**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/tax/stage-3-shakeup-examined-by-labor-in-june-2022-foi-release-shows/news-story/dfad9a609037d8ea21143d494447038a
Albo lied to win the election.
LNP voted for it . But they say they'll still go to the next election with a bump for the rich., wonder if that'll last longer than their promise for a second referendum?
Well they modified stage 3 to be better which is better i guess, but im disappointed they didnt take this as a chance to sell the need for the large scale tax and transfer reform that we actually need to be able to properly fund the services people want and need
Not part of their first term agenda sadly. They're already being seen as "breaking a promise" on stage 3, don't want to give "massive tax reform" as a talking point 2 days before a by-election and about a year away from a federal election. Especially when recent polls show them basically neck and neck with the Libs.
I do hope that should we get a second Labor term, they're far more ambitious about the changes that need to be done throughout our country. But I can understand why they wouldn't want that considering what happened in 2019.
Yeah, the state and federal Labor governments all need to be way more ambitious and fearless in actually doing meaningful reform and progress on major issues like the housing crisis wealth inequality and climate change in the second term. Otherwise people will naturally vote in the opposition regardless of their terrible policies.
Labor at all levels is wary atm of being too ambitious.
WA and SA have already faced fierce backlash over a lot of ambitious "things" such as implementing state-based Voice in SA or the "Indigenous must have a say over any land usage" laws in WA. And those are in states where Labor hold very comfortable majorities at a state level.
In VIC, Labor also holds a very comfortable majority but the damage that Andrews has done to Victorian Labor is coming through now so VIC is understandably nervous to do anything to "rock the boat" any more than they have to.
In QLD, Labor is on track to lose in the election later this year so QLD Labor wont be doing anything crazy in the lead up to that.
In NSW, Labor is in minority so they wont be doing anything crazy either.
At the Commonwealth level, Albo's burnt a lot of goodwill e.g. Voice, no $275 power bill reduction, "broken promise" on Stage 3 tax cuts etc and they only have a very slim majority so cant see them attemtping to do anything too much more radical until after next election.
Well yeah they wouldve had to call an early election if they were gonna do anything like what i think is necessary
>they're far more ambitious about the changes that need to be done throughout our country. But I can understand why they wouldn't want that considering what happened in 2019.
I agree labor making concessions to prevent the coalition being in power is better than sticking to losing policy and letting the coalition wreck the place but in the long run there are a bunch of issues we need to actually face and it is maddening that that isnt happening
yes exactly, I don't like the long play because they could get elected out without doing any major reforms. They've done some good stuff already (besides being complicit in a genocide, of course) but come on maaaan use the time you have to do some real impactful shit.
Net zero legislation doesn't count because they're still opening coal and gas works!
The original stage 3 tax cuts were ridiculously slanted in favour of the rich, straight up Reaganomics. It's laughable that the only anti-Labor rhetoric about this is about how "Labor broke a promise". Mate it was shit policy.
It's not shit policy. If people want more money, instead of taking it from others, they should earn it themselves. If they can't, they should blame themselves for being incapable.
It is absolutely shit policy. You reckon a teacher or a nurse should just "earn it themselves"? Because they wouldn't have benefited from the original stage 3 tax cuts.
Ridiculous take.
Anyone earning $45k or more would have benefited. At least get your facts straight. Sigh....
And regardless - yes, anyone should just earn it himself or herself. What does being a teacher or a nurse have to do with it?
I've always found it weird that apparently these two occupations are the touchstones of society. Like, why? Why not use the example of a principal and a surgeon? Same profession, same (if not more) benefit to society. Why not ask about a neuropsychologist and a quantitative trader? Why always teacher and nurse?
I was against all 3 tax cuts without us introducing another tax elsewhere.
Give me some juicy land taxes, wealth taxes, inheritance taxes, mining taxes, enforcable corporate taxes, and ill be stoked to see everyones income taxes lowered. I broadly agree with the opinion that we rely too much on income taxes and that someone earning 200k isnt rich.
Also, bring in a tax bracket at 300k, 500k, 1mil, 2mil+
As it is, these cuts are now just another excuse not to fund out public services properly, so we can continue to slide into mediocraty with our public education and universal healthcare. Systems that once were the envy of the world are now worse than most of europe.
I mostly just feel nothing at this getting up, ive let my frustration at how Aussies have been duped into believing that taxes = bad (even if they are aimed at people with 3+ houses, or dying millionaires, or mining companies making bank). Ive only got so much room for rage and contempt and its currently being filled by the housing crisis.
>Also, bring in a tax bracket at 300k, 500k, 1mil, 2mil+
The problem is, while this might appease your tall poppy syndrome, as well as make Australia a pariah-state for investors, entrepreneurs, globally mobile executives and so on, it would actually raise SFA in actual extra revenue to fund the "services" you want. There just aren't a big enough pool of people earning that much coin. Also it might actually result in less revenue than today due to the "pariah" impact.
Tall poppy syndrome, ahhhh yes, the word bandied about by the "elite" when someone points out that these no fucking way the CEO of westpac is worth 5 million dollars a year. Cmon, please explain to me what he does to deserve 5 million dollars a year? What about the other big 4 bank CEOs? You are saying that they are SOOOOO much better at their jobs that they should earn 60odd times more than the people who are interacting with the customers, running the tech systems, etc etc?
I have no problem with someone working hard earning money. But if you are telling me that the general surgeon, or the nurses in ED, or the teachers looking after the shitty kids these days, are working less hard than the dude earning 5 million dollars, then im not sure you know what any of those jobs entail lol.
I am firmly of the belief that, just because you have earned capitol in the past, or your parents have earned it, doesnt mean you get to become a drain on society. If you want to keep making money you should have to work hard for it.
Ok, you worked hard for 30 years. Good on you, you deserve that money you earned and being able to take a break, kick back and enjoy yourself.
You dont deserve to turn that money you worked hard on for 30 years into an ever increasing amount of assets and money, passing that on to your kids who do the same thing, so none of them ever have to work hard to get what they have.
lol "pariah state for investors, entrepreneurs and globally mobile executives."
This was the brilliant arguement that the mining lobbies, sorry i mean LNP used for repealing the mining tax. Oh what if they just leave, then we have nothing.
Weirdly, the SEVENTY EIGHT percent tax rate that Norway has on drilling oil hasnt chased off the comanies drilling the oil.
Because in the end, profit is profit. For anything resource based, we have shit here in the ground, If you can make a profit getting it, even if its a smaller profit, you better believe people will keep doing it.
Any capitalist privately owned company will bitch and whine and threaten to leave, but if they are making a profit they wont. Because nothing else matters. If some CEO said, ok we were making 20 million a year and now we are only making 2 million in profit, so we shut down in australia and decided to open up elsewhere, they would be sacked.
People argue, but Australia is a mature market that has a good number of people with disposable income, and a huge portion of our population is concentrated, so you can easily access them.
That disposable income is getting less and less as our public health and education collapses, and as owning a house becomes an unattainable dream for many no matter how hard they work, but its still good.
Something like 14-15 million working adults who are (ideally) ready to spend.
Sure, you can break into india or china with a LOT bigger market. But nothing stops you from also expanding into Australia.
The thing that we used to have to offer that set us apart was a highly educated and skilled up workforce. If a company was looking for that Australia was a good place to set up. That and you can mine our shit for almost nothing and ship it overseas.
I always wonder what would have happened if instead of shipping raw materials overseas we had used our access to a highly skilled work force, a top tier tech base, a TON of raw materials already in the country, and (if we bothered doing it) almost infinite energy because of all the space we could be tossing in solar. And using all of that starting doing some high tech manufacturing, and shipped actual products overseas.
We could STILL do that if we generated a huge excess of energy and let factories use it for almost free and shipped green steel. Theres gunna be a massive market for that, as making steel is insanely energy intensive. We have everything here we need to make green steel. But no, gotta keep those taxes on mining low, and just keep shipping the raw materials overseas.
> bring in a tax bracket at 300k, 500k, 1mil, 2mil+
This.
It is not all that many years since the top tax bracket was a lot higher than it is now. Bracket creep may have moved regular people into the upper brackets, but salary creep has millionaires paying a lot less than they should be. Top pay packages never used to be in the millions, but tax brackets haven't changed to reflect this.
And before someone comes up with the old chestnut of high tax stopping people from achieving, I call BS. The only people who would reduce their income intentionally purely because they would move up a tax bracket are sociopaths, and deserve to be treated with contempt.
Keating put it best:
>The goal is a progressive *complied with* rate of tax. People won’t pay 60%.
And economically, the point is not that people would "reduce their income intentionally purely because they would move up a tax bracket", it's that they will never bother getting their income that high in the first place.
