Federal Budget 2020 Discussion, and will you spend your tax cut?

scotty on 06/10/2020 - 09:10

It's Federal Budget night tonight, and as per what we have done in previous years (2019, 2018, 2017, etc), here's the catch-all thread for any Federal Budget related discussions for this year.

I'll link to ABC when summary article becomes available. Meanwhile, here's the prediction from SMH

  • Lots of infrastructure spending & manufacturing aids
  • Supplements to salaries of apprentices & trainees
  • Income tax cut brought forward to this year

I think most relevant to majority of OzBargainers here would be the tax cut.

The tax plan means people who earn between $45,000 and $90,000 will take home an additional $1,080 this financial year.

Workers who earn more than $90,000 will take home up to $2,565 extra, with people earning more than $120,000 receiving the maximum benefit.

Government would be hoping that with more disposable income, people will be spending more to add a bit of boost to the economy. However the question for the ozbargainers is — will you spend your up to $2.5k tax cut this year? If so, how would you spend it?

Poll Options expired

  • 19
    Yes, I will spend even more to help the economy to grow!
  • 35
    Yes, I will spend every cent of my tax cut
  • 164
    Maybe I will spend some and save some
  • 560
    No, they will go straight to my saving / offset account
  • 23
    No, I'll save more for Bikie-hire, in preparation for the upcoming anarchy
Financial Federal Budget

Related Stores

Budget.gov.au
Budget.gov.au

Comments

          • adam on 06/10/2020 - 16:16

            @brad1-8tsi: If you submit a return but pay no tax for the year you do not get one.

            • avoidfullprice on 06/10/2020 - 16:32

              @adam: I digged through my myato inbox and found it! The last I remember seeing was when tony was our PM. I thought they stopped that since he was disposed.

              Thanks for letting me know it still exists!

            • brad1-8tsi on 06/10/2020 - 16:41

              @adam: adam: OK. I wasn't aware of that scenario

      • Korban Dallas on 07/10/2020 - 00:19
        +1

        I thought liberals canned that breakdown but guess I was wrong. Edit

        What the ATO's tax returns won't tell you this year, and it's not about your refund - ABC News - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-21/heres-one-thing-you-w…

        • ThithLord on 07/10/2020 - 09:26

          "After the previous Liberal and National Party government gave you the four largest surpluses in our history, the current government has given you the five largest deficits in our history."

          • Tony Abbott

          lol that's too god dang funny, coming from an LNP Politician.

    • ThithLord on 07/10/2020 - 09:58
      -3

      So predictable, did you even decipher what they've done?

      By 2024, these tax cuts mean someone earning $80,000 receives 1.09% of their income back - $875.

      That same year, someone earning $200,000 receives 5.75% of their income back - $11,505.

      Does that reaaaalllyy seem fair to you, Payton?

      • gromit on 07/10/2020 - 18:10
        +3

        It does seem fair, but not when you try to distort the numbers in that way. You don't get a percentage of your income back, you get a percentage of the tax you paid back. There are also 3 stages of tax cuts where the lower earners got the largest cuts up front while the larger earners get them at the back end. These really shouldn't even be billed as tax cuts, they are just bracket adjustments that reverse the bracket creep .

        • Zephyrus on 07/10/2020 - 22:58
          +1

          They are tax cuts. If they were bracket adjustments, they'd adjust the brackets. They wouldn't remove them.

          Other countries index their brackets for good reason.

      • Dogsrule on 07/10/2020 - 18:26
        +2

        That person earning $80k will be paying $15592 of tax, or 19.5% of their income. The $200k guy pays $51591 of tax, or 25.8% of their income. Put another way, the $200k guy earns 2.5x more, but pays 3.3x more tax.

        No, it doesn’t seem fair.

        • AlexF on 07/10/2020 - 20:08
          +4

          $200k guy pays $51591

          only an idiot on that salary pays that much tax - get new tax accountant and ask him/her about “tax minimisation strategies” with a double wink.

          • Dogsrule on 07/10/2020 - 20:18
            +4

            @AlexF: So what, the $80k guy can do that too, negative gearing is not limited to high income earners. Also, most people earn their money from wages, not business, so those juicy business tax minimisation strategies are useless for PAYG workers.

