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

  • OzHunterNSW on 07/10/2020 - 09:58

    Well the Govt surely has been looking after a lot of people, and the primary thing you can do is help the economy yourself by spending the "gifts" handed to you.

  • Cluster on 07/10/2020 - 09:59
    +1

    Any extra money will go straight into my mortgage account.

    If I lose my job it's far easier and cheaper to get money out to pay the bills than start to sell gadgets and yesterday's eaten restaurant meal to raise the cash.

    • netjock on 08/10/2020 - 11:19

      And it is better than letting vampire banks charge you 2-3%

  • mrhanky71 on 07/10/2020 - 10:03

    tax cuts for one year and increased GST for life

    • brendanm on 07/10/2020 - 11:18

      You can say that again.

  • ThePriceMatchGuy on 07/10/2020 - 10:30

    So for me who is a massive noob, but earns more than $90k, as the public are we required to do anything or will we notice a deposited sum into our accounts?

    • BigBirdy on 07/10/2020 - 10:53
      +1

      If you are employed (not self-employed), when the tax cuts are due to start, your employer will make the adjustment to your take home pay. If you are self-employed, you change the amount of your tax instalments to the ATO.

    • Skramit on 07/10/2020 - 11:03

      It also has to pass the lower and upp houses first. So it's not law yet. But I cant see Labor blocking much given the times we are in, that would be politically daft.

    • carwashhair on 07/10/2020 - 11:05

      judging by your comment I'm not convinced you'll notice the sum…

      • OzzyOzbourne on 07/10/2020 - 15:42

        Need to earn a lot before you get much back

  • afah0447 on 07/10/2020 - 10:40
    +15

    Another ideology driven budget from the Conservatives. If they were serious about kickstarting the economy they would do the following:

    • Not reduce job seeker
    • Invest in social housing
    • Provide free childcare

    These are proven to increase aggregate demand and create jobs. BUT they go against LNP ideologically driven core values that the nation is run like a business (not for the good of citizens) and people will get ahead if they tried hard enough, if not they obviously aren't trying hard enough.

    Expect more stuff like this served up to the nation under the cover of covid19. We will end up like a second rate USA. This is assured.

    • netjock on 08/10/2020 - 13:03

      Not reduce job seeker

      Maybe. I am still surprised that JobSeeker doesn't have mutual obligation to do some community work. I'd be happy for increase if there is work done in return.

      Invest in social housing

      For JobSeekers, that would just be double dipping if you are gong to increase JobSeeker too

      Provide free childcare

      Provided there is jobs, otherwise is someone going to sit at home to play the Xbox?

  • ddn2004 on 07/10/2020 - 10:43
    +1

    I'm more interested in the short courses. Will it be paid in full by the government, and are there any conditions attached?

  • Mark1159 on 07/10/2020 - 11:01
    +5

    Spend the minimum here - only wanna escape this Covid jail back to Vietnam and live under rule 30-30-20

    30 C everyday
    30 $ a day to live
    20 yo girlfriend

    • lost in transit on 07/10/2020 - 11:05

      Where do you sign up 😀😀

    • PopCounty on 07/10/2020 - 11:10

      I was with u until I saw 20 yo girlfriend. Dollars are sometime harsh, ain’t it? But guess on who!

    • brendanm on 07/10/2020 - 11:20

      Gross.

      • brendanm on 07/10/2020 - 14:45

        I wish they would show who negs you. I want to keep track of everyone who negs this post, then we will know who has to go to third world countries to take advantage of women.

        • Munki on 07/10/2020 - 17:49
          +5

          Yeah, I take advantage of them in the first world like a champ.

          • brendanm on 07/10/2020 - 17:53

            @Munki: Yeah probably could have worded that better if I'm honest.

    • Phlume on 07/10/2020 - 15:37

      With the way the economy is booming in Vietnam and inflation steadily creeping up, I doubt living in Vietnam on meagre funds will be sustainable in the near future.

    • Willco88 on 07/10/2020 - 15:38

      Lol

    • Willco88 on 07/10/2020 - 15:40

      Vietnam don't you mean 15yo lol bad place

    • OzzyOzbourne on 07/10/2020 - 15:43

      My retirement plan, but might have to settle for 30-30-25 😂

    • Ghost47 on 07/10/2020 - 22:46
      +2

      Asian fetish is a helluva drug.