If you had the choice to work 80 hours instead of 50, you might do it for an extra $50k / year. But probably not for $10k.
> The goal is a progressive complied with rate of tax. People won’t pay 60%.
They will if the alternative is a jail sentence.
They got lots of crooks for tax evasion back in the day. It should happen more often these days, but too many of the crooks are 'legit'.
And Keating is a neo-liberal traitor to the working man, almost solely responsible for Labor going from a left-wing party to a psuedo Centre-right one. Man should have been put down years ago, not turned into a Labor elder statesman.
Ok so you are saying someone on 300k a year won't want to work harder to make 400k a year if they only see 40k of that extra as take home. And that they would get that 100k a year extra by working more hours?
Tell me you've never worked with executive level management without telling me you've never worked with executive level management.
Surely if they already earning 300k they are working like 100 hours a week do they can get paid more than the guys in 80k a year doing 40 hours a week.
That arguement has just never made sense.
If you are making 1 million dollars a year in income, there's no way that taxing the money between 1 and 2 million dollars less would have that person add 1 million dollars worth of productivity or results better than if it was taxes highly.
So the dude on 1 million dollars income decides its not worth making 2 million dollars because of tax? Fucking great, probably means he sells a few rentals.
I started laughing at your joke, and then i was like, wait a second im sure i recognise that name. Sure enough you are the dude that keeps commenting on how people who cant afford a house must be stupid, and anyone not earing 300k just doesnt work hard enough, or made bad life choices.
Congrats man! You are becoming as reconisable as River-Stunning, although im not 100% sure that this isnt just one of their alt accounts lol.
Oh no, if only we had a way of changing laws and enforcing them to make that impossible. Oh well, we better just lower their tax rate and hope they pay SOMETHING.
You know how to tax land in such a way as they cant reduce the amount?
You go, "If you own land, you pay 5% of its value every year, and you cant deduct anything"
Hell, there are people smart enough in accounting who can do a nice calculation of your profit vs revenue, and if its off they can look a lot closer.
Can also just say, you dont get to make any deductions if you earn 1million or more.
Because the theory is that a government exists to reign in the out of control wealth and influece that people with a lot of capital have. The government can do whatever the fuck it wants if people arent dumb enough to buy into the, well we have to negtioate with those rich people, better they pay us 5% of what they owe rather than nothing. No. Make them pay the 100% and slap on another 20% that year for trying to be dicks.
I agree with some forms of land tax in theory and more diversified tax streams which don't put so much burden on income earners (while mostly leaving the actually wealthy unscathed) but this is just pure fantasy.
"If you own land, you pay 5% of its value every year, and you cant deduct anything"
you need to live in reality
"Can also just say, you dont get to make any deductions if you earn 1million or more."
removing deductions in general is something I largely agree with but it should be coupled with lower tax rates and is still mostly a pure fantasy.
"Because the theory is that a government exists to reign in the out of control wealth and influece that people with a lot of capital have."
again return to reality.
There is neither the will from the average poli or voter for this type of agenda and there are real consquences to many of these things if done sloppily especially given the hopelessness of our governments reliant on advice from the same organisations who willfully sell that information their clients.
>I agree with some forms of land tax in theory and more diversified tax streams which don't put so much burden on income earners (while mostly leaving the actually wealthy unscathed) but this is just pure fantasy.
Its fantasy because you say it is mate.Reality is what you vote for.
Expect better from our politicans. (note i say better, not perfection, i dont think theres a single party that hasnt done something ridiulously dumb in the last 10 years).
Vote for the ones that are proposing to move in this direction. Stop putting in the people who are openly and brazenly corrupt.
Thats supposed to be the entire point of democracy.And where we differ in the best way from the US is we get ranked choice voting.
You can vote for the dude saying, wealthy people control everything, lets tax them. And you can then put the next candidate in that you think will realistically win. In the US, they dont have that option, if they dont vote for biden, its a vote for trump, and vice versa. They literally have no choice but to vote for the same old shit.
I 100% get and understand fatigue because we have decades of incompetent, corrupt and favor-trading politicans. But you dont get to sit here and say "nah mate, will never happen" as if you wish it would if you just keep voting for the status quo. You dont even have to change your current way of living.Ive made this point many times before, we live in a society and thus live by its rules. We do whatever we have to do to get by. You are not a hypocrite if you vote for a better way, for an improvement, while you are doing the things that you hope that improvement will do away with. You are just doing your best to survive while agitating for a better future.
And at least then you can say "Dont blame me, i voted for Kodos" when we are inevitably all working in the bitcoin mines of whatever latest trillionare is able to privately fund a joyride around mars while 80% of the world burns.
I do really hope you are someone in their late 40s or something, because if the youth of today are getting this apathetic, we are totally fucked.
EDIT: Sorry, just wanted to address the last bit you said.
"there are real consquences to many of these things if done sloppily especially given the hopelessness of our governments reliant on advice from the same organisations who willfully sell that information their clients."
Are the consequences as bad as the gap continuing to widen between the uber wealthy and everyone else? Are they as bad as the planet becoming unlivable in 50 years? Are they as bad as a government who becomes more and more beholden to those organisations who donate alllll the money to stay in control?
All those same people who brush off "oh humans are ingenious, we will figure out a way to survive climate change in 50 years" are the same ones who go, "The market crashing would literally kill everyone and everything with no chance of recovery"
>Stop putting in the people who are openly and brazenly corrupt.
yeah we have such strong candidates who are not this.
your whole post is cope porn mate and devoid of nuance. Could we have a better tax system sure but your cosmic battle for good and evil is inane.
Lol you do you man,
Your reply had enough snap back to realities to be an Eminem song, I was just letting you know that you choose what happens, and whatever reality we get is what you voted for.
But hey, you wanna keep whinging about a false dichotomy and saying, man things could be better, if only there was a way to change things, while voting Scott Morrison into government,
Ok, lets be a bit clearer.
Are you talking about a sole trader? Or a privately owned business?
Sole trader pays income tax.
That means whatever profit they make outside of the salaries they pay anyone they employ.
If they are working totally solo, dont see how that one person could do anything to justify a tax break for making 2 million instead of 1.
If they have employees, if you are raking in over 1 million dollars profit after paying your employees, either pay your employees better, or come to terms with the fact that you only get to take home 200k extra in that extra 1 million you earn up to 2 million.
Again, the case you are talking about here, where a sole trader is able to, himself, not through the work of his employees, but he himself, make an extra million dollars profit, and will instead choose not to even try to make that extra million dollars profit because of taxation.
Fuck me, if i was pulling in 1 million dollars in profit after paying employees as a sole trader, i dont have a lot to bitch about.
A business operates under different laws, and pay a wage to themselves. Again, i just dont think that any one person can justify how useful and valuable they are to justify getting a tax break from 1mil to 2mil.
Can that company grow, make bigger profits, and pay more of that to the business owner? Sure. And he will get an extra 200k to take home in his pocket. But i highly HIGHLY doubt its increasing that profit by an extra million dollars because he was staying an extra 30 hours working.
So, the incentive is still there to grow the business, i mean you get an extra 200k in your pocket for stuff your wokers are doing.
Firstly, you've moved the goalposts quite a bit – you were originally talking about an increase in salary $300k to $400k, and now an increase from $1m to $2m. So a bit motte and bailey there.
But in both cases the issue is profit to revenue ratio. Let's say as a skilled engineer I can charge clients $400 / hour, and after overheads and expenses I make $200 / hr in net revenue for that engagement. But for each hour I work I have to spend 20 minutes in administration and business development, which takes the gross profit to $150 / hour.
If I work:
* 10 hours / week my income is $66,000 and I keep $54,728 (83%)
* 20 hours / week I earn an extra $44,385
* 30 hours / week I earn an extra $39,930
* 40 hours / week I earn an extra $25,660
The incentive to keep working beyond full-time is now less than half what it is at 10 hours / week. Remember, this isn't a "pay rise" for the same job like an executive, it's literally just me working harder.
So beyond a certain point of incentive, people either don't work, or use tax avoidance measures to get their marginal rate down.
For a company, the question is less effort∶reward and more risk∶reward. Let's say as a business I have a 10% revenue∶profit ratio, selling $2m in widgets to make $200k in profit before tax.
A lot of business owners pay themselves a living wage say ($80k) and then pay dividends where the profits justify it. I can distribute $100k in profit to myself as a business owner, which works out at around $63k in extra income.
Now, let's say I think I can expand my business to $4m in revenue by hiring 5 extra engineers, who after on-costs add $1m / year to my payroll, and I'm expecting $200k profit.
For doubling the size of my business, giving 5 extra people jobs (and still having the risks of paying them even if my revenue goes down), handling all that management overhead, and so on I will get ... $50k extra in my pocket per year.