            • AlexF on 07/10/2020 - 20:32
              +7

              @Dogsrule:

              $80k guy can do that too

              that guy is trying to stretch that salary to survive.

          • bobbified on 07/10/2020 - 23:51

            @AlexF:

            only an idiot on that salary pays that much tax

            So what are your secrets?

            A $200K salary isn't exactly low, but there's not enough funds to be splitting up into investments to minimise tax.

          • netjock on 08/10/2020 - 12:52
            +1

            @AlexF: PAYG withholding.

            You can't spend cash you don't have to get a tax deduction.

          • eek on 08/10/2020 - 14:57

            @AlexF: Not much you can do as a PAYG to reduce taxable income…what the usual? Salary sacrifice cars, education, work from home, home office, some car mileage, uniform, laundry, computer gear, tools, membership etc?

        • onesandtwos on 07/10/2020 - 23:26

          That's what a progressive tax is, yes. Your argument seems to be that such a system is intrinsically unfair, does that mean you think that Australia shouldn't have progressive income tax? As far as I'm aware, there are no countries with flat or regressive income tax.

          • Dogsrule on 08/10/2020 - 00:02

            @onesandtwos: Not against a progressive tax system, just illustrating with hard figures (and a bit of sarcasm) that the system is very fair to lower income earners despite cries to the contrary.

        • BadHorse on 08/10/2020 - 23:03
          -1

          Whats really not fair is that they are trying to make it so if a person who is earning $90k is paying the same amount of tax as a person earning $200+k for each additional dollar they earn.

          If someone earn $90k and get a $1,000 bonus - I pay $3,250 in tax (32.5% income tax rate)

          In 2024, if someone is earning $199k and gets a $1,000 bonus - they only pay $3,250 in tax.

          That in itself is what is unfair.

          Tax brackets are supposed to be progressive, so the more you ear the more you contribute.

          And no-one ends up with less in their pocket by earning more (except some edge cases with HECS debt) - it's just all the services that get their funding ripped out to please those who don't need the money.

          • Dogsrule on 08/10/2020 - 23:18
            +2

            @BadHorse: I’m not sure if you read my original comment, so here it is again, with relevant highlighting to address your points:

            ‘That person earning $80k will be paying $15592 of tax, or 19.5% of their income. The $200k guy pays $51591 of tax, or 25.8% of their income. Put another way, the $200k guy earns 2.5x more, but pays 3.3x more tax’

            Our progressive tax system remains.

            From 2024 Income under $18200 remains untaxed. $18201-$45000 is 19%. $45001-$200000 is 30%. Over $200k is 45%

            Our progressive tax system remains.

            Put it this way, by your logic, it’s also unfair to the guy earning 45k that he has to pay the same tax on every dollar over 45k as the guy on 90k has to pay on every dollar he earns over 90k. It seems as though you draw the line of taxation morality at the 90k earner, not the 45k earner. I presume you earn 90k.

    • abb on 07/10/2020 - 10:00
      +4

      honest hardworking taxpayers get a nice little bonus

      As a lying lazy tax-payer, I'm sad to be missing out

    • onesandtwos on 07/10/2020 - 17:29
      +2

      Of course they matter. The issue at hand is surely not that taxpayers don't 'deserve' a nice little bonus, but there is an opportunity cost in doing so. There will always be honest and hardworking people who are looking to get ahead, which is the bedrock of our society but I don't think that's an argument that necessarily entitles people to a tax cut, a salary is already the reward for doing work. The question is around whether this is the most efficient or useful policy that accomplishes what it targets without negative unintended consequences, everything else is just politics.

  • jimdotpud on 06/10/2020 - 11:13
    +10

    they should be funneling money into manufacturing in australia. we need to be more self reliant and less dependent on shit products from overseas. granted we can't make everything, but we need to start something.

    • [Deactivated] on 06/10/2020 - 11:30
      +9

      I am fully in support of this but it shouldn't be at tax payer's expense.

      The issue is we import junk at low costs and we inflate local prices my increasing local production cost.

      Honestly, I wouldn't start manufacturing in Australia because of the local culture. I am immediately seen as an exploitative corporate evil overlord.

      • brendanm on 06/10/2020 - 11:49
        -4

        People are entitled to $50 an hour and 8 weeks paid holidays for unskilled work, get with the times. Gotta pay for that smashed avo somehow.