      • Carmen Sandiego on 09/10/2020 - 15:33
        +1

        Thanks commenters for making me feel like I need to drink bleach

        • Ghost47 on 09/10/2020 - 19:23

          Don't worry, the more woke you become the more dead inside you will be.

          • Carmen Sandiego on 11/10/2020 - 20:35

            @Ghost47: I can't be any more woke since I'm already an Asian female :P

            • Ghost47 on 11/10/2020 - 20:54

              @Carmen Sandiego: RIP your inbox.

              • Carmen Sandiego on 11/10/2020 - 20:58

                @Ghost47: Hah~! :P
                Some of the guys know I am an Asian female :P

                I am also happily coupled up with a white guy :P

                • Ghost47 on 14/10/2020 - 18:41

                  @Carmen Sandiego: Wow really, I've never seen that kind of couple before. You must be very progressive.

                  • Carmen Sandiego on 15/10/2020 - 09:17

                    @Ghost47: Not sure if genuine or sarcastic?

                    Call it what you will either way. I am not progressing my Korean line since it kinda needs to diversify anyway.

                    Plus, unlike the people here, he won't go "you are my waifu/I love k-pop/kbbq/Kdramas etc" because that's (profanity) original.

      • capslock janitor on 13/10/2020 - 13:19

        yelllaa fever

  • Drakesy on 07/10/2020 - 12:37

    It was always technically our money. Just the government was nice enough to let us have a bit of a bigger share, its not a windfall as such.

    Will be chucking mine into a deposit to buy a rapidly depreciating house

  • Choc0 on 07/10/2020 - 13:00

    The proposed tax cut is the compromise agreement.

    The government would have wanted to bring forward all of Stage 2 + 3, but stage 3 was far too politically challenging.

    Stage 3 at this stage is in doubt, as it's after the next election. If Labor manage to get their act together and win, then you can forget about them ever seeing the light of day.

    • Top G on 07/10/2020 - 15:47
      +1

      What are the other stages? Cuts for the upper end of town?

      • Choc0 on 07/10/2020 - 17:39
        +1

        Yep, stage 3 - 80% of the benefit is eaten up by people earning between 120k-200k

    • Dogsrule on 07/10/2020 - 19:50

      The stage 3 cuts are already legislated to come into effect automatically in 2024. Not saying they can’t be un-legislated, but that’s easier said than done.

      • Choc0 on 09/10/2020 - 13:43

        If Labor win the next election, that's one of the first things they will do

  • OzCheapo on 07/10/2020 - 15:22

    Does Eneloops count?

    • OzzyOzbourne on 07/10/2020 - 15:44
      +1

      You'll get 1 extra each month

  • sir-screwball on 07/10/2020 - 15:54
    +11

    It's just another Liberal wealthy wank fest whilst most of the working class get screwed, again.

    • cloudy on 07/10/2020 - 21:17
      +2

      The wealthy are not very many, by definition, and the "working class" should be by definition the majority. The majority voted the liberals in. Hard to reconcile

      • sir-screwball on 07/10/2020 - 22:44
        +3

        Yes, but if the majority weren't so horribly misinformed, perhaps the "working class" party that continually delivers for the people would get the win more regularly.

        • cloudy on 08/10/2020 - 14:56
          +1

          Ah I get it.

          One party are liars and the other party are honest but no one listens.

          Basically the country is stupid? My words obviously not yours.

      • Brianqpr on 08/10/2020 - 15:29
        +5

        True but there are many who are in fact working class but don't know this. They have a new or newish car, decent house etc but its all funded by large borrowings which they are slaves to. They are the modern day working class but many are also deluded enough to think they are higher level than this and therefore entitled to vote liberal. As if doing this raises their status, aspirational voters.

        The Murdoch press has done a great job in convincing these types. You don't have to work in hi viz to be working class, they just don't know that.

    • Dogsrule on 08/10/2020 - 01:54
      +2

      Please. The low income working class get more out of the tax system than they put in, that’s what our progressive tax system is all about. LNP just tinkering around the edges to make it a little more fair for those who put in more than they take out.