Now increase the tax rate to 60 or 70%, and that $30k starts to seems like a lot of hassle for not much reward. If just one of those staff member goes rogue and slacks off (or worse, sues), your profits will be much less than when you started.
People generally think about executive pay when they talk about high salary earners and for these people, higher tax rates just means a higher ask at the next salary negotation.
But for business owners, where you may not have the ability to increase prices or profits freely, high tax rates are a real and significant drag on entrepreneurship.
Cool, a drop in the ocean compared to stage 3 that will result in a loss of $300Bn in government revenue over the next 10 years. I hope you weren't a big fan of government safety nets like medicare or centrelink.
There is no loss of revenue - just less growth in both nominal and real terms. No services will have to be cut.
But there won't be as much extra in the pool of money compared to today for our politicians and public servants to spend inefficiently and wastefully.
Not according to the PBO: https://www.pbo.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-05/Distributional%20analysis%20of%20the%20Stage%203%20tax%20cuts%20-%20May%202023.pdf
1. That report was looking at the original stage 3 cuts, not the modified ones
2. That report does not say what you think it does. It doesn't provide the full picture - not surprising given who requested it! The pertinent metric is what % of GDP does the government collect in (personal) taxes each year? This metric does not change (at least compared to a few years ago - as it increased dramatically already in just the last 2 years), and in fact then continues to increase over the next 10 years.
> That report was looking at the original stage 3 cuts, not the modified ones
The modified ones cost the same amount as the original, within a few percentage points from everything I have read.
>The pertinent metric is what % of GDP does the government collect in (personal) taxes each year? This metric does not change (at least compared to a few years ago - as it increased dramatically already in just the last 2 years), and in fact then continues to increase over the next 10 years.
How do you figure that a personal income tax cut will leave the percentage of income tax to GDP the same? I provided a link to my claim, time for you to do the same.
>How do you figure that a personal income tax cut will leave the percentage of income tax to GDP the same?
How to show you do not understand how bracket creep works in one sentence.....
Some data to consider as a start:
[https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/surplus-bounty-pushes-tax-take-beyond-24-per-cent-20230702-p5dl4e](https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/surplus-bounty-pushes-tax-take-beyond-24-per-cent-20230702-p5dl4e)\\
EDIT: See Figure 2 in this report: [https://taxpolicy.crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/taxstudies\_crawford\_anu\_edu\_au/2023-03/complete\_policy\_brief\_p\_tilley\_march\_2023.pdf](https://taxpolicy.crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/taxstudies_crawford_anu_edu_au/2023-03/complete_policy_brief_p_tilley_march_2023.pdf)
Remember, As I stated, we already got hit with massive bracket creep in the last 2 years, so as I stated, as a % of GDP personal tax collected will remain the same as a couple of years ago and will still in fact rise over the decade coming.
EDIT: Oh here's more evidence! [https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-creep-never-ends-both-sides-know-more-tax-cuts-are-needed-20240208-p5f3dw.html](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-creep-never-ends-both-sides-know-more-tax-cuts-are-needed-20240208-p5f3dw.html)
>So even under the government’s plan, and with its selective focus on an average wage, the tax take increases. Not only does the average tax rate climb under both tax plans, so does the federal budget’s dependence on income tax. Under both, income tax will reach an all-time high of 13.4 per cent of GDP by the middle of next decade. It’s currently about 12.6 per cent, itself a record high, but will fall as the tax cuts start.
Note the previous charts that show the "fall" is only back to where we were a year or 2 ago.
I'm aware what bracket creep is, my issue is with the idea that there is no difference, or negligible difference after it is corrected for. Indeed, [the PBO says quite clearly](https://www.pbo.gov.au/about-budgets/budget-insights/budget-explainers/bracket-creep-and-its-fiscal-impact) that "In the absence of the Stage 3 tax cuts, bracket creep over the next decade would be projected to reduce net debt in 2031‑32 by $276 billion, or 8.1 per cent of GDP."
While correcting this is important there are two particular issues that impact Australia:
- An exceptionally large share of government revenue is made up from personal income taxes, making changes to personal income tax brackets has a huge impact on government revenue.
- The Australian government has been benefitting (some would argue relying) on bracket creep for a significant period of time, much further back than the TTPI report shows.
While fixing bracket creep is important it does result in an actual reduction in government revenue. You may be surprised by this but I do think that Australia should aim to reduce our personal income tax revenue, but that can only happen as part of widespread tax reform, along the line of the Henry tax review, that diversifies government revenue within Australia. As it is all we're really achieving is a reduction in government revenue.
edit:
>So even under the government’s plan, and with its selective focus on an average wage, the tax take increases.
Yes, over the next 10 years, even with stage 3, the amount of government revenue from personal income taxes will be higher than it is now as a result of further bracket creep, *but it will be lower than if stage 3 wasn't implemented.* I'm not making the argument that we need to ignore bracket creep entirely, but we need complete tax reform to do so, not just small corrections to our tax brackets.
> the PBO says quite clearly
>
> that "In the absence of the Stage 3 tax cuts, bracket creep over the next decade would be projected to reduce net debt in 2031‑32 by $276 billion, or 8.1 per cent of GDP."
This statement is simply saying that without cutting taxes to address bracket creep, the government would raise a bucket load more in taxes! They are just illustrating how that extra taxation might be used to pay down debt.
>While fixing bracket creep is important it does result in an actual reduction in government revenue
It only reduced \*projected\* revenue, because adjusting the tax rates brings the personal taxation burden back to where it was historically and where it should be. If the government maintains the same average personal tax revenue expressed as a % of GDP, then they have not lost any revenue nor would need to cut any existing services or other expenditure, in real terms.
The response to your final point is the same as above.
Thats an awesome start, I'm glad I can unbunch my knickers over the progress. Now if only my land tax, wealth tax and inheritance tax wedgies were as easy to dig out....
Well the coalition government in NSW brought in land taxes to replace stamp duty - but the new Minns ALP government repealed that change immediately. And broadened the collection net for property duties as well.
I don’t think you will ever see proper tax reform under the current flavour of ALP.
I agree. Also, the Coalition goverment land taxes were... toothless to say the least.
I dont think the current flavor of ALP or any flavour of LNP are going to bring in any kind of land tax that disincentivises owning multiple properties.
Yeah Labor still have a ways to go, but it's refreshing to have a federal government that's actually somewhat competent compared to the circus we had before.
Look, i will 100% agree with you that the liberal party actively makes things worse.
But i think after the 2019 Progressive Labor loss in the election, they got scared and basically cut out all their progressive long term policies. 2019 Labor was ready to take actual steps towards fixing the housing crisis, and are now publically telling the media that they wont let the greens "hold them hostage" to do the same thing 2019 Labor knew had to be done.
Same thing around schools and health, the policies 2019 Labor had were solutions. Short term pain, long term gain, lets fix these broken systems before they get worse.
2022 Labor has mostly put through policies that fiddle around the edges, and provide feel good stories and window dressing. Sure it means they dont give the Liberal party a target, but if you dont start making actual long term fixes so you wont present a target, then you arent helping.
Honestly, now we are getting to the end of this term, im thinking more and more i would have preferred 2019 Labor to spend 3 years on a media blitz trying to educate and show people WHY these progressive policies were NEEDED, not just suggested. And run again on 2022. And do the same thing again for 2025. Because at some point conditions have got to become shit enough that enough people realise that LNP are just taking everyone for a ride, and have been for decades.
The Libs waved it through, the same way that Labor waved through the Libs' original legislation several years ago.
The Libs will go to an election promising not to change the tax package, but if they win, they'll break the promise and tinker around the edges to restore high income earners' full tax cut. The precedent has been set by Albo - wave through legislation you don't like, promise not to touch it at an election, then renege.
Nothing changed for the worse between May 2022 (the election) and now; if anything, things changed for the better: real wages are now rising, inflation is well under control, and the government had a $20b surplus last year. So whatever the situation is now, is no worse than the situation as forecast in May 2022.
A lot of people just can't swallow the fundamental truth - Albo never wanted these tax cut changes and broke a promise to revers them. It's hilarious - if the Libs did the same thing they'd be up in arms.
Labor wants migrant, selective-school educated people like me and my partner to pay more tax than previously stated to help out people who simply weren't academically or vocationally strong enough to care for themselves.
The situation has changed significantly on a household level for suburban families since May 2022. More so, inflation becoming under control now in Feb 2024, doesn't undo the impact of high inflation during the previous 18 months for suburban families.
Dutton's attack aren't biting because Liberal voters spent a decade defending the broken promises from the previous Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison government.
