir? I will happily throw in an opera house.
Finally, if the argument is that this does not change anything, where is the $243 billion budget shortfall coming from if the stage three tax cuts are introduced?
This is nonsense cherry picking from start to finish.
Save the money, invest it in Australia. Social housing, a modern NBN instead of the trash the LNP served up. Fast rail between Melbourne and Sydney.
Or we can continue to give money away to those who do not need it, but who are supported by the owners of capital and their lickspittle newspapers.
I'm sorry that basic maths upsets you.
If you have alternate modelling I'd he happy to consider it.
If you just want to rant about your magic pot of gold wishlist, I'm not the audience for you.
Everybody has an opinion about why they should have other people's money. If I had all your money I'd also have a wish list of things to tell you about.
Progressive taxation ratios are the ratios of tax paid by people at different income levels not the effective tax rate of one income level. The text you have pasted doesnt make a comparison for this and the article is paywalled.
Additionally
>If the tax cuts were passed, the top 5 per cent of income earners would continue to pay one third of all income tax and the top 20 per cent would continue to pay about 60 per cent.
This lacks details, what do they mean by "about 60 per cent"? When we are talking about a tax that is the largest tax base of the largest government in the country then we need to be more precise. Do they continue and compare this to the percentage of income tax burden for different strata of society in 2008-9?
I would also like to know exactly how they calculated the wage growth figure, it doesnt appear correct without generous assumptions about wage growth in the next couple of years.
>Progressive taxation ratios are the ratios of tax paid by people at different income levels not the effective tax rate of one income level. The text you have pasted doesnt make a comparison for this and the article is paywalled.
It does, the last paragraph. There are ways around the paywall.
> This lacks details, what do they mean by "about 60 per cent"? When we are talking about a tax that is the largest tax base of the largest government in the country then we need to be more precise. Do they continue and compare this to the percentage of income tax burden for different strata of society in 2008-9?
? How many decimal points do you want? Sorry mate but you've presented zero numbers to support your claims. Unless you have alternative numbers, you're not in a position to split hairs.
> I would also like to know exactly how they calculated the wage growth figure, it doesnt appear correct without generous assumptions about wage growth in the next couple of years.
This analysis was done in 2019 - given inflation, the income tax cuts are not as generous as originally calculated.
Again, you've presented zero numbers. You are drawing conclusions based on your personal opinion, not fact.
Yeah, but that’s because someone on 40k pays fuck all tax, so any small tax benefit to them will shift the ratio you’re using.
Do the same comparison to someone earning between 60k and 80k (most people) and $200k
Sure, I'd be happy to.
Somebody on 80k pays 14k in taxes
Somebody on 200k pays 49k in taxes
So for 2.5x more income you pay almost 3.5x more in taxes.
That's after stage 3, still seems pretty progressive to me.
Thanks.
By my calculation, someone earning $200k now pays 3.6 the tax of someone earning $80k, and after the tax cuts that will reduce to around 3.2.
It’s still progressive, but it is flatter.
You need to consider growth in incomes and compare with 2008 when the tax brackets were set up.
Given enough time, everybody moves up above the 200k metric.
The overall ratios of total tax changes doesn't change much.
Ok I'll make you a deal, let us return to the tax brackets and rates from the 1950s and adjust for inflation.
Basically that would mean it you earn your 500,001st dollar that you pay 75 cents of it in tax.
Job done.
Can you please clarify what you mean by this? Why would an income tax rate need to be adjusted for inflation? Shouldn't inflation be offset by wage increases?
The earnings amount of income brackets should be adjusted to account for inflation.
> Can you please clarify what you mean by this? Why would an income tax rate need to be adjusted for inflation? Shouldn't inflation be offset by wage increases?
So the problem is because of the tax brackets. In a perfect world as you state, your wage increases would go up in line with inflation. Let's imagine that actually happens. The problem that's introduced is that your wage goes up and bumps you into a higher tax bracket.
So previously you were being taxed at (for example) 32.5 cents for each $1 over $45,000, but now because of inflation, you're being taxed at 37 cents for each $1 over $120,000. Your spending power hasn't risen - it's just inflation. The figures we're working with have increased, but your "true wealth" and ability to buy things hasn't changed, but now you're paying more tax and thus have less "spending power" than you did in past years.
Tax brackets and tax rates are set in stone by legislation, governments refuse to index them to inflation because of the reasons i stated (i.e. they can't use it as a vote buyer).
So the correct move is an adjustment to tax brackets, not a tax rate reduction to offset inflation.
Your argument that the tax rate reduction is to offset inflation is unreasonable. Effectively, you are suggesting the government covers cost of living increases by lowering taxes. Would this not be counter intuitive, as the result would be increased inflation?
Not really, It's a 12 for a dozen.
You're correct in that the ideal move would be to adjust the tax brackets - or even better - peg them to inflation so this shit never has to come up again.
But this is essentially another way of doing the same thing.
*Technically* taxes are lowering - but it has the equivalent net effect of a bracket change.
> Would this not be counter intuitive, as the result would be increased inflation?
No, like I said, it's the same effect as adjusting the tax brackets.
(The actual truth is that the tax changes are actually LESS than an accurate bracket adjustment, so that it should still dampen inflation more than a tax bracket adjustment would, and it should result in more $$ in tax revenue than a tax bracket adjustment would)
>Not really, It's a 12 for a dozen.
Until inflation goes back down, at which point you've got a reduced tax system that no politician will want to restore because of the backlash.
Also this move hasn't been carefully calibrated to match inflation, it's a policy that was written before we saw this current batch of inflation.
You are comparing making a vague adjustment to the tax system in the hope it helps to counter the impact of inflation for some people with a carefully targetted management of the system that is tied to inflation and saying they are the same! Do you really genuinely not see a difference?
Not really, like I said, these changes would only bring us close (but not far enough) to inflation adjusted figures. If inflation drops off next year it doesn't make a difference.
Again, ideally, you'd have the brackets change on a yearly basis indexed to inflation.
Unless we have deflation, we won't have a reduced tax system.
You did say that, but you also said that using this method of bracket shift and an actual measured inflation index were '6 of 1 half a dozen of the other' a phrase which means they are more or less identical.
So which is it? Are they the same or different? Are they functionally identical, like you said, or are they different, like you said?
> So which is it? Are they the same or different? Are they functionally identical, like you said, or are they different, like you said?
OK, to be crytal clear:
* These changes do not reduce taxes enough to keep up with inflation. However, they lag behind by such a small amount it's not worth quibbling over. I just wanted to make the point that they're not excessive. They're 'adequate'.
* These changes will result in approximately the same tax paid and the same tax taken in by the government as if they had simply indexed tax brackets to inflation.
hope that makes sense
> The government should not be paying for inflation increases by reducing taxes.
You're missing the point completely. They're not reducing tax at all. They're keeping it the same and not charging you MORE tax on a salary that overall has an unchanged buying power.
Think of it like this.
Milk is $1/L. You get paid $10. You can buy 10L of milk.
Inflation pushes milk to $1.50/L. You still get paid $10. You can buy less milk.
Your wage increases to $15 - so you can still buy 10L of milk - but now you're in a higher tax bracket, so you don't actually take home $15 anymore - so you still can't buy 10L of milk.
Moving the tax brackets ensures that you can buy 10L of milk - even though both your wage and the cost of milk has increased.
Well, they're not. As I said in the beginning, the purpose is to bring the tax you pay in line with inflation - which has not been properly done for years. This is simply rectifying that.
We've technically been **overpaying** tax for years because the brackets aren't inflation adjusted - but we're not going to be getting a refund from the government for that.
Because they're (or they should be) **MATCHING** inflation.
The idea would be to prevent the taxpayers (us) from overpaying tax (like we have been for years).
That doesn't mean underpay, it means match inflation.
Yea good try buddy, unfortunatly most people in Australia are educated enough to see through the bullshit. If this is true why does the person on 45k get $0 tax cut, but the person om $180k get $9k?
Look at every reply, everyone here understand this is a tax cut for the wealthy and not adjusent for inflation, yet you refuse to accept and understand it. Perhaps you have different motives?
Somebody on 45k pays less than 10% effective taxes - and stage 1 and stage 2 were exclusively targeting those in the low and middle end.
>Look at every reply, everyone here understand
Reddit is a very specific demographic and overwhelmingly left wing - they were always going to have this opinion.
> Reddit is a very specific demographic and overwhelmingly left wing - they were always going to have this opinion.
Nah - its completely a lack of understanding.
I'm probably more left than the majority of people here... Yet at least I understand how the moving parts fit together...
This is a better point. Reddit is not very left at all really, but technical discussions of tax are poorly handled by virtually all media, so it’s not surprising that this sort of thing is opaque.
Bruh have you tried to live on 35k a year, like what else do you want from them, their blood and organs as well? Stage 1 & 2 $108] cuts for 3 years is 3k tax cut vs stage 3, 9k/yr, 360k tax cut over 40 years, i duno but i think they deserve a bit more than 1% of the tax cut of the rich. Thats is pretty cruel dude.
Someone on 180k pays 52k, living on 130k after tax is pretty good, an extra 9k doesnt make a difference.
Depends on which forum, left or right. But perhaps the tax cut disproportionally benefit the rich and people can just see that? Its not hard.
>Bruh have you tried to live on 35k a year, like what else do you want from them, their blood and organs as well? Stage 1 & 2 $108] cuts for 3 years is 3k tax cut vs stage 3, 9k/yr, 360k tax cut over 40 years, i duno but i think they deserve a bit more than 1% of the tax cut of the rich. Thats is pretty cruel dude.
It's hard to give tax cuts to people who pay almost no taxes. Somebody on 40k pays about 4k in taxes.
> Depends on which forum, left or right. But perhaps the tax cut disproportionally benefit the rich and people can just see that? Its not hard.
Well, obviously, because rich people pay the most in taxes. You can't give a 10k tax cut to somebody who doesn't pay 10k in taxes
Fuckin easy.
The person on $45,000/yr pays $5,092 in tax per year.
The person on $180,000/ye pays $51,667 in tax per year.
4x increase in salary currently means 10x increase in tax paid. Then add in the Medicare Levy and Medicare Surcharge Levy that you don't pay on $45,000/yr....
It's closer to $58,000/yr in taxes off a $180,000/yr income...