        • [Deactivated] on 06/10/2020 - 12:13
          +1

          Less than $50 dollars is literally "slavery".

          Unskilled is very harsh. I don't like that word and it is very demeaning.

          You are probably Jeff Bezos and you like laughing at poor people.

          Why do you like punching down?

          • ThithLord on 07/10/2020 - 09:28
            +2

            @[Deactivated]: Originality = 2/10
            Execution = 1/10
            Predictability = 8/10

              • ThithLord on 07/10/2020 - 10:19
                +6

                @brendanm: Calling someone a communist

                Predictability = 9/10
                Wit = 0/10
                Execution = 0/10
                Humour = 0/10 (unless you were doing it ironically, not un-ironically, which is then 4/10)
                Originality = 0/10

              • [Deactivated] on 07/10/2020 - 10:50
                -1

                @brendanm: I don't think many affluent users are going to bother reading this post. I know I'm out. It's just going to be a whinge fest.

                Predictability 10/10

          • [Deactivated] on 08/10/2020 - 13:21

            @[Deactivated]:

            Less than $50 dollars is literally "slavery".

            Says who?

        • Ghost47 on 07/10/2020 - 10:07
          +2

          That's why we import internationals to work as cleaners. Australians are too entitled.

          • AlexF on 07/10/2020 - 22:58
            +2

            @Ghost47: Too right, Aussies want annual and sick leaves, toilet breaks, superannuation, reasonable work conditions, minimum pay, etc. Which right minded cleaning business wants that?

            • Orico on 07/10/2020 - 23:02
              +2

              @AlexF: Yeah, why should we give Australians those rights and not other human beings.

              • AlexF on 07/10/2020 - 23:13
                +2

                @Orico: Better not give these benefits to anyone and lower expectations. Job is a privilege plebs should be competing for.

      • boomramada on 10/10/2020 - 10:43

        we inflate local prices

        Australian made > made in China because;
        Our Rent > their Rent
        Our production cost > their
        Our minimum wage > their
        Our taxes > their
        Our energy price > their

        Once they both are equal, we move to next country, India, Bangladesh etc.

        So get used to it.

  • Unorthodox on 06/10/2020 - 11:27
    +1

    I commented on a post yesterday where someone was asking about people's salaries - I don't see the recipients of the cut in the 90k+ range spending it versus utilising it towards their mortgage or deposit and those in the lower brackets will need more than $1080 to make a significant impact.

    • bobbified on 06/10/2020 - 11:35
      +1

      I can assure you that I'll be spending it!

    • SwarleyAUS on 07/10/2020 - 10:01
      +2

      If it were a lump sum I'd be more inclined to spend it. But as it will be incorporated into wages over a number of months it'll more likely sit in the bank for a rainy day.

  • bobbified on 06/10/2020 - 11:31
    +9

    Finally, the non-retired, single and childless people receive a more significant benefit.

    Now… waiting for someone to whinge about how unfair it is that higher income earners receive a "bigger" tax cut…

    • psyren89 on 06/10/2020 - 12:36
      +5

      non-retired, single and childless

      … and employed.

      • bobbified on 06/10/2020 - 12:37

        ah yes… I forgot about the important "employed" bit 😊

      • Levathian on 07/10/2020 - 14:54

        In a business that hasn't been affected by corona

  • GG57 on 06/10/2020 - 11:51
    +5

    I'm assuming the Libs are monitoring this forum and may make some last minute tweeks to the budget; lets wait and see

  • avoidfullprice on 06/10/2020 - 14:24
    +1

    The effect of reverting the supercharge effect and removal of LMITO will see people's take home pay/tax return reduce from July 2021. People who are not across will be like wtf why a pay cut in 9 months time.

    I'm hoping to do some renovation although it seems the tradies are doing just fine with the grants and stuff

  • haemolysis on 06/10/2020 - 15:15
    +20

    I’m a bit of a free-marketer so tax cuts appeal to me broadly. But this is just bad timing and tone deaf.

    Income cuts never reach the poor, since the poor either pay little or no tax at all. We can also see the highest savings for high end brackets.

    The rich are cutting back discretionary spending. So it won’t stimulate the economy to give them cash. It will be money that is cut from economy stimulating activity and put into ..dormant savings.