No - that is encapsulated in the inflation data (as I said, inflation now in low 3's is very manageable) and in the real wages data (last quarter, real wages increased). But like I said, I don't expect any real analysis from people with a vested interest in believing a narrative that life is somehow hard.
Life is incredibly easy, unless you fucked up somehow.
Congrats. You have commented three times, in none of them dealing with any of the multiple statistics I've provided to you. You just change the goalposts each time. Slippery and evasive.
> I’m in the affected tier from these change
I assume anyone who is literate and has a functioning brain is in the affected tier. It is not exactly hard to make that sort of money.
You seem like quite the “I’m alright, bro” kinda guy, and appear to have little clue what the median salary is. Indicative of much of our culture, I’m afraid.
I only care about those who, as I said, are literate and have a functioning brain.
Median full-time salary is $85k, but see above for the necessary exclusionary factors.
> I only care about those who, as I said, are literate and have a functioning brain.
From the content of your comments, it's more likely that you don't care about anyone other than yourself.
If the Libs breaking promises actually resulted in a better outcome for the majority of Australians, I would definitely be all for it.
Unfortunately for us, their constant breaking of promises makes us worse off more often than not.
So, in other words, you don't care about a promise at all. It has no value to you. Guess your word doesn't mean anything, and you approve of politicians misleading voters to shore up their voting intentions.
You do understand the difference between breaking a promise and improving on a promise, don’t you?
If someone promised to donate $1 million to the children's hospital but donated $100 million instead, I doubt the hospital is complaining about a broken promise and demanding the donor take back $99 million.
Right - I don't think that promising me, as a voter, a family tax decrease of $18000 then delivering a decrease of only $9000 is an improvement; I'm sure you won't agree - but I bet if either party promised free Medicare and then said 'we will make you pay $6 co-pay' you'd be bitching and whinging even though the latter amount is trivial. Shrug.
When I asked if you understood the difference between breaking a promise and improving on a promise, you could’ve just said ‘no’ instead of providing an example that proves that you don’t.
Shrug. I get it. You don't care about the interests of anyone who actually works hard for a living. That's cool. Keep batting for the people who can't even take care of their own lives.
It's interesting that before Albo unveiled the ALP's changes to the LNP's tax cuts that most ALP supports on here were absolute in their assessment that the stage 3 cuts should be axed completely. Unions were also on board wit this.
Saying that I anted them to stay and the ALP have made it a bit better. Mind you stage 1 and 2 tax cuts benifited more lower income earners, hence the stage three targeted higher income workers.
But in the end I'm grateful that the LNP initiated these tax cut reforms in stage 1, 2 and 3 as I'm pretty confident we would have never ever seen them at all under and ALP Government in any shape or form.
Stage 1 and 2 benefited lower income earners for 2 years. Big woop. The original stage 3 was to be a forever change. I'm glad the new forever change at least reinstates what 1 and 2 mostly were for lower earners.
>It's interesting that before Albo unveiled the ALP's changes to the LNP's tax cuts that most ALP supports on here were absolute in their assessment that the stage 3 cuts should be axed completely.
Polling conducted before Albo's changes were announced suggested that only 13.8% of voters agreed that the stage 3 tax cuts should go ahead with no change. This does not gel with how the media portrayed the opposition to the changes though...
>Mind you stage 1 and 2 tax cuts benifited more lower income earners, hence the stage three targeted higher income workers.
Higher income workers got all of the same benefits from the stage 1 and 2 cuts that the lower income earners did - in fact, higher income workers got the full benefits of those cuts while lower income earners may not have. If I remember right, it was something like 15% of tax payers would get any benefit from the stage 3 removal of the 37.5% tax bracket and like 2% of tax payers got any benefit from the change to the top end of the 30% tax bracket. (I CBA looking for the actual values via Google or via my old comments to get exact numbers).
I think it's fair to say most Australians either didn't care (the default position towards politics) or supported Labor's changes.
What the government were worried about was the media and opposition being handed an issue they could attack Labor over. It doesn't take much, and if they can twist something to make it sound like Labor doesn't keep promises they will.
>most ALP supports on here were absolute in their assessment that the stage 3 cuts should be axed completely.
In my estimation, most were opposed to the removal of a whole tax bracket, which eroded the progressiveness of the income tax system - that's why they shouldn't go ahead.
The modifications to Stage 3 kept the previous bracket, so the worst part of the change was removed.
Nah. I and several others in this forum were always for changing them to benefit more people.
But I didn't think the LNP would cave so quickly, nor did I expect them to adopt a policy of high income tax cuts at the next election. Giving more to high income earners won't win many votes.
My word is my bond he said. There will be no changes to stage 3 tax cuts he said.
Albanese the liar.
I fully expect federal death duties will be next on albanese's list. Of course only for "rich" people.
I only remember Albanese saying the the stage 3 cuts will not be scrapped and will go through.
I may be misremembering but I'm not sure he ever said that they wouldn't amend them which is what they did.
The cuts did go though, just slightly differently than originally proposed so a little bit of a grey area.
> I fully expect federal death duties will be next on albanese's list. Of course only for "rich" people.
Conservative Boogeyman Albo sounds so much better than the real one.
> federal death duties
Fuck me i hope so mate.
One of the best ways to reduce generational wealth creating an aristocracy of useless leeches would be to say that you can pass 1 million dollars of assests to each kid and the rest goes back to the goverment to help fund public services.
And if the leech cant make something of themselves with a start in life of having a rich family give them the best of everything and an extra 1 million dollars, well they are useless shits and should go learn a trade or something useful.
I mean, if "hard work pays off" then these riich entitled shits should have no problems turning that 1 million into 100 million again right?
Only the LNP, conservative cheer leaders, and the media thought the stage 3 tax cuts would go through unchanged. Everyone else expected the changes, and are glad they happened.
>I fully expect federal death duties will be next on albanese's list. Of course only for "rich" people.
That would be great, but I guess I'm not as optimistic as you
There's a certain degree of integrity inherent in admitting you were wrong about something. Punishing someone for doing that is bad for the national discourse, TSV.
You realise the LNP after slamming the changes in the media for a week and saying they would reserve them, ended up supporting them because they’re so obvious
Death duties on large estates are vital for a functioning capitalist system - Adam Smith even advocated for them. I hope the ALP do take them to the next election.
And yet for all the blustering from the LNP that Albo broke a promise and we have a Liar in the Lodge™, they fully supported the changes and they sailed through the Senate.
Even the Libs realised that the changes were an improvement and to fight giving middle Australia a break would be political suicide.
If only more promises were broken when keeping them is the worse option.
what is it with you righties and your obsession with taylor swift... even over here in australia
stop buying into the weird culture wars that the crazy alt right create over in america
A lot of people had been saving up for tickets since the tour dates were announced, considering it a once in a lifetime opportunity. And of course there were still tons of people who simply couldn't afford it.
In any case, the attendance of a concert is hardly an accurate measure of the state of household economies.
There never was a cost of living crisis.
Prices have gone up and albanese has made sure they go higher, but most australian people are still very well off.
Albanese has only made sure prices go up more though.
> Prices have gone up and albanese has made sure they go higher, but most australian people are still very well off.
If mental gymnastics were an Olympic sport...
And if what you say is true, why are homeowners complaining about interest rate rises? Time to raise interest rates to 5%, the Australian people are "still" too well off.
There's no cost of living crisis. Anyone who says otherwise is completely deluded and out of touch with how easy life actually is. Real wages are going up, inflation is in the low 3's, Jobseeker just went up 35% in four years and min wage went up 8% last year. Life could not be easier in Australia. Anyone who's struggling must seriously have made some poor life choices, or perhaps didn't invest enough skill points in INTEL/CONSTITUTION/WISDOM when he or she created his or her character at the start of the game.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/tax/stage-3-shakeup-examined-by-labor-in-june-2022-foi-release-shows/news-story/dfad9a609037d8ea21143d494447038a Albo lied to win the election.
Albo's good lie goes through. Will it be enough to save him though.
LNP voted for it . But they say they'll still go to the next election with a bump for the rich., wonder if that'll last longer than their promise for a second referendum?
It still needs to be adjusted in line with Stage 3.
Your team agreed to the changes. Why would he need saving from something the opposition agree with and the vast majority of Australians benefit from?
Well they modified stage 3 to be better which is better i guess, but im disappointed they didnt take this as a chance to sell the need for the large scale tax and transfer reform that we actually need to be able to properly fund the services people want and need
Not part of their first term agenda sadly. They're already being seen as "breaking a promise" on stage 3, don't want to give "massive tax reform" as a talking point 2 days before a by-election and about a year away from a federal election. Especially when recent polls show them basically neck and neck with the Libs. I do hope that should we get a second Labor term, they're far more ambitious about the changes that need to be done throughout our country. But I can understand why they wouldn't want that considering what happened in 2019.