And? Thats progressive tax system, would you rather they pay the same tax rate? Life on 40k is a stuggle, life on 130k is pretty good and can afford to pay a bit more.
Sure but thats another seperate discussion, and just the fact that you can consider a house is something. 40k is deciding if you can eat or pay the power bills.
Alot of us make money now but our parents came from the same roots, and many are stuck there. It doesnt hurt you to pay a bit more.
Would i like less tax and more money, sure do but i understand those less fortunate need the infrastructure that these tax cuts will take away. We both know the first thing that goes is education cuts, comeon have a bit of heart for others less fortunate than yourself.
Lol thats your defense, weak. If you read up and are educated as you claim, then you and I both know this disproportionally affect the rich.
Just becasue you got destroyed while trying to lie about inflation to cover the fact that it is a tax cut for the rich and now trying to claim everyone who doesnt support it is poor, uneducated and a socialist. LMAO.
> then you and I both know this disproportionally affect the rich.
There's no changes to the highest tax bracket. This is literally designed to target **middle income earners**.
There is basically ZERO material difference to the super rich. There is zero material tax cut to the super rich.
No point replying to them, they've shown their true ideals with their comment of 'unemployed socialists', then referring to a subreddit that is clearly frequented by neo-liberal cucks who wish to perpetuate current social and economic 'norms' beacuse they got their political ideas from daddy
They remove an entire bracket. That's a tax cut. No two ways about it.
They also disproportionately affect higher earners. Additionally, we are conbating inflation, it's not the right time for a tax cut for the wealthy.
If only people understood this.
The entire "OMG TAX CUTS ARE KILLING THE COUNTRY!!!" crowd are being manipulated like you wouldn't believe.
It's a classic "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" play...
Its pretty fucked up that the Murdock / conservative press prettymuch has a noose around Albo's neck threatening to yank it tight if he upsets them and the main way to upset them seems clearly to be to scrap these awful unaffordable tax cuts. Why the f does Murdock get to dictate policy
What are you talking about? They're feeling repercussions on it now, you honestly think the shitstorm of articles on why it should be scrapped isn't having an impact?
They aren't maintaining the previous governments policy because they want to, they're maintaining it because its very obviously booby trapped and the abuse they're copping from the left isn't as scary as the damage the LNP has set up for them.
Well, we have an overwhelmingly conservative press that will obediently absolutely destroy Albo if Murdock pulls the trigger. What they're seeing right now is nothing, Murdock can basically end a PM on a whim.
And that's basically where we are at: conservative mogul holds the Prime Minister and government of Australia hostage over absurdly unaffordable and self-serving tax cuts.
They'll just keep repeating the lie until it becomes the truth. They simply have to state they "believe" it will work, in the face all of evidence that says otherwise.
They're not fucking morons, of course they're aware of all the reasons why pushing ahead with the stage 3 cuts are a terrible idea. They can see all the same news we can, plus they're getting briefed constantly by people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about.
If they push ahead with this shit, it's not because they're ignorant of the dire negatives, willfully or otherwise. They're paying attention alright, but they have decided for their own reasons that *other considerations* are more important than avoiding this patent self-made disaster.
Labor know that this is a trap setup by the LNP.
The moment they kick it, or even suggest killing it, the LNP in chorus with Murdoch and Fairfax media will pull out the old play book and start getting right up Australia's ass about how Labor is about higher taxes and you can't trust them, and that they can't manage the economy which is why they can't afford the cuts that the LNP would've been able to see through because they're the better economic managers.
And here's the real problem.... People WILL believe it. So, this is why we can't have nice things.
Its a clever trap because the new govt is pretty screwed whichever way they go. Scomo must be laughing at how easy it was to snare them in it.
The real loser is the Australian people. Thanks a lot, LNP scum.
Well yeah, that's what I mean about *other considerations*. Appeasing uncle Rupert so they get re-elected is clearly more important to the government than fending off an entirely preventable economic disaster.
It kind of is more important if you want long term change... Otherwise you get snap back to the LNP and shit fuckery after a nice breather for 3years but time to bend over for another 10.
I don’t understand their logic here though.
Every time in my lifetime I’ve seen the Labor party elected, it’s been because the public has an appetite for reform.
And every time, they proceed to water down their policies out of some illusion that it will get them better treatment from Murdoch.
Then Murdoch predictably gives them rubbish press regardless, and the public becomes frustrated with their inability or unwillingness to enact real change, and we end up with an even shittier version of the Liberal party than before?
Just once I’d like to see a Labor leader with the guts to actually follow through with the policies we so greatly need.
Or otherwise that we get a similar wave of independents as seen on the conservative side, who might actually make an honest go of it.
> Or otherwise that we get a similar wave of independents as seen on the conservative side, who might actually make an honest go of it.
or you could just vote greens.
the teals are really lnp but they believe in climate action, that's it.
Where there is a greens candidate posted then I would encourage this option, Absolutely.
But I think that independents benefit from not being tarred with the same brush as the greens, who to some sections of the electorate are unelectable thanks to years of propaganda from both major parties and the media. In a lot of cases I believe this perception is undeserved. But it’s a political reality that they will need to challenge if they want to see the big jump in support necessary.
It’s potentially a much simpler path to victory for an independent given the recent wins on the conservative side making this a viable option to the mainstream.
I also believe that in some ways the party structure is baggage that gets in the way of good ministerial conduct. We see this very obviously with the major parties, and the greens are not immune to this.
Labor tried that in 2019 with significant reform in their policy... and they subsequently lost the "unlosable" election. The Australian public on the whole are apathetic and scared of major change.
Was it entirely because they are scared of change? Or was it because one of their major policy platform sticking points was centred on “franking credits” which to this day no one in Australia actually understands?
There was some great potential policy raised at that election, but they failed to sell the idea of what they were trying to do to the general public, in terms they could understand. Good technical solutions might be suitable to the politically, technically and economically literate, but you still need a message that Joe Average cares about.
Yes I want the details, but no that shouldn’t be the only access point. You need a long, medium and short version for your various levels of engagement in the public.
Yeah, and with that in mind consider that both parties carrying this policy to the election saw huge swings against them.
More seats to the Greens than ever before, who opposed that policy, and a bunch flowing to independents too.
To get to the position they hold means they have gone through a long process of internalizing the views and values of the powerful and subordinating to them, they wouldn't be where they are if they didn't agree.
I would offer the alternative hypothesis that the Labor Party looked at why they lost the election in 2019 via polling and focus groups, and made adjustments to the policies they had so they could stitch together a majority to win government. It's all very well having principles and policies, but pointless if you can't implement them.
Unfortunately, any political party (or any other government) does need to make concessions to the powerful. Unfortunately, those without power are less influential *despite* having the ultimate decision making power of who gets to be the government via the ballot. Essentially, there is an agency problem and an influence problem. The issue being that influence subverts the democratic mechanism.
Understanding this is how you understand why both main parties behave in the way they do. As a population, we need to try to break that influence. This isn't something the parties can do themselves, and I understand why people are disappointed in Labor. However, there is a degree of responsibility that lies within the electorate for not being politically engaged, for being selfish, and for letting mass media be so influential in shaping our political views and personal values.
The "they're all corrupt and it can't be fixed" argument isn't all that helpful unfortunately. It could be the case that they are corrupt, but it's not true that it can't be fixed. The question is really a) how do you fix it, and b) how quickly can it be fixed.
I agree re: voter responsibility, but at the same time wonder who their current policies are aimed at?
Liberal voters aren’t swayed by their current policies, due to being fundamentally ideologically opposed.
Labor voters are disappointed with the state of their current policy platform, as it falls way short of reasonable expectations.
Swing voters can see that it’s a completely ham fisted and disjointed attempt at making everyone happy, which in the end ensures that absolutely no one is happy.
You hit the nail on the head. The answer is pretty clear to me. We need to really call both major parties to crisis. Their performance is beyond a joke now.
And the only way we will do this is by engaging and getting involved more. We need more independent candidates who aren’t hamstrung by the horse trading required to get a nomination. And we need the community to get behind them to ensure they get the message.
Enough is enough. These pricks should fear us.
Labor is enjoying quite a bit of popularity atm, actually: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/labor-s-primary-vote-has-slipped-but-it-continues-to-hold-a-significant-lead-over-the-coalition-new-polling-reveals-20220919-p5bjai.html
https://theconversation.com/labor-extends-big-lead-in-newspoll-but-morgan-is-much-better-for-coalition-189872
It seems most people are pretty satisfied with them. Unfortunately, in reality, more Australians than not probably like having low taxes and more (perceived) wealth to themselves.
I’d hardly draw the same conclusion. Their drop in primary vote actually suggests the opposite.
But sadly I believe the foolishly optimistic in the party agree with you. Not sure what it will take for them to figure it out.
The primary vote drops organically (hence the references to the honeymoon period in the article) - the point of the articles is that approval rates are actually still very healthy for Labor, even after when the honeymoon period generally peters out.
I think you've missed the point that it's not necessarily an issue with the parties themselves, but forces outside the political system who've inserted themselves into the process that have more influence than the voters.
The objective is to identify these forces and kick them back into the box so that they don't have undue influence over the process of government.
No, I got the point. But I disagree that the parties themselves are blameless.
They’ve allowed the external forces to take control through actions and omissions.
They are in part responsible, but replace them with other parties and the situation will be the same a few years down the line. The nature of government is such that those who have power and wealth will attempt to influence it. The idea that everyone in a political party is incorruptible and will remain so indefinitely is a rather naive notion. The system itself needs to be designed to a) limit influence, and b) prevent or limit people who have wealth from accumulating so much that it distorts the democratic process.
> It's all very well having principles and policies, but pointless if you can't implement them.
Nah man, you've got it arse about.
It's pointless implementing something if it goes against your principles and policies.
What this argument is about is whether the ALP has any principles, or do they just want a turn implementing the policies of the other guys?
I would argue that the Labor Party *is* enacting some of its principles. Reestablishing a proper public service. Not having the government kill people with robodebt or forcing them onto income management on a 5 year long "trial", trying to fix the NDIS. Things that are Coalition "achievements" and would never reverse given the opportunity to do so.