    People earning 60-120k+ do not need relief or assistance.

    I’d be all for it in better economic times… but the LNP want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to tank our economy like they always do, then celebrate and get printed mugs.

    They’d be better off just expanding elegibility and extending jobkeeper and calling it a day: a trifecta of stimulus - helps a worker, an employer, and promotes spending in one hit.

    If they wanted to just cut taxes they could have gone with payroll tax.

    • jorf on 06/10/2020 - 15:47
      +20

      Exactly. I don't need this tax cut, so I just pay off my mortgage faster. Zero gain to the economy now, which is when it's needed.

      This is directly out of the slash and burn LNP playbook. Then they can blame Labor "OMG they're raising taxes!" when they attempt to fix the mess the LNP have left. But you know "better economic managers" apparently.

      • [Deactivated] on 06/10/2020 - 16:07
        +4

        Neither party (or any political party for that matter) are "good economic managers".

        I'm just happier with the one that stuffs up without my tax dollars.

        • Korban Dallas on 07/10/2020 - 00:30
          +11

          Well there was lengthy research done that Labor have been better economic managers.

          https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/e…

          MW also did some and have a look at some Journal articles from economists.

          • [Deactivated] on 07/10/2020 - 08:15
            +4

            @Korban Dallas: That isn't really research. It is just an opinion from a left biased website.

            It's a good read but don't mistake it for fact.

            (I won't link right wing opinion either or it will just end up as a link pasting festival.)

            • Korban Dallas on 07/10/2020 - 08:33
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: Check out MW

            • Korban Dallas on 08/10/2020 - 03:02
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: Right wing has a high proportion of BS but feel free to paste. I'll take it on board and see if there is any merit to it.

              Only thing labor did was they didn't tax extractive resources as much as they should have. Wayne's numbers were not even close.

              But seriously the government you elect makes a big difference to your life. Look at the US for FS and honestly if Labor was in they would have a different stimulus package and recovery plan.

              One thing that shitted me is that in times of this pandemic the government didn't consult experts and other political parties. They just did their own thing. We have had what 1 month of parliamentary sitting. Heck they should be there doing overtime.

        • ThithLord on 07/10/2020 - 09:35
          +12

          C'mon, tshow - Labor ensured Australia had the best performing economy in OECD, proof is in the pudding.

          • [Deactivated] on 07/10/2020 - 10:15
            +3

            @ThithLord: And I'm sure all the Labor supporters will upvote an opinion in Labor's favour just as pro liberal will upvote an opinion in liberal's favour.

            It's been done to death so I won't debate it yet again, merely saying you are entitled to that opinion and it isn't changing anyone's mind.

            • ThithLord on 07/10/2020 - 10:17
              +3

              @[Deactivated]: Mate, tangible evidence is not merely opinion - Labor have a proven record every single time they're in governance.

              • [Deactivated] on 07/10/2020 - 10:45
                +6

                @ThithLord: Lol. Okay. Sure.

              • Dogsrule on 07/10/2020 - 18:34

                @ThithLord: Yeah that ‘recession we had to have’ was a real swell piece of governance there.

                • ThithLord on 08/10/2020 - 09:11
                  +1

                  @Dogsrule: Ah, yes - the 1990's, where 18 of the 19 countries in the OECD suffered a recession.

            • Korban Dallas on 08/10/2020 - 03:09
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: There are opinions and facts. Trying to leave the opinions out of it

      • Ghost47 on 06/10/2020 - 22:07
        +11

        "Better economic managers" if you're a rich mate. These cuts are stupid and so was the super withdrawal scheme. They will do very little to stimulate our unsophisticated economy.

        • Korban Dallas on 07/10/2020 - 00:32
          +4

          The richer people are the more they save. Long live the trickle economy.

          • ThithLord on 07/10/2020 - 10:46
            +1

            @Korban Dallas: Thank Christ we have tax cuts to big business to fall back on, amiright?

    • brendanm on 06/10/2020 - 19:04
      -1

      People with actual money are spending it in my experience. Never done so many pre purchase inspections on boats.