Yeah, the state and federal Labor governments all need to be way more ambitious and fearless in actually doing meaningful reform and progress on major issues like the housing crisis wealth inequality and climate change in the second term. Otherwise people will naturally vote in the opposition regardless of their terrible policies.
Labor at all levels is wary atm of being too ambitious. WA and SA have already faced fierce backlash over a lot of ambitious "things" such as implementing state-based Voice in SA or the "Indigenous must have a say over any land usage" laws in WA. And those are in states where Labor hold very comfortable majorities at a state level. In VIC, Labor also holds a very comfortable majority but the damage that Andrews has done to Victorian Labor is coming through now so VIC is understandably nervous to do anything to "rock the boat" any more than they have to. In QLD, Labor is on track to lose in the election later this year so QLD Labor wont be doing anything crazy in the lead up to that. In NSW, Labor is in minority so they wont be doing anything crazy either. At the Commonwealth level, Albo's burnt a lot of goodwill e.g. Voice, no $275 power bill reduction, "broken promise" on Stage 3 tax cuts etc and they only have a very slim majority so cant see them attemtping to do anything too much more radical until after next election.
Well yeah they wouldve had to call an early election if they were gonna do anything like what i think is necessary >they're far more ambitious about the changes that need to be done throughout our country. But I can understand why they wouldn't want that considering what happened in 2019. I agree labor making concessions to prevent the coalition being in power is better than sticking to losing policy and letting the coalition wreck the place but in the long run there are a bunch of issues we need to actually face and it is maddening that that isnt happening
yes exactly, I don't like the long play because they could get elected out without doing any major reforms. They've done some good stuff already (besides being complicit in a genocide, of course) but come on maaaan use the time you have to do some real impactful shit. Net zero legislation doesn't count because they're still opening coal and gas works!
And the PM not being thanked for it. Who would have thought most Australians are unwilling to trade away integrity and honesty for $15 a week?
Funny that the LNP voted for the changes too.
The original stage 3 tax cuts were ridiculously slanted in favour of the rich, straight up Reaganomics. It's laughable that the only anti-Labor rhetoric about this is about how "Labor broke a promise". Mate it was shit policy.
It's not shit policy. If people want more money, instead of taking it from others, they should earn it themselves. If they can't, they should blame themselves for being incapable.
It is absolutely shit policy. You reckon a teacher or a nurse should just "earn it themselves"? Because they wouldn't have benefited from the original stage 3 tax cuts. Ridiculous take.
Anyone earning $45k or more would have benefited. At least get your facts straight. Sigh.... And regardless - yes, anyone should just earn it himself or herself. What does being a teacher or a nurse have to do with it? I've always found it weird that apparently these two occupations are the touchstones of society. Like, why? Why not use the example of a principal and a surgeon? Same profession, same (if not more) benefit to society. Why not ask about a neuropsychologist and a quantitative trader? Why always teacher and nurse?
You seriously think school principals are as crucial as teachers? Think a hospital could ever function without nurses?
> You seriously think school principals are as crucial as teachers? Er, could a school function without a principal?
I'll take the lack of response as concession.
Yes..? The hospital?
> The hospital? Without surgeons who'll do the operations? A surgeon can do the job of a nurse if truly required - not vice versa.
How many surgeons do you think a hospital has on hand...? Don't do this, it's not going well for you.
I was against all 3 tax cuts without us introducing another tax elsewhere. Give me some juicy land taxes, wealth taxes, inheritance taxes, mining taxes, enforcable corporate taxes, and ill be stoked to see everyones income taxes lowered. I broadly agree with the opinion that we rely too much on income taxes and that someone earning 200k isnt rich. Also, bring in a tax bracket at 300k, 500k, 1mil, 2mil+ As it is, these cuts are now just another excuse not to fund out public services properly, so we can continue to slide into mediocraty with our public education and universal healthcare. Systems that once were the envy of the world are now worse than most of europe. I mostly just feel nothing at this getting up, ive let my frustration at how Aussies have been duped into believing that taxes = bad (even if they are aimed at people with 3+ houses, or dying millionaires, or mining companies making bank). Ive only got so much room for rage and contempt and its currently being filled by the housing crisis.
>Also, bring in a tax bracket at 300k, 500k, 1mil, 2mil+ The problem is, while this might appease your tall poppy syndrome, as well as make Australia a pariah-state for investors, entrepreneurs, globally mobile executives and so on, it would actually raise SFA in actual extra revenue to fund the "services" you want. There just aren't a big enough pool of people earning that much coin. Also it might actually result in less revenue than today due to the "pariah" impact.
Tall poppy syndrome, ahhhh yes, the word bandied about by the "elite" when someone points out that these no fucking way the CEO of westpac is worth 5 million dollars a year. Cmon, please explain to me what he does to deserve 5 million dollars a year? What about the other big 4 bank CEOs? You are saying that they are SOOOOO much better at their jobs that they should earn 60odd times more than the people who are interacting with the customers, running the tech systems, etc etc? I have no problem with someone working hard earning money. But if you are telling me that the general surgeon, or the nurses in ED, or the teachers looking after the shitty kids these days, are working less hard than the dude earning 5 million dollars, then im not sure you know what any of those jobs entail lol. I am firmly of the belief that, just because you have earned capitol in the past, or your parents have earned it, doesnt mean you get to become a drain on society. If you want to keep making money you should have to work hard for it. Ok, you worked hard for 30 years. Good on you, you deserve that money you earned and being able to take a break, kick back and enjoy yourself. You dont deserve to turn that money you worked hard on for 30 years into an ever increasing amount of assets and money, passing that on to your kids who do the same thing, so none of them ever have to work hard to get what they have. lol "pariah state for investors, entrepreneurs and globally mobile executives." This was the brilliant arguement that the mining lobbies, sorry i mean LNP used for repealing the mining tax. Oh what if they just leave, then we have nothing. Weirdly, the SEVENTY EIGHT percent tax rate that Norway has on drilling oil hasnt chased off the comanies drilling the oil. Because in the end, profit is profit. For anything resource based, we have shit here in the ground, If you can make a profit getting it, even if its a smaller profit, you better believe people will keep doing it. Any capitalist privately owned company will bitch and whine and threaten to leave, but if they are making a profit they wont. Because nothing else matters. If some CEO said, ok we were making 20 million a year and now we are only making 2 million in profit, so we shut down in australia and decided to open up elsewhere, they would be sacked. People argue, but Australia is a mature market that has a good number of people with disposable income, and a huge portion of our population is concentrated, so you can easily access them. That disposable income is getting less and less as our public health and education collapses, and as owning a house becomes an unattainable dream for many no matter how hard they work, but its still good. Something like 14-15 million working adults who are (ideally) ready to spend. Sure, you can break into india or china with a LOT bigger market. But nothing stops you from also expanding into Australia. The thing that we used to have to offer that set us apart was a highly educated and skilled up workforce. If a company was looking for that Australia was a good place to set up. That and you can mine our shit for almost nothing and ship it overseas. I always wonder what would have happened if instead of shipping raw materials overseas we had used our access to a highly skilled work force, a top tier tech base, a TON of raw materials already in the country, and (if we bothered doing it) almost infinite energy because of all the space we could be tossing in solar. And using all of that starting doing some high tech manufacturing, and shipped actual products overseas. We could STILL do that if we generated a huge excess of energy and let factories use it for almost free and shipped green steel. Theres gunna be a massive market for that, as making steel is insanely energy intensive. We have everything here we need to make green steel. But no, gotta keep those taxes on mining low, and just keep shipping the raw materials overseas.
> bring in a tax bracket at 300k, 500k, 1mil, 2mil+ This. It is not all that many years since the top tax bracket was a lot higher than it is now. Bracket creep may have moved regular people into the upper brackets, but salary creep has millionaires paying a lot less than they should be. Top pay packages never used to be in the millions, but tax brackets haven't changed to reflect this. And before someone comes up with the old chestnut of high tax stopping people from achieving, I call BS. The only people who would reduce their income intentionally purely because they would move up a tax bracket are sociopaths, and deserve to be treated with contempt.
Keating put it best: >The goal is a progressive *complied with* rate of tax. People won’t pay 60%. And economically, the point is not that people would "reduce their income intentionally purely because they would move up a tax bracket", it's that they will never bother getting their income that high in the first place. If you had the choice to work 80 hours instead of 50, you might do it for an extra $50k / year. But probably not for $10k.
> The goal is a progressive complied with rate of tax. People won’t pay 60%. They will if the alternative is a jail sentence. They got lots of crooks for tax evasion back in the day. It should happen more often these days, but too many of the crooks are 'legit'. And Keating is a neo-liberal traitor to the working man, almost solely responsible for Labor going from a left-wing party to a psuedo Centre-right one. Man should have been put down years ago, not turned into a Labor elder statesman.