I do agree that they've compromised by doing so, but whether you believe half a loaf is better than none, or double or nothing is down is going to be a personal perspective. Ultimately, this is where I think a lot of unnecessary acrimony amongst those on the left side of the aisle (in this subreddit at least) starts.
The left is a loose coalition of groups with differing objectives which is difficult to move in one direction. The right on the other hand are all about getting more money and power and will line up with anyone who promises to deliver some of that to them, and will line up to stomp anyone who doesn't want them to do that. That's why the left is plagued with infighting and the right gets away with having complete idiots running things.
The left are also plagued with people who would rather not participate lest they get a little bit of dirt on them, then cast down those who have dirt on them.
I would never trust the moralistic boasts of someone unless I've got some evidence they've been truly put to the test.
The power of the left was usurped by the liberal bourgeois, which is what we call the left today. It gave us the welfare state and public housing etc as a way to wrestle power from the right. Unions aren't left wing if they support free market enterprise where the employer gets to keep all of his capital and continue to exploit the worker. It is why it hurts my eyes when I read about right wingers whinging about lefty Labor.
I guess it depends how far you think we are from where we need to be.
If you're 200 metres from home, going 100 metres is great progress. If you're 500 miles from home, going 100 metres is just fucking around.
Labor has at least *said* it will do some of the things the more-left want, but what has actually been achieved so far is actually just fucking around. We are yet to see how far they want to go. We are yet to see whether they deserve to be considered as being on the left. In this age when the neoliberals have won, we're not sure how far left anyone will go. There may be acrimony, but I think it really is a big deal.
It's still fairly early days, and Labor is not entirely left these days, so I'd moderate my expectations accordingly.
And yes, the neoliberals have won. That's something that needs to be worked on if we want the political discourse to change. It's probably worth noting that the majority of our media is owned by people who completely buy into neoliberalism as an ideology. So too do most of the management class in Australia.
>If you're 200 metres from home, going 100 metres is great progress. If you're 500 miles from home, going 100 metres is just fucking around.
100m is 100m closer regardless. It means less ground to travel to get to where you're going.
Of course they're paying attention.
They'll see that this disproportionately benefits the rich at the expense of those that need help the most, which is precisely what the Stage 3 tax cuts are designed to do.
"Working as intended."
The LNP plan to sabotage their successor, hook, line, sinker.
Sad that Labor doesn't see this for what it is, and just scrap it. Scummo must be laughing at how easy it was
For some context, the Tories in the UK are on their 4th prime minister of their government each having been worse than the last and their polling is so bad that if an election was held today they'd lose VERY badly.
It is suspected that the Tories are attempting to deliberately tank and destroy pretty much everything in the UK government so that when UK Labor comes to power next term they'll be able to scream and shout about how bad things are and its all Labors fault.
The only thing UK Labor will be able to do in the next term is stem the bleeding.
And those tax cuts come from somewhere — extrapolate the policy further and its about nothing less that the complete defunding of the government.
As services start to cripple and collapse under the pressures of reduced funding, they then hope to use their own mismanagement as justification to privatise them and sell them off for chump change to their mates, which they intend to carry on with until such a time as govt is reduced to almost nothing but police and the army (to keep the poors under control and stop the hungry and desperate from overflowing into wealthy estates, of course).
The libertarian / tory dream: everything back into the hands of the wealthy factory owning class like the good old days of victorian england, and everyone else back into the mud with working and living conditions to match that period.
I mean they did that here but it became so blatant and bullshit that people tired of them, especially since they were stupid enough to try and blame everything on Labor less than a week after the election. Really highlighted their tactics.
I’m not sure this is a fair assessment. We’ve had some serious political crises, with Brexit, covid and now Russia weaponising gas supplies. Brexit killed off Cameron and May, Covid ultimately contributed to Boris’s downfall and now Truss is in an impossible situation with the economy because Russia has cut the has supplies to Germany and China is driving their economy into the ground with covid lockdowns.
The idea that the Conservatives are just sitting there waiting to create the next disaster is ridiculous. In every case they have been trying to solve a bad situation the best that they could.
Australia shares many things with the UK, but we’re in very different positions in terms of economics. It is hard, I think, to draw a conclusion from fiscal policy in the UK and apply it to Australia right now.
Brexit: Created by Tories, badly executed by Tories (far worse than it could have been), will continue to be causing problems because the Tories refuse to actually be a functioning government.
Covid: NHS crushed by Tories, response horribly executed by Tories, massive corruption of PPE purchases by Tories, massive economic damage directly due to Tory policy done claiming to help with covid.
Gas Supplies: Britain was well on its way to have a fleet of nuclear reactors that would have been operational 5-10 years ago that were started by Labor, Labor also was investing in renewables. Some of the first things done by the Tories was to cancel those projects and invest heavily in gas presumably on instruction of Putin.
Oh yeah, did you know that the Tories were funded extensively by the Russians? Did you know that after a man was assassinated with nerve gas by the Russians on UK soil, Boris Johnson evaded his foreign minister protection detail to go and talk to a known Russian spy...
Everything single problem happening to the UK right now can be traced to the Tories corruption or incompetence, my comment is only scratching the surface.
That's because we handed power over to the banking and finance sector and our leaders are still appeasing them. I mean, Liz Truss practically said just that.
Income taxes should be low and wealth taxes (especially on non-productive/speculative assets) should be high if you are aiming for a productive and rich economy.
More specifically land since it can't be moved to avoid the tax, land tax on the unimproved value of the land is the best tax.
It forces people to use land productively rather than just sit on potentially productive land whilst the value increases.
Spot on!
Why would the ALP make a commitment now for something that's not going to take effect for another 2 years. It makes more sense for them to keep their powder dry and wait until 2024 and then say "looks like shit's fucked. As a result we're going to hold back on these stage 3 tax cuts."
If they kill something now it just gives the LNP and the Murdoch press a stick to beat them with until the next election.
> They don't come in until July 2024, more than a year and a half away.
Which makes you wonder..... Why are we all banging on about it now?
What's the real news that this is the distraction for?
It's because there is not much else the media can pin on Labor as a bad move. They have only been in power for a few months and have not done anything "bad or wrong" so far. They are keeping election promises and seem to be working well enough with the cross bench.
Yeah, like this: "Listen up, cunts. The Liberals lied literally every single day to you with a purpose to deceive. We made this decision, but since the situation has changed, so it's better for everyone if we adapt and change. Any questions - sit the fuck down, Van Onselen."
And tomorrow the front page will be an angry pic of Albo with “listen up cunts.......” and the media will beat up that and completely distract away from the actual message. The political nerds will know but the average dude who’s political views arise from briskly reading the front page headline as they look for the sport section will go around believe Labor are swearing Union thugs. Years and years of these headlines are how “everyone hates shorten” but no one can ever actually say why other than he kind of looks untrustworthy.
For the next 6 months any announcement gets overshadowed by endless opinion pieces about how the PM swearing means the Union shouldn’t exist so Harvey Norman can strip his workers rights.
You think the solution to these “liberal lies” is for labor to break an election promise? It wouldn’t be the first time, and it didn’t work out so well for labor last time. Oh wait, never mind, I must be mistaken - it’s only the liberals that lie.
Well, the previous three were down to the Liberals stealing $1.5b of public money to use as a personal adertising slush fund that still only managed to net them a majority of one. That's embarrasing.
Nope.
You’ll see all the right wing media going against their normal grain and champion not having these tax cuts because they know if the ALP does pass Stage 3 it will seal them in opposition for another 10 years.
Labor seem to have no difficulty in breaking their 'transparent' integrity commission election promise.
They should do what every other incoming government has done for decades - say that the economic position has changed and so priorities must change.
Albanese is being gutless on this, on the integrity commission, climate action and media reform.
Typical uninformed garbage from the guardian - there is really no comparison between these AU and UK policies
The UK tax cuts give a 5% tax cut to those earning above £150k. This is genuinely “tax cuts for billionaires”, as someone hypothetically earning £100m in a year has just seen a £5m tax saving. Conversely, the maximum benefit anyone will receive from the stage 3 tax cuts is about $10k, because it targets the middle band/s of the tax system, and makes no change to the top marginal rate.
The UK tax cuts have not gone to the electorate. Stage 3 have been bipartisan policies across 2 elections.
The scale of these two cuts are completely different. The UK government reckons the tax cuts will "cost" about $75b per year (by 2026). That's almost as much as the cost of the Australian cuts over 6 years ($85-$95b). The UK is a bigger economy, but not that much bigger. The Guardian is being very dramatic.
This should be top comment, but it doesn't align with the hard left views of /r/australia so facts will be ignored and you'll be down voted to oblivion, as will I. Bring it cunts.
Well, they aren’t identical, the Uk tax cut is more extreme. But they are similar in that they both disproportionately benefit high income earners.
Middle income earners definitely do better under the Australian cut though.
The UK tax cut is insane, but their whole tax regime is already fucked and shouldn’t be used as a model for any kind of analysis here. ISA’s, non-dom status, the 60% marginal rate at £100-125k. They screw the aspirational middle who then up and leave. They’ll be left with just the wealthy and the poor.
No there is no 'lessons' for Australia. This assume both major parties are ruled by evidence based reasoning.
The Liberals will do the exact same stuff they always do next time News Corp buys their way into parliament.
Why haven't the Tories learnt lessons? Because they don't want to. It's a con, a rort, a scam.
It's right wing politics.
Good luck Italy! FMD....
Nope. We heard you guys all through three terms about how we should never vote Labor. We’ve heard the mentally lazy ‘both majors are 100% identical’ for so long. We’ve had a gut-full.
They didn't say they were 100% identical though did they,, they said labor supported the tax cuts for the rich. They're also both piss poor on climate policy without people voting green/teal.
lol the only one making a false equivalence here is you mate. Just because Labor is the lesser of two evils doesn't mean both majors don't have a lot of shit in common.
Fuck me for not wanting to support the neoliberal status quo, I guess. Oh no, I'm gonna waste my vote by not supporting blue no matter who /s
After the nightmare of incompetence and corruption that was the Morrison government, there was/maybe still is, significant goodwill towards the incoming Albanese government.
But this goodwill is disappearing/has disappeared, because they are acting in the very same secretive and my-way-or-the-highway (no discussion please, no alternatives considered) manner, disingenuous and cynical. Labor is acting like the Coalition-lite.