    • Dogsrule on 07/10/2020 - 18:45
      -2

      It’s not about higher earners ‘needing relief or assistance’. It’s about morality. The highest quintile of earners pays $1332 of tax per week and receives $325 back of ‘social transfers in kind’. The lowest quintile pays $18 of tax per week and receives $570 a week of social transfers in kind from our society, according to the rabid rightwing organisation known as The Guardian:

      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/18/the-co…

      How much more do lower income earners have to be subsidised? I’m okay with some socialism, but how much is enough? High income earners put 4x as much into our tax system as they get out. Lower earners get many multiples of their effort out vs their inputs. To argue that our society is somehow oppressive or unfair to lower achievers is blatantly false.

      • haemolysis on 07/10/2020 - 19:22
        +2

        That’s just your own bias which you’ve appropriated to the story. Nothing of that nature has made its way into the budget documents, or the government press releases… They’re not making any “moral argument.”

        I’m not saying there’s no moral argument to be had: but the LNP aren’t making it. Don’t put words in their mouth. They ARE calling it a stimulus - and it will fail to stimulate anything.

        • Dogsrule on 07/10/2020 - 19:35

          My line about morality was in agreeance with the other commentary here that the tax cuts are ideological - they are. The LNP are pretty well documented to be staunch Friedmanites. Their talk about the economic effects are just that - talk (marketing). I just happen to agree with their ideology.

          I make no claims about whether the tax cuts are good or not for the economy. Many commentators here, as well as the leftist media have demonstrated the pretty clear contradictions between what the LNP say the tax cuts will do and what they will actually do.

          Surely you don’t believe everything that politicians say do you?

          • haemolysis on 07/10/2020 - 20:03
            +2

            @Dogsrule: Look I get “reading between the lines” but I’m not about to debate about it.

            If the LNP says it’s a stimulus, I’ll judge it as a stimulus. If they say it’s a virtuous moral decision, I’ll judge it accordingly.

            At the moment they’re having us believe it will stimulate the economy. It will simply not.

            • Dogsrule on 08/10/2020 - 00:13
              +2

              @haemolysis: Fair enough.

              I myself cannot view any government policy with such binary literalism. Such sloganeering is for those who are politically disengaged. For the initiated, it is obvious that both (all?) parties adhere to and are influenced by powerful social and economic ideologies, and these ideologies tend to dictate their policies accordingly.

              • Joku on 08/10/2020 - 09:29
                +3

                @Dogsrule: If you look at just the level of progressiveness in our income tax system, it's clearly "enough". It's not the whole story though, and the problem is mainly in the MASSIVE scale at which "tax loopholes" are used to negate that "progressiveness". Granted many of the juicy tax loopholes are exclusive to business owners of decent sized businesses who employ staff etc, especially if their operations stretch across international borders, but there is still things like Superannuation and negative gearing for the masses of above average income/wealth households to dodge way more tax than they should, and as they progress through life dodging taxes and getting richer they can rest assured that'll open doors to even more tax loopholes.

                Obviously the more ideal solution to any problem is to attack to root cause, in this case close the loopholes rather than bluntly increase income tax progressiveness. But apparently we have next to no hope of our useless politicians fixing much of anything, bloody lucky if one manages to fix more than they screw up. Often difficult/impossible task too, with misinformation easy to spread around the highly ignorant and politically polarised masses, together with selfish voters throwing a tantrum over the prospect of an overly generous tax concession being downsized. So it's kinda understandable that ppl tend to focus on the overall situation and net effect of changes in that context, the point being that equality is still worse in Australia than it ought to be, ie. significantly worse than we can easily afford if only the rich weren't so busy dodging taxes and getting excessively richer (which isn't the individuals fault IMO, I fully support households of all income and wealth levels using every legal means possible to improve their financial situation, the faults are all in the system design).

                • Dogsrule on 08/10/2020 - 14:40

                  @Joku: I agree with many of your points - negative gearing is a travesty. Tax treatment of superannuation requires overhaul, absolutely. Tax treatment of many business expenses is lax and poorly policed. Those are separate issues though, fact is income tax is by far the largest proportion of Federal tax receipts, last year 45.65%. Top 10% of tax payers pay 43% of net income taxes - this shows that tax avoidance doesn't go very far for them. It also backs the statistics about the great (negative) disparity they suffer regarding social transfers in kind received vs tax paid.