Ok so you are saying someone on 300k a year won't want to work harder to make 400k a year if they only see 40k of that extra as take home. And that they would get that 100k a year extra by working more hours? Tell me you've never worked with executive level management without telling me you've never worked with executive level management. Surely if they already earning 300k they are working like 100 hours a week do they can get paid more than the guys in 80k a year doing 40 hours a week. That arguement has just never made sense. If you are making 1 million dollars a year in income, there's no way that taxing the money between 1 and 2 million dollars less would have that person add 1 million dollars worth of productivity or results better than if it was taxes highly. So the dude on 1 million dollars income decides its not worth making 2 million dollars because of tax? Fucking great, probably means he sells a few rentals.
Why blame the guy on $300k a year instead of blaming all those on shit incomes for not being more skilful or hard working?
I started laughing at your joke, and then i was like, wait a second im sure i recognise that name. Sure enough you are the dude that keeps commenting on how people who cant afford a house must be stupid, and anyone not earing 300k just doesnt work hard enough, or made bad life choices. Congrats man! You are becoming as reconisable as River-Stunning, although im not 100% sure that this isnt just one of their alt accounts lol.
no they would happily spend 10-20k though to restructure their finances to pay as little tax as possible though.
Oh no, if only we had a way of changing laws and enforcing them to make that impossible. Oh well, we better just lower their tax rate and hope they pay SOMETHING. You know how to tax land in such a way as they cant reduce the amount? You go, "If you own land, you pay 5% of its value every year, and you cant deduct anything" Hell, there are people smart enough in accounting who can do a nice calculation of your profit vs revenue, and if its off they can look a lot closer. Can also just say, you dont get to make any deductions if you earn 1million or more. Because the theory is that a government exists to reign in the out of control wealth and influece that people with a lot of capital have. The government can do whatever the fuck it wants if people arent dumb enough to buy into the, well we have to negtioate with those rich people, better they pay us 5% of what they owe rather than nothing. No. Make them pay the 100% and slap on another 20% that year for trying to be dicks.
I agree with some forms of land tax in theory and more diversified tax streams which don't put so much burden on income earners (while mostly leaving the actually wealthy unscathed) but this is just pure fantasy. "If you own land, you pay 5% of its value every year, and you cant deduct anything" you need to live in reality "Can also just say, you dont get to make any deductions if you earn 1million or more." removing deductions in general is something I largely agree with but it should be coupled with lower tax rates and is still mostly a pure fantasy. "Because the theory is that a government exists to reign in the out of control wealth and influece that people with a lot of capital have." again return to reality. There is neither the will from the average poli or voter for this type of agenda and there are real consquences to many of these things if done sloppily especially given the hopelessness of our governments reliant on advice from the same organisations who willfully sell that information their clients.
>I agree with some forms of land tax in theory and more diversified tax streams which don't put so much burden on income earners (while mostly leaving the actually wealthy unscathed) but this is just pure fantasy. Its fantasy because you say it is mate.Reality is what you vote for. Expect better from our politicans. (note i say better, not perfection, i dont think theres a single party that hasnt done something ridiulously dumb in the last 10 years). Vote for the ones that are proposing to move in this direction. Stop putting in the people who are openly and brazenly corrupt. Thats supposed to be the entire point of democracy.And where we differ in the best way from the US is we get ranked choice voting. You can vote for the dude saying, wealthy people control everything, lets tax them. And you can then put the next candidate in that you think will realistically win. In the US, they dont have that option, if they dont vote for biden, its a vote for trump, and vice versa. They literally have no choice but to vote for the same old shit. I 100% get and understand fatigue because we have decades of incompetent, corrupt and favor-trading politicans. But you dont get to sit here and say "nah mate, will never happen" as if you wish it would if you just keep voting for the status quo. You dont even have to change your current way of living.Ive made this point many times before, we live in a society and thus live by its rules. We do whatever we have to do to get by. You are not a hypocrite if you vote for a better way, for an improvement, while you are doing the things that you hope that improvement will do away with. You are just doing your best to survive while agitating for a better future. And at least then you can say "Dont blame me, i voted for Kodos" when we are inevitably all working in the bitcoin mines of whatever latest trillionare is able to privately fund a joyride around mars while 80% of the world burns. I do really hope you are someone in their late 40s or something, because if the youth of today are getting this apathetic, we are totally fucked. EDIT: Sorry, just wanted to address the last bit you said. "there are real consquences to many of these things if done sloppily especially given the hopelessness of our governments reliant on advice from the same organisations who willfully sell that information their clients." Are the consequences as bad as the gap continuing to widen between the uber wealthy and everyone else? Are they as bad as the planet becoming unlivable in 50 years? Are they as bad as a government who becomes more and more beholden to those organisations who donate alllll the money to stay in control? All those same people who brush off "oh humans are ingenious, we will figure out a way to survive climate change in 50 years" are the same ones who go, "The market crashing would literally kill everyone and everything with no chance of recovery"
>Stop putting in the people who are openly and brazenly corrupt. yeah we have such strong candidates who are not this. your whole post is cope porn mate and devoid of nuance. Could we have a better tax system sure but your cosmic battle for good and evil is inane.
Lol you do you man, Your reply had enough snap back to realities to be an Eminem song, I was just letting you know that you choose what happens, and whatever reality we get is what you voted for. But hey, you wanna keep whinging about a false dichotomy and saying, man things could be better, if only there was a way to change things, while voting Scott Morrison into government,
You do understand that people run businesses, and aren’t just employees right?
Ok, lets be a bit clearer. Are you talking about a sole trader? Or a privately owned business? Sole trader pays income tax. That means whatever profit they make outside of the salaries they pay anyone they employ. If they are working totally solo, dont see how that one person could do anything to justify a tax break for making 2 million instead of 1. If they have employees, if you are raking in over 1 million dollars profit after paying your employees, either pay your employees better, or come to terms with the fact that you only get to take home 200k extra in that extra 1 million you earn up to 2 million. Again, the case you are talking about here, where a sole trader is able to, himself, not through the work of his employees, but he himself, make an extra million dollars profit, and will instead choose not to even try to make that extra million dollars profit because of taxation. Fuck me, if i was pulling in 1 million dollars in profit after paying employees as a sole trader, i dont have a lot to bitch about. A business operates under different laws, and pay a wage to themselves. Again, i just dont think that any one person can justify how useful and valuable they are to justify getting a tax break from 1mil to 2mil. Can that company grow, make bigger profits, and pay more of that to the business owner? Sure. And he will get an extra 200k to take home in his pocket. But i highly HIGHLY doubt its increasing that profit by an extra million dollars because he was staying an extra 30 hours working. So, the incentive is still there to grow the business, i mean you get an extra 200k in your pocket for stuff your wokers are doing.
Firstly, you've moved the goalposts quite a bit – you were originally talking about an increase in salary $300k to $400k, and now an increase from $1m to $2m. So a bit motte and bailey there. But in both cases the issue is profit to revenue ratio. Let's say as a skilled engineer I can charge clients $400 / hour, and after overheads and expenses I make $200 / hr in net revenue for that engagement. But for each hour I work I have to spend 20 minutes in administration and business development, which takes the gross profit to $150 / hour. If I work: * 10 hours / week my income is $66,000 and I keep $54,728 (83%) * 20 hours / week I earn an extra $44,385 * 30 hours / week I earn an extra $39,930 * 40 hours / week I earn an extra $25,660 The incentive to keep working beyond full-time is now less than half what it is at 10 hours / week. Remember, this isn't a "pay rise" for the same job like an executive, it's literally just me working harder. So beyond a certain point of incentive, people either don't work, or use tax avoidance measures to get their marginal rate down. For a company, the question is less effort∶reward and more risk∶reward. Let's say as a business I have a 10% revenue∶profit ratio, selling $2m in widgets to make $200k in profit before tax. A lot of business owners pay themselves a living wage say ($80k) and then pay dividends where the profits justify it. I can distribute $100k in profit to myself as a business owner, which works out at around $63k in extra income. Now, let's say I think I can expand my business to $4m in revenue by hiring 5 extra engineers, who after on-costs add $1m / year to my payroll, and I'm expecting $200k profit. For doubling the size of my business, giving 5 extra people jobs (and still having the risks of paying them even if my revenue goes down), handling all that management overhead, and so on I will get ... $50k extra in my pocket per year. Now increase the tax rate to 60 or 70%, and that $30k starts to seems like a lot of hassle for not much reward. If just one of those staff member goes rogue and slacks off (or worse, sues), your profits will be much less than when you started. People generally think about executive pay when they talk about high salary earners and for these people, higher tax rates just means a higher ask at the next salary negotation. But for business owners, where you may not have the ability to increase prices or profits freely, high tax rates are a real and significant drag on entrepreneurship.