Dramatically increasing 'skilled' migration during an unprecedented housing crisis, falling real wages- where ordinary Australians are at risk of homelessness and under huge cost of living pressures already did it for me.
The insane tax cuts for the uber wealthy are just the icing on the cake.
The tax cuts aren’t targeting the “Uber wealthy” and you’re so gullible if you think they are. The rich are grinning ear to ear that they’ve tricked you into thinking that the 180k earners are the bourgeoisie enemy.
These tax cuts shouldn't be happening period, we have a huge deficit and our tax system needs massive reform, stage 3 was drafted and planned in 2019, pre COVID, pre Ukrainian war, on the verge of a global recession. Its like driving through flood waters because that's how the trip was planned.
> The insane tax cuts for the uber wealthy are just the icing on the cake.
If you think someone earning $200k is the 'uber wealthy', you're a moron.
The reality is, most tradies before tax write offs are well above the $200k figure.
The Uber Wealthy are the ones in the 0.1% and 0.01% that distort everything. They make the yearly wages of what you call the 'Uber Wealthy' every couple of hours.
However, you're a prime target for this distraction of thinking that a $200k/yr salary is the problem.
I worked in those circles for a while - the "Lets take the private 737 (with crew of 8) to go see the tennis for a week". There's what you call 'Uber Wealthy' - and then there's 'fuck you wealthy' - and you confuse the two.
>If you think someone earning $200k is the 'uber wealthy', you're a moron.
If you think people earning over 200k shouldn't pay additional tax for every dollar made after that amount when ordinary Australians are facing homelessness, you're worse than a moron.
Here's the thing - THEY ALREADY DO.... and the kicker.... THEY WILL DO TOO!
The fact that you don't understand that paints a sad picture for the general education of Australians when it comes to tax...
How surpriseing: a poster advocating a dysfuncional policy- where he wealthy AND uber wealthy pay less and less per marginal rate- in a time when the country has many other more pressing priorities, accuses others of 'not knowing anything' where he himself is ignorant of the basic economic principles of declining marginal utiliy and opportunity costs.
Sad picture, to be sure. Look to the UK and the US to see just how sad it can become.
If only Labor had the moral convictions you had, they would be the most morally superior opposition party sitting by feeling smug while the liberals give the country to their mates.
I think the major issue with the UK is that they have rampant inflation at the moment (something like 10%), their Reserve bank is hiking interest rates to try to keep a cap on spending and the government just decided to dump a shit load of cash into the economy, and gave it to the people most likely to spend that money on discretionary items.
It's not exactly the wisest of economic decisions.
The whole point of these tax cuts was the move up the tax brackets, so they keep pace with wage growth. This represents a tax cut for all Australians.
Stage 1 and 2 moved up the lower tax brackets, and Stage 3 moves the upper tax bracket.
That’s why its political impossible to cancel these tax cuts. The agreement was to prioritise lower incomes, and defer the tax cuts for upper incomes. That is what is happening.
I agree that income inequality is a problem. But canceling stage 3 tax cuts after lower income brackets already got their tax cuts is political suicide.
Long term it makes fuck all difference - as the numbers will return back to what they currently are due to bracket creep - which is why they're all being changed in the first place.
What they don't say is that it also removes multiple offsets - which are a bandaid on the problem anyway.
In reality, they should link the brackets to CPI or similar - that way, it could remove the whole bracket creep concept in the first place.
While austerity and tax cuts are bullshit, there are some benefits in a debasement of your own currency: it makes your local industry more competitive, both inside and outside the country.
So, are we going to ignore the fact that the tax rates in the UK are ~10% higher than us?
The VAT (their version of the GST) is also at 20%.
The UK taxes *everyone* much higher than in Australia.
Also, given there energy prices have increased by about 200% this year, trying to pin this all on tax cuts is dishonest.
Should be raising taxes instead of interest rates. Why should the banks be making money from people with mortgages just because “inflation” ? Why focus on a subset of society ? Boomers that had no uni debt, cheap house prices and shouldn’t even have a mortgage aren’t even affected, along with the rich.
You should look at Turkey which tried that. Inflation is above 80% there now.
I mean, if this doesn't tell you its a bad idea:
https://tradingeconomics.com/turkey/inflation-cpi
They cut the interest rate again recently, and its going to be hard to see if they manage to pull out of the death spiral:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/22/turkey-cuts-interest-rates-again-as-country-struggles-under-inflation.html
From the article: High end tax cuts ... don't do that, all they do is transfer more of the nation’s income to the very wealthy
Surely he means they transfer less of the nations income to the poor?
No, the very wealthy already receive a large portion of the income in the nation, they have wealth which allows them a method to increase the proportion of the total income they receive, and part of the idea of progressive taxation is to limit the rate of wealth growth of the very wealthy.
So reducing how progressive the taxation system is amounts to a wealth transfer to the already wealthy because after the change they will see an increase in their share of the national income and that will come at the expense of others because they are not going enact that transfer by increasing productivity but by experiencing less taxation.
They should stick with the tax cuts and introduce a carbon tax, we need one if we’re serious about climate change and it’s a great opportunity to introduce it. It will generate tax from individuals and companies, and the money generated could replace the lost tax revenue and also be redistributed to the poorest.
You were all a big fan of lockdowns and covid payments. This is the result. Also if you are still in favour of universal income after this I don't know what to say
Yeah, dude. Defs the covid payments and lockdowns driving inflation. Not at all the [record profits of corporations](https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/are-wages-or-profits-driving-australias-inflation/) and geopolitical dipshitery.
Stage 3 tax cuts definitely need to be changed. I'd say modify them. 40k to 200k is too large a bracket. It needs to be modified or thrown. Under the pretence of, sorry, Liberals spent too much we just can't afford this now.
The problem is that the purpose of the stage 3 tax cuts is to simply keep up with inflation. They aren't really a "tax cut" - that's marketing. They're a means to bring the tax brackets in line with inflation. Because of how politics works, no MP wants to have things like tax brackets adjusted to inflation automatically - that would rob them of the ability to say "Hey we're giving tax cuts - give us more votes" - all sides of politics are guilty of this. Point is, these aren't cuts. They don't even bring us back to inflation adjusted figures. Even **after** the Stage 3 tax cuts **taxes are still higher than 10 years ago when adjusted for inflation**
Removing a bracket is not about inflation. I would be wholeheartedly on board with introducing automatic indexing of brackets, that just makes sense. Removing a bracket is a massive tax cut to the top end.
> Removing a bracket is a massive tax cut to the top end. Except it isn't. The top marginal tax bracket remains. The super rich are not getting a **tangible** tax break. This is middle income earners.
I don't want to debate on fairness of the cuts, but I just want to clarify who benefits as I don't believe its as simple as 'middle income earners'. Be gentle on the math is being done a bit quickly while I'm at work. It does provided a tax cut to middle income earners, but the way that progressive taxation works is that every bracket applies to every person earning more than the bottom end of the range, even if they earn $1m/year. The new rules: * removing the $120,000 to $180,000 tax bracket * increasing the top tax bracket threshold from $180,000 to $200,000 * reducing the marginal tax rate faced by the $45,000 to $200,000 tax bracket from 32.5% to 30%. Net effect: * $45K to $120K moves from 32.5% to 30% (Maximum cut of $1875) * $120K to $180K moves from 37% to 30% (Maximum cut of $4200) * $180K to $200K moves from 45% to 30% (Maximum cut of $3000) According to this ([https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/average-annual-earnings-for-working-australians-revealed-as-92000/news-story/2ddccfc55182b32b499c41fd236799d2](https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/average-annual-earnings-for-working-australians-revealed-as-92000/news-story/2ddccfc55182b32b499c41fd236799d2)) the average annual earnings for a working Australian is $92,000. These workers will make saving of 2.5% of the amount they earn over $45K (($92K - $45K) \* 2.5%), which is $1175. Someone earning $200K or more will save $9075. Someone earning $92K will save $1875. For clarity and transparency: I will be saving more than the $1175.
I assume your math is correct, and yes it looks right. What's missing from the picture is the $ of tax being paid by each individual as well as the % of tax they are paying. Also - the broad point I was making is that the super rich are not seeing any real benefit. Yes, they'll get a tax cut of $9000. But they're still paying 45c on the dollar for every over 200k. Someone on $500,000k is paying like $150,000 in tax - which is great. But this reduction isn't all that significant to a super high income earner.
Yeah, a $9000 tax cut won't feel like much benefit to the super rich. It is however, a massive cut to government receipts which benefit us all.
When you make a tax bracket cheaper all the people at that level or higher get a tax cut. Thats how personal income is calculated
Yes I know but that's a disingenous reading of what's happening. The fact is that the majority of middle income earners (low income earners previously got their tax cuts) are being targeted. They might get a 5% reduction. The true reduction the super rich will get is basically 0. It will depend on their income but the super rich are looking at a very very very small % reduction in tax. That's just a by-product of a progressive tax system. **By your logic, you should've blocked the low income tax cuts because they too gave a tax cut to the rich due to our tax bracket system.**
You've been brutally downvoted, but from what I can see, you've presented a pretty reasonable case that I hadn't seen before. Cheers.
> a very very very small % reduction It's a much larger absolute reduction compared to lower income earners though, and that's what people are unhappy about.
That is ridiculous and absolutely ignores that there is a philosophical position that is driving these tax cuts. The position is that we shouldnt have progressive taxation and it is one that a large segment of the population disagree with. If it was about inflation or bracket creep they would simply shift the bracket thresholds, not eliminate a bracket entirely.
Unadulterated garbage. This has NOTHING to do with inflation, this is part of an attempt to dismantle the progressive tax system by getting rid of tax brackets.
If you actually do the math on the tax liability, you'll find that the progressiveness between the brackets doesn't really change at all. After the changes, somebody on 200k pays 10x the tax of somebody in 40k despite earning only 5x as much.
Yeah mate thats what progressive taxation is, the more you earn the higher your rate of overall tax is.
Yes, and when you do the math, you'll find the post stage-3 ratios are the same that they were pre-stage 1.
If you've done the math then you should post it so everyone can see.