      • sir-screwball on 08/10/2020 - 09:33
        -3

        The higher end of town already have bonkers tax breaks in the form of franking credits, capital gains tax discounts, negative gearing, etc. If you earn a lot of money, you just need to pay an amount of tax that is commensurate to your income, not write off as much shit as possible to reduce it to zero.

        I work in tax. You cannot convince me that the upper middle class and upward need any more tax breaks. It's the people at, near or below the poverty line that need the help. They are the ones who drive the economy.

        • netjock on 08/10/2020 - 11:21
          +1

          You can do tax pro bono to help use poor people out!

          • sir-screwball on 08/10/2020 - 22:28
            +1

            @netjock: I have previously worked in conjunction with a free tax clinic run by Griffith University. It's staffed by accounting and law students and managed by lecturers, qualified (longstanding) accountants and ATO delegates.

            Lodge an inquiry HERE

            • Please note: They have just shut down for the semester and will start back up in I think November.
        • Dogsrule on 08/10/2020 - 15:00
          +5

          The statistics say you're wrong. Income tax represents 45.6% of total tax receipts and climbing.

          Top 10% of taxpayers pay about 45% of net tax receipts. Those tax breaks you're talking about obviously aren't working too well for most of them. Maybe the top 0.1% are adept at using complex tax schemes to disproportionately minimise their obligations, but the engineer on 200k with a coupla kids and stay at home mum working 60 hour weeks is getting reamed. This guy isn't necessarily wealthy (income≠wealth) - he's working hard to build a future for himself and his family, while (statistically) paying for extremely generous social transfers in kind from himself to those on lower incomes.

          • sareth on 08/10/2020 - 16:19
            -2

            @Dogsrule: /r/theydidthemath

            • Dogsrule on 08/10/2020 - 16:23
              +1

              @sareth: Indeed, as they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant. My moral perspective on the tax cuts are subjective and up for debate, but the facts regarding the re-distributive nature of our tax system are not.

          • sir-screwball on 08/10/2020 - 22:00
            -4

            @Dogsrule: Credit where credit is due, you've crafted a very niche circumstance whereby the tax break would be helpful. I mean, you're talking about a family of four with a 200k income. Is my heart supposed to bleed for that guy?

            I will also point out that 5 years ago, the top end of town paid 52ish percent of all income tax collected. So in the past 5 years the LNP have managed to drag that back 7%.

            So give that the rate of tax paid by the top 10% is dropping at a fairly substantial rate, how far do you personally feel it should drop before we just abolish tax for people above 100k altogether?

            The fact that you choose to ignore the progressive nature of our tax system is kind of infuriating. When you single handedly earn well over double the national average of income, how is it a surprise that you pay more tax??

            • Dogsrule on 08/10/2020 - 22:35
              +2

              @sir-screwball: Well I’m glad you agree with me that the working class is not, in fact, getting screwed again, as per your original assertion, given you don’t dispute the sources I linked proving that our tax system is highly redistributive from high income earners to lower earners.

              Now to address your new assertions.

              If you don’t want to read my sources, you should at least read your own. That article relies on a model produced in 2015, the same year as my own source. After taking tax breaks for the top 10% into account, it comes down to 50.5%, not 52%. Any difference between the two sources after that is simply differences in measurement methodology, so your link does not show that the share of tax paid by the top 10% has declined as you say.

              As for your silly shaming comment about my supposed desire to abolish tax for people earning over 100k, just stop with the melodramatic hyperbole, I suggested nothing of the sort.

              Now, as for your assertion that I’ve ‘chosen to ignore the progressive nature of our tax system’, I would say, stop projecting your own actions onto me. My comment was written purposely to highlight the fact that we do in fact have a strongly progressive tax system. Your own link uses nearly those exact words for crying out loud. You were the one that chose to ignore the progressive nature of our tax system with your ridiculous ‘working class getting screwed’ comment. Oh, and nobody earning 200k is surprised they pay more tax, they just don’t like to hear that the people they are paying for via social transfers in kind are somehow ‘getting screwed’.

              Git gud man, I used your argument to write half of mine as yours (quite unwittingly I’m sure) supported mine rather thoroughly.