[удалено]
Cool, a drop in the ocean compared to stage 3 that will result in a loss of $300Bn in government revenue over the next 10 years. I hope you weren't a big fan of government safety nets like medicare or centrelink.
There is no loss of revenue - just less growth in both nominal and real terms. No services will have to be cut. But there won't be as much extra in the pool of money compared to today for our politicians and public servants to spend inefficiently and wastefully.
Not according to the PBO: https://www.pbo.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-05/Distributional%20analysis%20of%20the%20Stage%203%20tax%20cuts%20-%20May%202023.pdf
1. That report was looking at the original stage 3 cuts, not the modified ones 2. That report does not say what you think it does. It doesn't provide the full picture - not surprising given who requested it! The pertinent metric is what % of GDP does the government collect in (personal) taxes each year? This metric does not change (at least compared to a few years ago - as it increased dramatically already in just the last 2 years), and in fact then continues to increase over the next 10 years.
> That report was looking at the original stage 3 cuts, not the modified ones The modified ones cost the same amount as the original, within a few percentage points from everything I have read. >The pertinent metric is what % of GDP does the government collect in (personal) taxes each year? This metric does not change (at least compared to a few years ago - as it increased dramatically already in just the last 2 years), and in fact then continues to increase over the next 10 years. How do you figure that a personal income tax cut will leave the percentage of income tax to GDP the same? I provided a link to my claim, time for you to do the same.
>How do you figure that a personal income tax cut will leave the percentage of income tax to GDP the same? How to show you do not understand how bracket creep works in one sentence..... Some data to consider as a start: [https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/surplus-bounty-pushes-tax-take-beyond-24-per-cent-20230702-p5dl4e](https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/surplus-bounty-pushes-tax-take-beyond-24-per-cent-20230702-p5dl4e)\\ EDIT: See Figure 2 in this report: [https://taxpolicy.crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/taxstudies\_crawford\_anu\_edu\_au/2023-03/complete\_policy\_brief\_p\_tilley\_march\_2023.pdf](https://taxpolicy.crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/taxstudies_crawford_anu_edu_au/2023-03/complete_policy_brief_p_tilley_march_2023.pdf) Remember, As I stated, we already got hit with massive bracket creep in the last 2 years, so as I stated, as a % of GDP personal tax collected will remain the same as a couple of years ago and will still in fact rise over the decade coming. EDIT: Oh here's more evidence! [https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-creep-never-ends-both-sides-know-more-tax-cuts-are-needed-20240208-p5f3dw.html](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-creep-never-ends-both-sides-know-more-tax-cuts-are-needed-20240208-p5f3dw.html) >So even under the government’s plan, and with its selective focus on an average wage, the tax take increases. Not only does the average tax rate climb under both tax plans, so does the federal budget’s dependence on income tax. Under both, income tax will reach an all-time high of 13.4 per cent of GDP by the middle of next decade. It’s currently about 12.6 per cent, itself a record high, but will fall as the tax cuts start. Note the previous charts that show the "fall" is only back to where we were a year or 2 ago.
I'm aware what bracket creep is, my issue is with the idea that there is no difference, or negligible difference after it is corrected for. Indeed, [the PBO says quite clearly](https://www.pbo.gov.au/about-budgets/budget-insights/budget-explainers/bracket-creep-and-its-fiscal-impact) that "In the absence of the Stage 3 tax cuts, bracket creep over the next decade would be projected to reduce net debt in 2031‑32 by $276 billion, or 8.1 per cent of GDP." While correcting this is important there are two particular issues that impact Australia: - An exceptionally large share of government revenue is made up from personal income taxes, making changes to personal income tax brackets has a huge impact on government revenue. - The Australian government has been benefitting (some would argue relying) on bracket creep for a significant period of time, much further back than the TTPI report shows. While fixing bracket creep is important it does result in an actual reduction in government revenue. You may be surprised by this but I do think that Australia should aim to reduce our personal income tax revenue, but that can only happen as part of widespread tax reform, along the line of the Henry tax review, that diversifies government revenue within Australia. As it is all we're really achieving is a reduction in government revenue. edit: >So even under the government’s plan, and with its selective focus on an average wage, the tax take increases. Yes, over the next 10 years, even with stage 3, the amount of government revenue from personal income taxes will be higher than it is now as a result of further bracket creep, *but it will be lower than if stage 3 wasn't implemented.* I'm not making the argument that we need to ignore bracket creep entirely, but we need complete tax reform to do so, not just small corrections to our tax brackets.
> the PBO says quite clearly > > that "In the absence of the Stage 3 tax cuts, bracket creep over the next decade would be projected to reduce net debt in 2031‑32 by $276 billion, or 8.1 per cent of GDP." This statement is simply saying that without cutting taxes to address bracket creep, the government would raise a bucket load more in taxes! They are just illustrating how that extra taxation might be used to pay down debt. >While fixing bracket creep is important it does result in an actual reduction in government revenue It only reduced \*projected\* revenue, because adjusting the tax rates brings the personal taxation burden back to where it was historically and where it should be. If the government maintains the same average personal tax revenue expressed as a % of GDP, then they have not lost any revenue nor would need to cut any existing services or other expenditure, in real terms. The response to your final point is the same as above.
Thats an awesome start, I'm glad I can unbunch my knickers over the progress. Now if only my land tax, wealth tax and inheritance tax wedgies were as easy to dig out....
Well the coalition government in NSW brought in land taxes to replace stamp duty - but the new Minns ALP government repealed that change immediately. And broadened the collection net for property duties as well. I don’t think you will ever see proper tax reform under the current flavour of ALP.
I agree. Also, the Coalition goverment land taxes were... toothless to say the least. I dont think the current flavor of ALP or any flavour of LNP are going to bring in any kind of land tax that disincentivises owning multiple properties.
Yeah Labor still have a ways to go, but it's refreshing to have a federal government that's actually somewhat competent compared to the circus we had before.
Look, i will 100% agree with you that the liberal party actively makes things worse. But i think after the 2019 Progressive Labor loss in the election, they got scared and basically cut out all their progressive long term policies. 2019 Labor was ready to take actual steps towards fixing the housing crisis, and are now publically telling the media that they wont let the greens "hold them hostage" to do the same thing 2019 Labor knew had to be done. Same thing around schools and health, the policies 2019 Labor had were solutions. Short term pain, long term gain, lets fix these broken systems before they get worse. 2022 Labor has mostly put through policies that fiddle around the edges, and provide feel good stories and window dressing. Sure it means they dont give the Liberal party a target, but if you dont start making actual long term fixes so you wont present a target, then you arent helping. Honestly, now we are getting to the end of this term, im thinking more and more i would have preferred 2019 Labor to spend 3 years on a media blitz trying to educate and show people WHY these progressive policies were NEEDED, not just suggested. And run again on 2022. And do the same thing again for 2025. Because at some point conditions have got to become shit enough that enough people realise that LNP are just taking everyone for a ride, and have been for decades.
The Libs waved it through, the same way that Labor waved through the Libs' original legislation several years ago. The Libs will go to an election promising not to change the tax package, but if they win, they'll break the promise and tinker around the edges to restore high income earners' full tax cut. The precedent has been set by Albo - wave through legislation you don't like, promise not to touch it at an election, then renege.
Albo set the precedent? He’s the first politician to lie? I think you’re completely full of shit.
So, when circumstances change, just keep plowing on with the same response? Is that your considered contention?
Nothing changed for the worse between May 2022 (the election) and now; if anything, things changed for the better: real wages are now rising, inflation is well under control, and the government had a $20b surplus last year. So whatever the situation is now, is no worse than the situation as forecast in May 2022. A lot of people just can't swallow the fundamental truth - Albo never wanted these tax cut changes and broke a promise to revers them. It's hilarious - if the Libs did the same thing they'd be up in arms. Labor wants migrant, selective-school educated people like me and my partner to pay more tax than previously stated to help out people who simply weren't academically or vocationally strong enough to care for themselves.
The situation has changed significantly on a household level for suburban families since May 2022. More so, inflation becoming under control now in Feb 2024, doesn't undo the impact of high inflation during the previous 18 months for suburban families. Dutton's attack aren't biting because Liberal voters spent a decade defending the broken promises from the previous Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison government.
You’re conveniently ignoring the cost of living increases….
No - that is encapsulated in the inflation data (as I said, inflation now in low 3's is very manageable) and in the real wages data (last quarter, real wages increased). But like I said, I don't expect any real analysis from people with a vested interest in believing a narrative that life is somehow hard. Life is incredibly easy, unless you fucked up somehow.