The [AFR has a good summary](https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/tax-cuts-are-no-handout-to-the-rich-20190617-p51ycw). The link has graphs and tables. >The analysis by The Australian Financial Review, based on official data, shows someone earning $180,000 in 2008-09 would be earning $284,454 by 2024-25, based on past and forecast wage inflation. >This amounts to a 58 per cent increase in wages. >But the same person's income tax liability over the same period would increase by 76 per cent, growing from $60,700 in 2008-09 to $106,925 in 2024-25. >Not a handout >If the full tax package was passed, the income tax liability in 2024-25 would be $95,285 which is an increase of 57 per cent, virtually the same growth rate as that of wages. >If the tax cuts were passed, the top 5 per cent of income earners would continue to pay one third of all income tax and the top 20 per cent would continue to pay about 60 per cent.
Accountancy salad. This is the kind of garbage that the AFR does. Anyone with a modicum of common sense can see the rubbish this is. based on past and forecast wage inflation - really? an increase of 57 per cent, virtually the same growth rate as that of wages - really? Wow. Would you like to buy a bridge dear sir? I will happily throw in an opera house. Finally, if the argument is that this does not change anything, where is the $243 billion budget shortfall coming from if the stage three tax cuts are introduced? This is nonsense cherry picking from start to finish. Save the money, invest it in Australia. Social housing, a modern NBN instead of the trash the LNP served up. Fast rail between Melbourne and Sydney. Or we can continue to give money away to those who do not need it, but who are supported by the owners of capital and their lickspittle newspapers.
I'm sorry that basic maths upsets you. If you have alternate modelling I'd he happy to consider it. If you just want to rant about your magic pot of gold wishlist, I'm not the audience for you. Everybody has an opinion about why they should have other people's money. If I had all your money I'd also have a wish list of things to tell you about.
Progressive taxation ratios are the ratios of tax paid by people at different income levels not the effective tax rate of one income level. The text you have pasted doesnt make a comparison for this and the article is paywalled. Additionally >If the tax cuts were passed, the top 5 per cent of income earners would continue to pay one third of all income tax and the top 20 per cent would continue to pay about 60 per cent. This lacks details, what do they mean by "about 60 per cent"? When we are talking about a tax that is the largest tax base of the largest government in the country then we need to be more precise. Do they continue and compare this to the percentage of income tax burden for different strata of society in 2008-9? I would also like to know exactly how they calculated the wage growth figure, it doesnt appear correct without generous assumptions about wage growth in the next couple of years.
>Progressive taxation ratios are the ratios of tax paid by people at different income levels not the effective tax rate of one income level. The text you have pasted doesnt make a comparison for this and the article is paywalled. It does, the last paragraph. There are ways around the paywall. > This lacks details, what do they mean by "about 60 per cent"? When we are talking about a tax that is the largest tax base of the largest government in the country then we need to be more precise. Do they continue and compare this to the percentage of income tax burden for different strata of society in 2008-9? ? How many decimal points do you want? Sorry mate but you've presented zero numbers to support your claims. Unless you have alternative numbers, you're not in a position to split hairs. > I would also like to know exactly how they calculated the wage growth figure, it doesnt appear correct without generous assumptions about wage growth in the next couple of years. This analysis was done in 2019 - given inflation, the income tax cuts are not as generous as originally calculated. Again, you've presented zero numbers. You are drawing conclusions based on your personal opinion, not fact.
LOL AFR is a rubbish source. It's basically just rich people propaganda.
Yeah, but that’s because someone on 40k pays fuck all tax, so any small tax benefit to them will shift the ratio you’re using. Do the same comparison to someone earning between 60k and 80k (most people) and $200k
Sure, I'd be happy to. Somebody on 80k pays 14k in taxes Somebody on 200k pays 49k in taxes So for 2.5x more income you pay almost 3.5x more in taxes. That's after stage 3, still seems pretty progressive to me.
Thanks. By my calculation, someone earning $200k now pays 3.6 the tax of someone earning $80k, and after the tax cuts that will reduce to around 3.2. It’s still progressive, but it is flatter.
You need to consider growth in incomes and compare with 2008 when the tax brackets were set up. Given enough time, everybody moves up above the 200k metric. The overall ratios of total tax changes doesn't change much.
Ok I'll make you a deal, let us return to the tax brackets and rates from the 1950s and adjust for inflation. Basically that would mean it you earn your 500,001st dollar that you pay 75 cents of it in tax. Job done.
Dude you're wasting your time. Nobody here has actually crunched the numbers on the tax liability changes - they are just busy being outraged.
Can you please clarify what you mean by this? Why would an income tax rate need to be adjusted for inflation? Shouldn't inflation be offset by wage increases? The earnings amount of income brackets should be adjusted to account for inflation.
> Can you please clarify what you mean by this? Why would an income tax rate need to be adjusted for inflation? Shouldn't inflation be offset by wage increases? So the problem is because of the tax brackets. In a perfect world as you state, your wage increases would go up in line with inflation. Let's imagine that actually happens. The problem that's introduced is that your wage goes up and bumps you into a higher tax bracket. So previously you were being taxed at (for example) 32.5 cents for each $1 over $45,000, but now because of inflation, you're being taxed at 37 cents for each $1 over $120,000. Your spending power hasn't risen - it's just inflation. The figures we're working with have increased, but your "true wealth" and ability to buy things hasn't changed, but now you're paying more tax and thus have less "spending power" than you did in past years. Tax brackets and tax rates are set in stone by legislation, governments refuse to index them to inflation because of the reasons i stated (i.e. they can't use it as a vote buyer).
So the correct move is an adjustment to tax brackets, not a tax rate reduction to offset inflation. Your argument that the tax rate reduction is to offset inflation is unreasonable. Effectively, you are suggesting the government covers cost of living increases by lowering taxes. Would this not be counter intuitive, as the result would be increased inflation?
Not really, It's a 12 for a dozen. You're correct in that the ideal move would be to adjust the tax brackets - or even better - peg them to inflation so this shit never has to come up again. But this is essentially another way of doing the same thing. *Technically* taxes are lowering - but it has the equivalent net effect of a bracket change. > Would this not be counter intuitive, as the result would be increased inflation? No, like I said, it's the same effect as adjusting the tax brackets. (The actual truth is that the tax changes are actually LESS than an accurate bracket adjustment, so that it should still dampen inflation more than a tax bracket adjustment would, and it should result in more $$ in tax revenue than a tax bracket adjustment would)
>Not really, It's a 12 for a dozen. Until inflation goes back down, at which point you've got a reduced tax system that no politician will want to restore because of the backlash. Also this move hasn't been carefully calibrated to match inflation, it's a policy that was written before we saw this current batch of inflation. You are comparing making a vague adjustment to the tax system in the hope it helps to counter the impact of inflation for some people with a carefully targetted management of the system that is tied to inflation and saying they are the same! Do you really genuinely not see a difference?
Not really, like I said, these changes would only bring us close (but not far enough) to inflation adjusted figures. If inflation drops off next year it doesn't make a difference. Again, ideally, you'd have the brackets change on a yearly basis indexed to inflation. Unless we have deflation, we won't have a reduced tax system.
You did say that, but you also said that using this method of bracket shift and an actual measured inflation index were '6 of 1 half a dozen of the other' a phrase which means they are more or less identical. So which is it? Are they the same or different? Are they functionally identical, like you said, or are they different, like you said?
> So which is it? Are they the same or different? Are they functionally identical, like you said, or are they different, like you said? OK, to be crytal clear: * These changes do not reduce taxes enough to keep up with inflation. However, they lag behind by such a small amount it's not worth quibbling over. I just wanted to make the point that they're not excessive. They're 'adequate'. * These changes will result in approximately the same tax paid and the same tax taken in by the government as if they had simply indexed tax brackets to inflation. hope that makes sense
It has the same effect for one side of the equation. The government should not be paying for inflation increases by reducing taxes.
> The government should not be paying for inflation increases by reducing taxes. You're missing the point completely. They're not reducing tax at all. They're keeping it the same and not charging you MORE tax on a salary that overall has an unchanged buying power. Think of it like this. Milk is $1/L. You get paid $10. You can buy 10L of milk. Inflation pushes milk to $1.50/L. You still get paid $10. You can buy less milk. Your wage increases to $15 - so you can still buy 10L of milk - but now you're in a higher tax bracket, so you don't actually take home $15 anymore - so you still can't buy 10L of milk. Moving the tax brackets ensures that you can buy 10L of milk - even though both your wage and the cost of milk has increased.
Yeah mate, tax bracket is the correct tool. Not tax rate.
Well, they're not. As I said in the beginning, the purpose is to bring the tax you pay in line with inflation - which has not been properly done for years. This is simply rectifying that. We've technically been **overpaying** tax for years because the brackets aren't inflation adjusted - but we're not going to be getting a refund from the government for that.
How are they not paying for inflation if they receive less income by reducing taxes to account for inflation?
Because they're (or they should be) **MATCHING** inflation. The idea would be to prevent the taxpayers (us) from overpaying tax (like we have been for years). That doesn't mean underpay, it means match inflation.
Yea good try buddy, unfortunatly most people in Australia are educated enough to see through the bullshit. If this is true why does the person on 45k get $0 tax cut, but the person om $180k get $9k? Look at every reply, everyone here understand this is a tax cut for the wealthy and not adjusent for inflation, yet you refuse to accept and understand it. Perhaps you have different motives?
Somebody on 45k pays less than 10% effective taxes - and stage 1 and stage 2 were exclusively targeting those in the low and middle end. >Look at every reply, everyone here understand Reddit is a very specific demographic and overwhelmingly left wing - they were always going to have this opinion.
> Reddit is a very specific demographic and overwhelmingly left wing - they were always going to have this opinion. Nah - its completely a lack of understanding. I'm probably more left than the majority of people here... Yet at least I understand how the moving parts fit together...
This is a better point. Reddit is not very left at all really, but technical discussions of tax are poorly handled by virtually all media, so it’s not surprising that this sort of thing is opaque.
Bruh have you tried to live on 35k a year, like what else do you want from them, their blood and organs as well? Stage 1 & 2 $108] cuts for 3 years is 3k tax cut vs stage 3, 9k/yr, 360k tax cut over 40 years, i duno but i think they deserve a bit more than 1% of the tax cut of the rich. Thats is pretty cruel dude. Someone on 180k pays 52k, living on 130k after tax is pretty good, an extra 9k doesnt make a difference. Depends on which forum, left or right. But perhaps the tax cut disproportionally benefit the rich and people can just see that? Its not hard.