                  Interestingly, even after the tax cuts, income tax receipts are projected to increase to 46.5% of total revenue in 2022. This goes to show that even these tax cuts don't keep up with bracket creep.

      • netjock on 08/10/2020 - 13:00

        How much more do lower income earners have to be subsidised? I’m okay with some socialism, but how much is enough? High income earners put 4x as much into our tax system as they get out.

        Good point. Just look at true communist countries like USSR and how that worked out because if you want to split it evenly then nobody really wanted to get ahead and work more, work just enough to get by and everything came crumbling down.

        That is why Chinese Communists and Vietnamese Communists are just capitalist one party states.

        • Dogsrule on 08/10/2020 - 23:58

          Precisely. There is balance, we can’t go fully either way (better to be more capitalist than socialist in my view) but it’s clear that we have a very strong socialised safety net in Australia, contrary to some of the frothing mad commentary otherwise.

  • zombrex on 06/10/2020 - 18:27
    -3

    Not going to do much to help those without a job due to a government forced shutdown of huge sectors of society. End the damn shutdowns and open the borders asap.

    • Willco88 on 07/10/2020 - 23:14

      Yes plz open the borders and just give covid test to cross the border simple

  • onetwothreefour on 06/10/2020 - 20:19

    Will be putting it in my offset account. I didn't get a bonus or payrise this year so need to make up for the missed money.

  • Unorthodox on 06/10/2020 - 21:00
    +3

    "Historic" budget and hyped up by Murdoch…

    There wasn't much substance that would immediately increase confidence.

    A few interesting points:
    - The assumptions are based on the vaccine being effective and distributed by end of 2021 but they expect growth in 2021 to be recover to pre-covid levels. Seems like the timing is a bit too optimistic.
    - Unemployment levels seem optimistic but I would assume that's because of the wage subsidy but that's also 20~hours so need to consider underemployment and underutilization.
    - Instant write off

  • neilpatrickharris on 06/10/2020 - 21:07
    +4

    Going straight into the stonk market. Might increase my weekly spaceship contribution by $50 so I'm in a no different position cash wise.

  • rompastompa on 06/10/2020 - 21:13

    It's good that it will help some people and I'll be paying a little less tax, but I'm not purposely going to go out and spend that "bonus" money. I will, however, still be supporting local throughout the year (no choice, right?! :D).

  • daft009 on 06/10/2020 - 22:40
    +1

    Paid my employees a small bonus today.
    I really like the small business incentivesm will try and take advantage of them

    • earth worm jim on 07/10/2020 - 21:19
      +1

      What does your business do. I need ideas for a small business. Budget is approx $2,565

      • daft009 on 07/10/2020 - 21:40
        +1

        Very niche and very industrial products. Not something the average person would use at home.

        Gas plants, water treatment plants. Mining etc

  • Iluvfreebies on 06/10/2020 - 23:16
    +5

    I wont spend my money today because I have it. I will only spend my money today if I am confident I will be able to earn the same amount tomorrow and the day after.

  • treebytheriver on 07/10/2020 - 06:53

    To answer your question, I'll probably spend it on an "experience" like horse riding to support a local business.

    Although I feel like I wold more likely spend it with it came as a lump sum rather than a slight increase in my take home pay.

  • Loot N Plunder on 07/10/2020 - 08:26
    -1

    Headed for over a trillion dollars debt
    With a two hundred million dollar budget deficit
    one million unemployed
    record billion dollar multinationals not paying any tax

    Debt lies criminal activity
    Reap what you sow Australia
    your children's children will still be paying for this incompetence
    HA HA HA HA

    to pay it off
    TWO hundred thousand dollars a minute for ten years and that isn't including interest or states debts

    HA HA HA HA
    Australia you voted for this

    • ThithLord on 07/10/2020 - 09:37
      +1

      LNP simps down-voted ya, LnP. There's nothing controversial about what you said.

    • BenDoverson on 07/10/2020 - 10:57
      +11

      Both major parties would do this, we don't have a choice here

      • Drakesy on 07/10/2020 - 16:51
        +3

        That's debatable, without knowing what labor would've done and given their good past track record dealing with GFC's methinks we would've come out the other side better under them.

        • BenDoverson on 08/10/2020 - 13:19

          Bruh they are way more Keynesian than the libs, debt taken up would be way more. This is not even controversial.