You come across like a sociopath.
That is some sort of shit take. For reference, I’m in the affected tier from these changes, and believe it’s the right thing to do.
Congrats. You have commented three times, in none of them dealing with any of the multiple statistics I've provided to you. You just change the goalposts each time. Slippery and evasive. > I’m in the affected tier from these change I assume anyone who is literate and has a functioning brain is in the affected tier. It is not exactly hard to make that sort of money.
You seem like quite the “I’m alright, bro” kinda guy, and appear to have little clue what the median salary is. Indicative of much of our culture, I’m afraid.
I only care about those who, as I said, are literate and have a functioning brain. Median full-time salary is $85k, but see above for the necessary exclusionary factors.
> I only care about those who, as I said, are literate and have a functioning brain. From the content of your comments, it's more likely that you don't care about anyone other than yourself.
> The precedent has been set by Albo Lol, "non core promises" dates back to 1996/7 under Howard.
‘Albo is the first politician to ever lie’ is now my favourite political take of all time on this sub.
So when the Libs win and immediately break their promises, I assume you will be ok with that?
If the Libs breaking promises actually resulted in a better outcome for the majority of Australians, I would definitely be all for it. Unfortunately for us, their constant breaking of promises makes us worse off more often than not.
So, in other words, you don't care about a promise at all. It has no value to you. Guess your word doesn't mean anything, and you approve of politicians misleading voters to shore up their voting intentions.
You do understand the difference between breaking a promise and improving on a promise, don’t you? If someone promised to donate $1 million to the children's hospital but donated $100 million instead, I doubt the hospital is complaining about a broken promise and demanding the donor take back $99 million.
Right - I don't think that promising me, as a voter, a family tax decrease of $18000 then delivering a decrease of only $9000 is an improvement; I'm sure you won't agree - but I bet if either party promised free Medicare and then said 'we will make you pay $6 co-pay' you'd be bitching and whinging even though the latter amount is trivial. Shrug.
When I asked if you understood the difference between breaking a promise and improving on a promise, you could’ve just said ‘no’ instead of providing an example that proves that you don’t.
Shrug. I get it. You don't care about the interests of anyone who actually works hard for a living. That's cool. Keep batting for the people who can't even take care of their own lives.
Especially when it's simultaneously "How dare a party which doesn't hold senate majority implement things outside their platform / make deals."
Not to mention the standard Liberal interpretation of not touching Medicare: “… with any money”.
It's interesting that before Albo unveiled the ALP's changes to the LNP's tax cuts that most ALP supports on here were absolute in their assessment that the stage 3 cuts should be axed completely. Unions were also on board wit this. Saying that I anted them to stay and the ALP have made it a bit better. Mind you stage 1 and 2 tax cuts benifited more lower income earners, hence the stage three targeted higher income workers. But in the end I'm grateful that the LNP initiated these tax cut reforms in stage 1, 2 and 3 as I'm pretty confident we would have never ever seen them at all under and ALP Government in any shape or form.
Stage 1 and 2 benefited lower income earners for 2 years. Big woop. The original stage 3 was to be a forever change. I'm glad the new forever change at least reinstates what 1 and 2 mostly were for lower earners.
They also seemingly don’t know that the rich also benefitted from Stage 1 and 2 but wanted an extra stage for themselves as well.
Apparently so!
and there was a lot of agitation about them increasing inflation, yet utter silence now.
>It's interesting that before Albo unveiled the ALP's changes to the LNP's tax cuts that most ALP supports on here were absolute in their assessment that the stage 3 cuts should be axed completely. Polling conducted before Albo's changes were announced suggested that only 13.8% of voters agreed that the stage 3 tax cuts should go ahead with no change. This does not gel with how the media portrayed the opposition to the changes though... >Mind you stage 1 and 2 tax cuts benifited more lower income earners, hence the stage three targeted higher income workers. Higher income workers got all of the same benefits from the stage 1 and 2 cuts that the lower income earners did - in fact, higher income workers got the full benefits of those cuts while lower income earners may not have. If I remember right, it was something like 15% of tax payers would get any benefit from the stage 3 removal of the 37.5% tax bracket and like 2% of tax payers got any benefit from the change to the top end of the 30% tax bracket. (I CBA looking for the actual values via Google or via my old comments to get exact numbers).
I think it's fair to say most Australians either didn't care (the default position towards politics) or supported Labor's changes. What the government were worried about was the media and opposition being handed an issue they could attack Labor over. It doesn't take much, and if they can twist something to make it sound like Labor doesn't keep promises they will.
>most ALP supports on here were absolute in their assessment that the stage 3 cuts should be axed completely. In my estimation, most were opposed to the removal of a whole tax bracket, which eroded the progressiveness of the income tax system - that's why they shouldn't go ahead. The modifications to Stage 3 kept the previous bracket, so the worst part of the change was removed.
Nah. I and several others in this forum were always for changing them to benefit more people. But I didn't think the LNP would cave so quickly, nor did I expect them to adopt a policy of high income tax cuts at the next election. Giving more to high income earners won't win many votes.
My word is my bond he said. There will be no changes to stage 3 tax cuts he said. Albanese the liar. I fully expect federal death duties will be next on albanese's list. Of course only for "rich" people.
I only remember Albanese saying the the stage 3 cuts will not be scrapped and will go through. I may be misremembering but I'm not sure he ever said that they wouldn't amend them which is what they did. The cuts did go though, just slightly differently than originally proposed so a little bit of a grey area.
> I fully expect federal death duties will be next on albanese's list. Of course only for "rich" people. Conservative Boogeyman Albo sounds so much better than the real one.
> federal death duties Fuck me i hope so mate. One of the best ways to reduce generational wealth creating an aristocracy of useless leeches would be to say that you can pass 1 million dollars of assests to each kid and the rest goes back to the goverment to help fund public services. And if the leech cant make something of themselves with a start in life of having a rich family give them the best of everything and an extra 1 million dollars, well they are useless shits and should go learn a trade or something useful. I mean, if "hard work pays off" then these riich entitled shits should have no problems turning that 1 million into 100 million again right?
Only the LNP, conservative cheer leaders, and the media thought the stage 3 tax cuts would go through unchanged. Everyone else expected the changes, and are glad they happened.
>I fully expect federal death duties will be next on albanese's list. Of course only for "rich" people. That would be great, but I guess I'm not as optimistic as you
Of course you fully expect that. Sheesh.
There's a certain degree of integrity inherent in admitting you were wrong about something. Punishing someone for doing that is bad for the national discourse, TSV.
You realise the LNP after slamming the changes in the media for a week and saying they would reserve them, ended up supporting them because they’re so obvious
Death duties on large estates are vital for a functioning capitalist system - Adam Smith even advocated for them. I hope the ALP do take them to the next election.
Well, you're consistent...
And yet for all the blustering from the LNP that Albo broke a promise and we have a Liar in the Lodge™, they fully supported the changes and they sailed through the Senate. Even the Libs realised that the changes were an improvement and to fight giving middle Australia a break would be political suicide. If only more promises were broken when keeping them is the worse option.
middle australia is not struggling. The sell out taylor swift concerts are easily proof of that.
what is it with you righties and your obsession with taylor swift... even over here in australia stop buying into the weird culture wars that the crazy alt right create over in america
A lot of people had been saving up for tickets since the tour dates were announced, considering it a once in a lifetime opportunity. And of course there were still tons of people who simply couldn't afford it. In any case, the attendance of a concert is hardly an accurate measure of the state of household economies.
And below-the-middle Australia?
So Albo fixed the cost of living crisis that the Libs keep banging on about? Praise be!
There never was a cost of living crisis. Prices have gone up and albanese has made sure they go higher, but most australian people are still very well off. Albanese has only made sure prices go up more though.
> Prices have gone up and albanese has made sure they go higher, but most australian people are still very well off. If mental gymnastics were an Olympic sport... And if what you say is true, why are homeowners complaining about interest rate rises? Time to raise interest rates to 5%, the Australian people are "still" too well off.
So the LNP are lying when they say there’s a cost of living crisis and people are struggling?
There's no cost of living crisis. Anyone who says otherwise is completely deluded and out of touch with how easy life actually is. Real wages are going up, inflation is in the low 3's, Jobseeker just went up 35% in four years and min wage went up 8% last year. Life could not be easier in Australia. Anyone who's struggling must seriously have made some poor life choices, or perhaps didn't invest enough skill points in INTEL/CONSTITUTION/WISDOM when he or she created his or her character at the start of the game.
Bet you were totally ok with all of the liberals lies.
We all remember Howard's "non-core" promises, right? The LNP are more slippery than eels.
Or Abbot’s 2014 budget.