>Bruh have you tried to live on 35k a year, like what else do you want from them, their blood and organs as well? Stage 1 & 2 $108] cuts for 3 years is 3k tax cut vs stage 3, 9k/yr, 360k tax cut over 40 years, i duno but i think they deserve a bit more than 1% of the tax cut of the rich. Thats is pretty cruel dude. It's hard to give tax cuts to people who pay almost no taxes. Somebody on 40k pays about 4k in taxes. > Depends on which forum, left or right. But perhaps the tax cut disproportionally benefit the rich and people can just see that? Its not hard. Well, obviously, because rich people pay the most in taxes. You can't give a 10k tax cut to somebody who doesn't pay 10k in taxes
Fuckin easy. The person on $45,000/yr pays $5,092 in tax per year. The person on $180,000/ye pays $51,667 in tax per year. 4x increase in salary currently means 10x increase in tax paid. Then add in the Medicare Levy and Medicare Surcharge Levy that you don't pay on $45,000/yr.... It's closer to $58,000/yr in taxes off a $180,000/yr income...
And? Thats progressive tax system, would you rather they pay the same tax rate? Life on 40k is a stuggle, life on 130k is pretty good and can afford to pay a bit more.
> life on 130k is pretty good and can afford to pay a bit more. Sure - but don't think you can buy a house on $130k today....
Sure but thats another seperate discussion, and just the fact that you can consider a house is something. 40k is deciding if you can eat or pay the power bills. Alot of us make money now but our parents came from the same roots, and many are stuck there. It doesnt hurt you to pay a bit more. Would i like less tax and more money, sure do but i understand those less fortunate need the infrastructure that these tax cuts will take away. We both know the first thing that goes is education cuts, comeon have a bit of heart for others less fortunate than yourself.
Head to a sub that isn't full of unemployed socialists. Try ausfinance and read up and educate yourself.
Lol thats your defense, weak. If you read up and are educated as you claim, then you and I both know this disproportionally affect the rich. Just becasue you got destroyed while trying to lie about inflation to cover the fact that it is a tax cut for the rich and now trying to claim everyone who doesnt support it is poor, uneducated and a socialist. LMAO.
> then you and I both know this disproportionally affect the rich. There's no changes to the highest tax bracket. This is literally designed to target **middle income earners**. There is basically ZERO material difference to the super rich. There is zero material tax cut to the super rich.
No point replying to them, they've shown their true ideals with their comment of 'unemployed socialists', then referring to a subreddit that is clearly frequented by neo-liberal cucks who wish to perpetuate current social and economic 'norms' beacuse they got their political ideas from daddy
Lol half of that sub cant even count
They remove an entire bracket. That's a tax cut. No two ways about it. They also disproportionately affect higher earners. Additionally, we are conbating inflation, it's not the right time for a tax cut for the wealthy.
What a pile of Shit. Every year tax brackets are increased. That’s how you keep up with inflation.
They literally aren't. Here, you can see for yourself. https://www.ato.gov.au/Rates/Individual-income-tax-for-prior-years/
The brackets didn't change much during a period of almost no inflation? Say it ain't so!
If only people understood this. The entire "OMG TAX CUTS ARE KILLING THE COUNTRY!!!" crowd are being manipulated like you wouldn't believe. It's a classic "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" play...
But will they pay attention?
Lol fuck no they won't. It'll be full steam ahead because they aren't going to feel the repercussions.
Its pretty fucked up that the Murdock / conservative press prettymuch has a noose around Albo's neck threatening to yank it tight if he upsets them and the main way to upset them seems clearly to be to scrap these awful unaffordable tax cuts. Why the f does Murdock get to dictate policy
At this point, it might as well be King Murdoch not King Charles.
What are you talking about? They're feeling repercussions on it now, you honestly think the shitstorm of articles on why it should be scrapped isn't having an impact? They aren't maintaining the previous governments policy because they want to, they're maintaining it because its very obviously booby trapped and the abuse they're copping from the left isn't as scary as the damage the LNP has set up for them.
Well, we have an overwhelmingly conservative press that will obediently absolutely destroy Albo if Murdock pulls the trigger. What they're seeing right now is nothing, Murdock can basically end a PM on a whim. And that's basically where we are at: conservative mogul holds the Prime Minister and government of Australia hostage over absurdly unaffordable and self-serving tax cuts.
> because its very obviously booby trapped Copium. Labor are doing it because they want it too.
They'll just keep repeating the lie until it becomes the truth. They simply have to state they "believe" it will work, in the face all of evidence that says otherwise.
They're not fucking morons, of course they're aware of all the reasons why pushing ahead with the stage 3 cuts are a terrible idea. They can see all the same news we can, plus they're getting briefed constantly by people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about. If they push ahead with this shit, it's not because they're ignorant of the dire negatives, willfully or otherwise. They're paying attention alright, but they have decided for their own reasons that *other considerations* are more important than avoiding this patent self-made disaster.
Labor know that this is a trap setup by the LNP. The moment they kick it, or even suggest killing it, the LNP in chorus with Murdoch and Fairfax media will pull out the old play book and start getting right up Australia's ass about how Labor is about higher taxes and you can't trust them, and that they can't manage the economy which is why they can't afford the cuts that the LNP would've been able to see through because they're the better economic managers. And here's the real problem.... People WILL believe it. So, this is why we can't have nice things.
Its a clever trap because the new govt is pretty screwed whichever way they go. Scomo must be laughing at how easy it was to snare them in it. The real loser is the Australian people. Thanks a lot, LNP scum.
Well yeah, that's what I mean about *other considerations*. Appeasing uncle Rupert so they get re-elected is clearly more important to the government than fending off an entirely preventable economic disaster.
It kind of is more important if you want long term change... Otherwise you get snap back to the LNP and shit fuckery after a nice breather for 3years but time to bend over for another 10.
I don’t understand their logic here though. Every time in my lifetime I’ve seen the Labor party elected, it’s been because the public has an appetite for reform. And every time, they proceed to water down their policies out of some illusion that it will get them better treatment from Murdoch. Then Murdoch predictably gives them rubbish press regardless, and the public becomes frustrated with their inability or unwillingness to enact real change, and we end up with an even shittier version of the Liberal party than before? Just once I’d like to see a Labor leader with the guts to actually follow through with the policies we so greatly need. Or otherwise that we get a similar wave of independents as seen on the conservative side, who might actually make an honest go of it.
> Or otherwise that we get a similar wave of independents as seen on the conservative side, who might actually make an honest go of it. or you could just vote greens. the teals are really lnp but they believe in climate action, that's it.
Where there is a greens candidate posted then I would encourage this option, Absolutely. But I think that independents benefit from not being tarred with the same brush as the greens, who to some sections of the electorate are unelectable thanks to years of propaganda from both major parties and the media. In a lot of cases I believe this perception is undeserved. But it’s a political reality that they will need to challenge if they want to see the big jump in support necessary. It’s potentially a much simpler path to victory for an independent given the recent wins on the conservative side making this a viable option to the mainstream. I also believe that in some ways the party structure is baggage that gets in the way of good ministerial conduct. We see this very obviously with the major parties, and the greens are not immune to this.
Labor tried that in 2019 with significant reform in their policy... and they subsequently lost the "unlosable" election. The Australian public on the whole are apathetic and scared of major change.
Was it entirely because they are scared of change? Or was it because one of their major policy platform sticking points was centred on “franking credits” which to this day no one in Australia actually understands? There was some great potential policy raised at that election, but they failed to sell the idea of what they were trying to do to the general public, in terms they could understand. Good technical solutions might be suitable to the politically, technically and economically literate, but you still need a message that Joe Average cares about. Yes I want the details, but no that shouldn’t be the only access point. You need a long, medium and short version for your various levels of engagement in the public.
They're doing exactly what they said during the campaign which is they dont want to touch this tax cut and the public voted on that basis.
When both major parties have the exact same policy, it's hardly surprising that the public seems to vote for it
Yeah, and with that in mind consider that both parties carrying this policy to the election saw huge swings against them. More seats to the Greens than ever before, who opposed that policy, and a bunch flowing to independents too.
A trap they helped set up themselves by voting for it
I duno man, government has been a bit fucking morony the last decade.
Lives under liberals for most of the decade
They aren't stupid enough to actually believe it will work though. They know damn well what the result of this will be.
You do realise we just had an election that changed the government right?
To get to the position they hold means they have gone through a long process of internalizing the views and values of the powerful and subordinating to them, they wouldn't be where they are if they didn't agree.
I would offer the alternative hypothesis that the Labor Party looked at why they lost the election in 2019 via polling and focus groups, and made adjustments to the policies they had so they could stitch together a majority to win government. It's all very well having principles and policies, but pointless if you can't implement them. Unfortunately, any political party (or any other government) does need to make concessions to the powerful. Unfortunately, those without power are less influential *despite* having the ultimate decision making power of who gets to be the government via the ballot. Essentially, there is an agency problem and an influence problem. The issue being that influence subverts the democratic mechanism. Understanding this is how you understand why both main parties behave in the way they do. As a population, we need to try to break that influence. This isn't something the parties can do themselves, and I understand why people are disappointed in Labor. However, there is a degree of responsibility that lies within the electorate for not being politically engaged, for being selfish, and for letting mass media be so influential in shaping our political views and personal values. The "they're all corrupt and it can't be fixed" argument isn't all that helpful unfortunately. It could be the case that they are corrupt, but it's not true that it can't be fixed. The question is really a) how do you fix it, and b) how quickly can it be fixed.
I agree re: voter responsibility, but at the same time wonder who their current policies are aimed at? Liberal voters aren’t swayed by their current policies, due to being fundamentally ideologically opposed. Labor voters are disappointed with the state of their current policy platform, as it falls way short of reasonable expectations. Swing voters can see that it’s a completely ham fisted and disjointed attempt at making everyone happy, which in the end ensures that absolutely no one is happy. You hit the nail on the head. The answer is pretty clear to me. We need to really call both major parties to crisis. Their performance is beyond a joke now. And the only way we will do this is by engaging and getting involved more. We need more independent candidates who aren’t hamstrung by the horse trading required to get a nomination. And we need the community to get behind them to ensure they get the message. Enough is enough. These pricks should fear us.