          OP is complaining about ballooning debt, I'm only saying labor would take up more debt comparatively to provide a bigger stimulus. Not talking about the efficacy at all.

          • Drakesy on 08/10/2020 - 13:55
            +3

            @BenDoverson: I understand your point but i feel $320 billion and an estimated debt recovery date of 2080 would be hard to top, even by labor's standards.

            Kevin Rudd was ridiculed for giving out a one off payment of $500, the Liberals have done that a hundred times over. Scott's basically having his cake and eating it too and kicking the debt bomb down the road for future generations.

            The idea that Liberal's are good money managers is a marketing facade that i'm afraid those who voted for them took hook line and sinker, if it wasn't for negative gearing support (removal of which would save a tonne of stimulus, reduce house prices and free up disposable income restarting the economy) and Bill Shorten making a fairly feeble opposition leader the lib's wouldn't be there today.

          • kotposter on 11/10/2020 - 13:32

            @BenDoverson:

            they are way more Keynesian than the libs
            Any evidence on this?

            debt taken up would be way more
            Why would it have gone up more? What would it have gone towards?
            If the increased debt produced/stimulated more economic growth then would that necessarily be a bad thing?

            Labor forced people to spend their stimulus packages, forcing the money to enter the economy to stimulate it.
            The LNP give tax cuts asking people to spend them, but what is the likelihood the top 10-20% of income earners (where 54% of these cuts will go towards according to a TAI analysis) will actually do this, who will be gaining the most out of these cuts? This "stimulus" isn't much more of a farce to put more money in the pockets of the already-well off who can't be forced to inject any of it into our economy.

            • BenDoverson on 11/10/2020 - 22:44

              @kotposter: Precisely why I mentioned I wasn't discussing efficacy, strictly speaking on net debt terms.

              Labor have always been more open to govt intervention in the economy. The GFC stimulus is a prime example of pseudo-keynesian economics.
              https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/…

              Tons of other material too, keynesian economics best aligns with labor ideology.

              There's an argument to be had however on how Keynes holds up long term, while his contributions help avoid catastrophe in the short term.

  • DarkOz on 07/10/2020 - 08:59

    The extra money goes straight to my local brothel that hires Bikies that upgrade their bikes from the local bike dealers that goes straight into their savings account before I spend even more money on my local brothel.

    I literally voted 2, 5, 3, 4 and 1 in that order. Federal Budget wins.

  • TheMindsetTraveller on 07/10/2020 - 09:17
    +1

    Saving every dollar so when the international borders open, I am getting on the first plane out so I can hit my 60th country.

  • vetopower on 07/10/2020 - 09:37
    +11

    The poll shows you how wrongheaded the policy is. Most people are going to save the money, not spend it. The stimulus effect on the economy will be minimal.

    Meanwhile the people who truly need help from the government — the unemployed in the worst recession in almost a century — will be expected to live on $40 per day from next year.

  • BigBirdy on 07/10/2020 - 09:45
    +9

    The govt claims bringing forward these tax cuts is to stimulate the economy but, like it or not, those on medium to high incomes already have money to spend but are saving it, and investing in assets like property and shares. This extra income is likely to go the same way; savings, shares, property … none of which stimulate the economy nor create employment. Sending more money to those struggling is far more likely to be spent on consumption, which grows the economy and creates jobs. This is not ideology, it is simple economic fact. These tax cuts are not about stimulus, nor about creating jobs, they are about ideology.

    • [Deactivated] on 07/10/2020 - 22:54
      +2

      You're on OzBargain, of course the vote will heavily lean towards saving it.

    • netjock on 08/10/2020 - 11:17

      Where those on low income spend it on?

  • OzzyOzbourne on 07/10/2020 - 09:48
    +2

    The high earners will get the biggest tax cut, yet they are the least likely to spend it. High earners don't sit around waiting for a tax refund before they buy a high value item like a tv. They are generally careful with money and will purchase an item through careful thought, not because they've got a few $k tax back.

    • netjock on 08/10/2020 - 11:18

      Good point. You don't end up being high income for nothing. There might be some luck involved but you can't be high income for 2 decades running on luck.

  • mrhanky71 on 07/10/2020 - 09:57
    +1

    tax cuts for one year and increased GST for life

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join