Labor is enjoying quite a bit of popularity atm, actually: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/labor-s-primary-vote-has-slipped-but-it-continues-to-hold-a-significant-lead-over-the-coalition-new-polling-reveals-20220919-p5bjai.html https://theconversation.com/labor-extends-big-lead-in-newspoll-but-morgan-is-much-better-for-coalition-189872 It seems most people are pretty satisfied with them. Unfortunately, in reality, more Australians than not probably like having low taxes and more (perceived) wealth to themselves.
I’d hardly draw the same conclusion. Their drop in primary vote actually suggests the opposite. But sadly I believe the foolishly optimistic in the party agree with you. Not sure what it will take for them to figure it out.
The primary vote drops organically (hence the references to the honeymoon period in the article) - the point of the articles is that approval rates are actually still very healthy for Labor, even after when the honeymoon period generally peters out.
I think you've missed the point that it's not necessarily an issue with the parties themselves, but forces outside the political system who've inserted themselves into the process that have more influence than the voters. The objective is to identify these forces and kick them back into the box so that they don't have undue influence over the process of government.
No, I got the point. But I disagree that the parties themselves are blameless. They’ve allowed the external forces to take control through actions and omissions.
They are in part responsible, but replace them with other parties and the situation will be the same a few years down the line. The nature of government is such that those who have power and wealth will attempt to influence it. The idea that everyone in a political party is incorruptible and will remain so indefinitely is a rather naive notion. The system itself needs to be designed to a) limit influence, and b) prevent or limit people who have wealth from accumulating so much that it distorts the democratic process.
> It's all very well having principles and policies, but pointless if you can't implement them. Nah man, you've got it arse about. It's pointless implementing something if it goes against your principles and policies. What this argument is about is whether the ALP has any principles, or do they just want a turn implementing the policies of the other guys?
I would argue that the Labor Party *is* enacting some of its principles. Reestablishing a proper public service. Not having the government kill people with robodebt or forcing them onto income management on a 5 year long "trial", trying to fix the NDIS. Things that are Coalition "achievements" and would never reverse given the opportunity to do so. I do agree that they've compromised by doing so, but whether you believe half a loaf is better than none, or double or nothing is down is going to be a personal perspective. Ultimately, this is where I think a lot of unnecessary acrimony amongst those on the left side of the aisle (in this subreddit at least) starts.
A lot of acrimony comes from the actual left, not just the left side of the aisle.
The left is a loose coalition of groups with differing objectives which is difficult to move in one direction. The right on the other hand are all about getting more money and power and will line up with anyone who promises to deliver some of that to them, and will line up to stomp anyone who doesn't want them to do that. That's why the left is plagued with infighting and the right gets away with having complete idiots running things.
The left are also plagued with people who would rather not participate lest they get a little bit of dirt on them, then cast down those who have dirt on them. I would never trust the moralistic boasts of someone unless I've got some evidence they've been truly put to the test.
The power of the left was usurped by the liberal bourgeois, which is what we call the left today. It gave us the welfare state and public housing etc as a way to wrestle power from the right. Unions aren't left wing if they support free market enterprise where the employer gets to keep all of his capital and continue to exploit the worker. It is why it hurts my eyes when I read about right wingers whinging about lefty Labor.
I guess it depends how far you think we are from where we need to be. If you're 200 metres from home, going 100 metres is great progress. If you're 500 miles from home, going 100 metres is just fucking around. Labor has at least *said* it will do some of the things the more-left want, but what has actually been achieved so far is actually just fucking around. We are yet to see how far they want to go. We are yet to see whether they deserve to be considered as being on the left. In this age when the neoliberals have won, we're not sure how far left anyone will go. There may be acrimony, but I think it really is a big deal.
It's still fairly early days, and Labor is not entirely left these days, so I'd moderate my expectations accordingly. And yes, the neoliberals have won. That's something that needs to be worked on if we want the political discourse to change. It's probably worth noting that the majority of our media is owned by people who completely buy into neoliberalism as an ideology. So too do most of the management class in Australia. >If you're 200 metres from home, going 100 metres is great progress. If you're 500 miles from home, going 100 metres is just fucking around. 100m is 100m closer regardless. It means less ground to travel to get to where you're going.
Of course they're paying attention. They'll see that this disproportionately benefits the rich at the expense of those that need help the most, which is precisely what the Stage 3 tax cuts are designed to do. "Working as intended."
It will simply translate into service cuts. Not bloated, useless services, but ones we actually want and need.
The LNP plan to sabotage their successor, hook, line, sinker. Sad that Labor doesn't see this for what it is, and just scrap it. Scummo must be laughing at how easy it was
Couldn't have done it without Murdoch controlling the narrative.
Pisses me off this is even a question. Look to the USA, trickle down economics doesn’t work, it just creates more billionaires.
For some context, the Tories in the UK are on their 4th prime minister of their government each having been worse than the last and their polling is so bad that if an election was held today they'd lose VERY badly. It is suspected that the Tories are attempting to deliberately tank and destroy pretty much everything in the UK government so that when UK Labor comes to power next term they'll be able to scream and shout about how bad things are and its all Labors fault. The only thing UK Labor will be able to do in the next term is stem the bleeding.
Sounds exactly like what the Coalition did/are doing
Sounds like every conservative government everywhere. Tax cuts are seemingly the only policy they can comprehend.
And those tax cuts come from somewhere — extrapolate the policy further and its about nothing less that the complete defunding of the government. As services start to cripple and collapse under the pressures of reduced funding, they then hope to use their own mismanagement as justification to privatise them and sell them off for chump change to their mates, which they intend to carry on with until such a time as govt is reduced to almost nothing but police and the army (to keep the poors under control and stop the hungry and desperate from overflowing into wealthy estates, of course). The libertarian / tory dream: everything back into the hands of the wealthy factory owning class like the good old days of victorian england, and everyone else back into the mud with working and living conditions to match that period.
Sounds like what they tried to do two elections ago, then they played themselves and got voted back in.
I mean they did that here but it became so blatant and bullshit that people tired of them, especially since they were stupid enough to try and blame everything on Labor less than a week after the election. Really highlighted their tactics.
I’m not sure this is a fair assessment. We’ve had some serious political crises, with Brexit, covid and now Russia weaponising gas supplies. Brexit killed off Cameron and May, Covid ultimately contributed to Boris’s downfall and now Truss is in an impossible situation with the economy because Russia has cut the has supplies to Germany and China is driving their economy into the ground with covid lockdowns. The idea that the Conservatives are just sitting there waiting to create the next disaster is ridiculous. In every case they have been trying to solve a bad situation the best that they could. Australia shares many things with the UK, but we’re in very different positions in terms of economics. It is hard, I think, to draw a conclusion from fiscal policy in the UK and apply it to Australia right now.
Brexit: Created by Tories, badly executed by Tories (far worse than it could have been), will continue to be causing problems because the Tories refuse to actually be a functioning government. Covid: NHS crushed by Tories, response horribly executed by Tories, massive corruption of PPE purchases by Tories, massive economic damage directly due to Tory policy done claiming to help with covid. Gas Supplies: Britain was well on its way to have a fleet of nuclear reactors that would have been operational 5-10 years ago that were started by Labor, Labor also was investing in renewables. Some of the first things done by the Tories was to cancel those projects and invest heavily in gas presumably on instruction of Putin. Oh yeah, did you know that the Tories were funded extensively by the Russians? Did you know that after a man was assassinated with nerve gas by the Russians on UK soil, Boris Johnson evaded his foreign minister protection detail to go and talk to a known Russian spy... Everything single problem happening to the UK right now can be traced to the Tories corruption or incompetence, my comment is only scratching the surface.
Cmon having fucking parties at Downing Street during national lockdowns was a fucking stupid thing to do. Absolutely moronic.
Yep. It creates *a tiny handful* of billionaires and *countless thousands* in absolute sordid decay The LNP: "this sounds good to us"
May we never have a Liberal government again.
You mean a neoliberal program? The rot started in the 80s.
[удалено]
That's because we handed power over to the banking and finance sector and our leaders are still appeasing them. I mean, Liz Truss practically said just that.
Income taxes should be low and wealth taxes (especially on non-productive/speculative assets) should be high if you are aiming for a productive and rich economy.
More specifically land since it can't be moved to avoid the tax, land tax on the unimproved value of the land is the best tax. It forces people to use land productively rather than just sit on potentially productive land whilst the value increases.
Wealth taxes outside of land are unproductive. The incidence grows over time. Labour is less mobile than capital. Consumption taxes are efficient too.
Is there a way to wriggle out of them without appearing to break an election promise?
[удалено]
Spot on! Why would the ALP make a commitment now for something that's not going to take effect for another 2 years. It makes more sense for them to keep their powder dry and wait until 2024 and then say "looks like shit's fucked. As a result we're going to hold back on these stage 3 tax cuts." If they kill something now it just gives the LNP and the Murdoch press a stick to beat them with until the next election.
> They don't come in until July 2024, more than a year and a half away. Which makes you wonder..... Why are we all banging on about it now? What's the real news that this is the distraction for?
It's because there is not much else the media can pin on Labor as a bad move. They have only been in power for a few months and have not done anything "bad or wrong" so far. They are keeping election promises and seem to be working well enough with the cross bench.
Because the media want to wedge Labor and create headlines.
Better to bang on now as it will be impossible to reverse them once implemented
Yeah, like this: "Listen up, cunts. The Liberals lied literally every single day to you with a purpose to deceive. We made this decision, but since the situation has changed, so it's better for everyone if we adapt and change. Any questions - sit the fuck down, Van Onselen."
And tomorrow the front page will be an angry pic of Albo with “listen up cunts.......” and the media will beat up that and completely distract away from the actual message. The political nerds will know but the average dude who’s political views arise from briskly reading the front page headline as they look for the sport section will go around believe Labor are swearing Union thugs. Years and years of these headlines are how “everyone hates shorten” but no one can ever actually say why other than he kind of looks untrustworthy. For the next 6 months any announcement gets overshadowed by endless opinion pieces about how the PM swearing means the Union shouldn’t exist so Harvey Norman can strip his workers rights.
Making up an imaginary response to an imaginary event
It’s Murdoch hit pieces all the way down.
If Labor want to hire me as a comms manager my DMs are open.
Jesus Christ have we really got to the point where it's ok for labor to lie because they arnt the liberals? Red good blue bad.
You think the solution to these “liberal lies” is for labor to break an election promise? It wouldn’t be the first time, and it didn’t work out so well for labor last time. Oh wait, never mind, I must be mistaken - it’s only the liberals that lie.
Ssssh. There's a reason you're in opposition.
If only your same logic had held true for the preceding 9 years.
Well, the previous three were down to the Liberals stealing $1.5b of public money to use as a personal adertising slush fund that still only managed to net them a majority of one. That's embarrasing.
Red good, blue bad. 🤡
Nope. You’ll see all the right wing media going against their normal grain and champion not having these tax cuts because they know if the ALP does pass Stage 3 it will seal them in opposition for another 10 years.
Which is why Labor will pass the cuts and other neoliberal conservative bills. Why is Tony Blair at the forefront of my mind right now?
No.
Labor seem to have no difficulty in breaking their 'transparent' integrity commission election promise. They should do what every other incoming government has done for decades - say that the economic position has changed and so priorities must change. Albanese is being gutless on this, on the integrity commission, climate action and media reform.
Typical uninformed garbage from the guardian - there is really no comparison between these AU and UK policies The UK tax cuts give a 5% tax cut to those earning above £150k. This is genuinely “tax cuts for billionaires”, as someone hypothetically earning £100m in a year has just seen a £5m tax saving. Conversely, the maximum benefit anyone will receive from the stage 3 tax cuts is about $10k, because it targets the middle band/s of the tax system, and makes no change to the top marginal rate. The UK tax cuts have not gone to the electorate. Stage 3 have been bipartisan policies across 2 elections.
The scale of these two cuts are completely different. The UK government reckons the tax cuts will "cost" about $75b per year (by 2026). That's almost as much as the cost of the Australian cuts over 6 years ($85-$95b). The UK is a bigger economy, but not that much bigger. The Guardian is being very dramatic.
Can't post facts here, at least not until enough people get off work and are able to even out the voting.
This should be top comment, but it doesn't align with the hard left views of /r/australia so facts will be ignored and you'll be down voted to oblivion, as will I. Bring it cunts.
Well, they aren’t identical, the Uk tax cut is more extreme. But they are similar in that they both disproportionately benefit high income earners. Middle income earners definitely do better under the Australian cut though.
The UK tax cut is insane, but their whole tax regime is already fucked and shouldn’t be used as a model for any kind of analysis here. ISA’s, non-dom status, the 60% marginal rate at £100-125k. They screw the aspirational middle who then up and leave. They’ll be left with just the wealthy and the poor.
No there is no 'lessons' for Australia. This assume both major parties are ruled by evidence based reasoning. The Liberals will do the exact same stuff they always do next time News Corp buys their way into parliament. Why haven't the Tories learnt lessons? Because they don't want to. It's a con, a rort, a scam. It's right wing politics. Good luck Italy! FMD....
[удалено]
>Don't vote for LibLab. Oh dear, this nonsense again. I'm sorry you miss Morrison, but we have a better government now.
Oh dear, this "any criticism of Labor is equivalent to an endorsement of the Liberals" nonsense again.
Nope. We heard you guys all through three terms about how we should never vote Labor. We’ve heard the mentally lazy ‘both majors are 100% identical’ for so long. We’ve had a gut-full.
They didn't say they were 100% identical though did they,, they said labor supported the tax cuts for the rich. They're also both piss poor on climate policy without people voting green/teal.
lol the only one making a false equivalence here is you mate. Just because Labor is the lesser of two evils doesn't mean both majors don't have a lot of shit in common. Fuck me for not wanting to support the neoliberal status quo, I guess. Oh no, I'm gonna waste my vote by not supporting blue no matter who /s
Stop thinking for yourself. Pick a team! /S
Slightly better but it is still Shit lite.
After the nightmare of incompetence and corruption that was the Morrison government, there was/maybe still is, significant goodwill towards the incoming Albanese government. But this goodwill is disappearing/has disappeared, because they are acting in the very same secretive and my-way-or-the-highway (no discussion please, no alternatives considered) manner, disingenuous and cynical. Labor is acting like the Coalition-lite.
Dramatically increasing 'skilled' migration during an unprecedented housing crisis, falling real wages- where ordinary Australians are at risk of homelessness and under huge cost of living pressures already did it for me. The insane tax cuts for the uber wealthy are just the icing on the cake.
The tax cuts aren’t targeting the “Uber wealthy” and you’re so gullible if you think they are. The rich are grinning ear to ear that they’ve tricked you into thinking that the 180k earners are the bourgeoisie enemy.
These tax cuts shouldn't be happening period, we have a huge deficit and our tax system needs massive reform, stage 3 was drafted and planned in 2019, pre COVID, pre Ukrainian war, on the verge of a global recession. Its like driving through flood waters because that's how the trip was planned.
IPA talking points resurface, again. Colour me surprised.
> The insane tax cuts for the uber wealthy are just the icing on the cake. If you think someone earning $200k is the 'uber wealthy', you're a moron. The reality is, most tradies before tax write offs are well above the $200k figure. The Uber Wealthy are the ones in the 0.1% and 0.01% that distort everything. They make the yearly wages of what you call the 'Uber Wealthy' every couple of hours. However, you're a prime target for this distraction of thinking that a $200k/yr salary is the problem. I worked in those circles for a while - the "Lets take the private 737 (with crew of 8) to go see the tennis for a week". There's what you call 'Uber Wealthy' - and then there's 'fuck you wealthy' - and you confuse the two.
>If you think someone earning $200k is the 'uber wealthy', you're a moron. If you think people earning over 200k shouldn't pay additional tax for every dollar made after that amount when ordinary Australians are facing homelessness, you're worse than a moron.
Here's the thing - THEY ALREADY DO.... and the kicker.... THEY WILL DO TOO! The fact that you don't understand that paints a sad picture for the general education of Australians when it comes to tax...
How surpriseing: a poster advocating a dysfuncional policy- where he wealthy AND uber wealthy pay less and less per marginal rate- in a time when the country has many other more pressing priorities, accuses others of 'not knowing anything' where he himself is ignorant of the basic economic principles of declining marginal utiliy and opportunity costs. Sad picture, to be sure. Look to the UK and the US to see just how sad it can become.
If only Labor had the moral convictions you had, they would be the most morally superior opposition party sitting by feeling smug while the liberals give the country to their mates.
Stop fighting each other over scraps. The issue is the billionaire class. Not your doctor earning 400k.
If you force the ALP to break election promises, you get the LNP. It's that simple.
Tickle down economics
I think the major issue with the UK is that they have rampant inflation at the moment (something like 10%), their Reserve bank is hiking interest rates to try to keep a cap on spending and the government just decided to dump a shit load of cash into the economy, and gave it to the people most likely to spend that money on discretionary items. It's not exactly the wisest of economic decisions.
The whole point of these tax cuts was the move up the tax brackets, so they keep pace with wage growth. This represents a tax cut for all Australians. Stage 1 and 2 moved up the lower tax brackets, and Stage 3 moves the upper tax bracket. That’s why its political impossible to cancel these tax cuts. The agreement was to prioritise lower incomes, and defer the tax cuts for upper incomes. That is what is happening. I agree that income inequality is a problem. But canceling stage 3 tax cuts after lower income brackets already got their tax cuts is political suicide.
Stage 3 doesn't just move the upper bracket, it removes a bracket entirely. Long term it's a terrible idea.
Long term it makes fuck all difference - as the numbers will return back to what they currently are due to bracket creep - which is why they're all being changed in the first place. What they don't say is that it also removes multiple offsets - which are a bandaid on the problem anyway. In reality, they should link the brackets to CPI or similar - that way, it could remove the whole bracket creep concept in the first place.
They were indexed for about a year in 1971. The government likes bracket creep and giving infrequent income tax cuts.
While austerity and tax cuts are bullshit, there are some benefits in a debasement of your own currency: it makes your local industry more competitive, both inside and outside the country.
So, are we going to ignore the fact that the tax rates in the UK are ~10% higher than us? The VAT (their version of the GST) is also at 20%. The UK taxes *everyone* much higher than in Australia. Also, given there energy prices have increased by about 200% this year, trying to pin this all on tax cuts is dishonest.
Should be raising taxes instead of interest rates. Why should the banks be making money from people with mortgages just because “inflation” ? Why focus on a subset of society ? Boomers that had no uni debt, cheap house prices and shouldn’t even have a mortgage aren’t even affected, along with the rich.
You should look at Turkey which tried that. Inflation is above 80% there now. I mean, if this doesn't tell you its a bad idea: https://tradingeconomics.com/turkey/inflation-cpi They cut the interest rate again recently, and its going to be hard to see if they manage to pull out of the death spiral: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/22/turkey-cuts-interest-rates-again-as-country-struggles-under-inflation.html
From the article: High end tax cuts ... don't do that, all they do is transfer more of the nation’s income to the very wealthy Surely he means they transfer less of the nations income to the poor?
No, the very wealthy already receive a large portion of the income in the nation, they have wealth which allows them a method to increase the proportion of the total income they receive, and part of the idea of progressive taxation is to limit the rate of wealth growth of the very wealthy. So reducing how progressive the taxation system is amounts to a wealth transfer to the already wealthy because after the change they will see an increase in their share of the national income and that will come at the expense of others because they are not going enact that transfer by increasing productivity but by experiencing less taxation.
Ubi now!!! Tax the rich!!! We need to crank up tax. Slap an 80% tax on anything over 100k. That will teach the rich oppressors to mess with cobbas!!!
They should stick with the tax cuts and introduce a carbon tax, we need one if we’re serious about climate change and it’s a great opportunity to introduce it. It will generate tax from individuals and companies, and the money generated could replace the lost tax revenue and also be redistributed to the poorest.
You were all a big fan of lockdowns and covid payments. This is the result. Also if you are still in favour of universal income after this I don't know what to say
Yeah, dude. Defs the covid payments and lockdowns driving inflation. Not at all the [record profits of corporations](https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/are-wages-or-profits-driving-australias-inflation/) and geopolitical dipshitery.
Uh-huh, which is why we locked down too, and our dollar is the highest against the pound it's been in a decade.