              Oh and downvoters, articulate your arguments, don’t hide behind downvoting. I wanna see what you’ve got. Sling me a good arrow. Stand by your beliefs if you believe they’re logical, or hell, even moral. I’m game…

              • sir-screwball on 09/10/2020 - 07:58
                -1

                @Dogsrule: Your article about the top 10% paying 45% of the tax bill is from 2018, not 2015. So that just means that the 52% (prior to tax breaks, the fact that the 2% can be recovered using tax breaks supports my argument) being brought back to 45% only serves to support my argument further, given that it had been recovered 7% in THREE years, instead of the 5 I originally had thought. I'll have to trust you on your sources though, because I don't pay a subscription to the Financial Review.

                The link I provided models the data a couple of different ways, if you want to throw a hissy fit over using the pre-deduction figure and post-deduction figure as some kind of gotchya moment you can, it doesn't make a difference though.

                You're trying to assert that somehow 2.5ish million people paying 50% (or 45%, or 52%, whatever) of the tax in Australia by out-earning the remaining 23 million people as some kind of (profanity) situation for the high earners. I don't think you're suited to a society that gives a shit about those less well-off or fortunate than you.

                I'm proud to live in a country that gives healthcare, education, support to the lower end of the income spectrum because those people, aside from being people who deserve at least basic decency, are the ones who do the harder jobs that the rest of the country don't want to do. They deserve a living wage, the opportunity to own homes, to send their kids to good schools, and to get good healthcare when they need it.

                Continually slashing funding out of those services to give to their mates is what makes the LNP the more evil of the two major parties and so when they do this kind of shit repeatedly and unrelentingly, I will continue to call it what it is.

                • ThithLord on 09/10/2020 - 09:25
                  +1

                  @sir-screwball: I admire your tenacity, Sir-Screwball. But you should realise there's no point arguing with someone over taxes when you're a tax expert and they still tell you you're wrong. That's LNP voters for ya

                  • Dogsrule on 09/10/2020 - 18:06

                    @ThithLord: Dunno why you’re calling the ATO an LNP voter, given they were the one saying he’s wrong. He’s like ‘the higher end of town already have bonkers tax breaks blah blah blah’, then the ATO goes, ‘nah bro, top 10% of tax payers still pay 45-50% of all taxes’.

                    Are you telling me that the ATO know less about the sources of the tax they collect, and the ABS about where it goes than the aptly named ‘sir screwball’? You know, if you wanna engage in the ‘appeal to authority’ thing, you should at least try to find a decent authority first.

                • Dogsrule on 09/10/2020 - 18:02

                  @sir-screwball: Jesus H Christ man, will you turn your brain on and read, just for a second? The article was published in 2018, but quotes data from 2015. Funny how you talk about my ‘gotcha moment’ given how bad your one is. I don’t have a subscription to the AFR, I can view it just fine, don’t know why you say you can’t.

                  Spare me your faux moral outrage and holier-than-thou posturing, you’re doing nothing more than projecting your own hatred of high earners onto me and ascribing false moral perspectives where there are none. I’ve said nothing about being against a progressive tax system. The only statements I’ve made are that we do have a strongly progressive tax system, and posted widely accepted data in support of that statement. I took your comment about the “working class getting screwed again” as evidence that you didn’t believe that we do have a progressive tax system.

                  It seems as though you disagree with the ATO regarding the sources of the taxes they collect, and the ABS regarding the destinations of those taxes. I don’t know what to say about that, other than you should probably take up a career as a politician - you know how they love ‘alternative facts’ and all that.

                  Anyway, I’m just responding for the benefit of the commentariat at this point, you don’t seem to have the intellectual desire to accept these facts, your biases have solidified your mind, so I’ll call it a day.

                  • sir-screwball on 10/10/2020 - 01:06

                    @Dogsrule: Faux moral outrage? Holier than thou posturing?

                    I haven't even begun to climb atop the soap box in terms of the overall picture of the LNP so if you want to call a sincere message about socialised systems "faux moral outrage" you can, but it's wrong.

                    This whole discussion has been around how the budget for this year is a LNP wank fest for the wealthy (rich, well-off, whatever you want to call it) and it is. They posture about helping every day Australians, but they're cutting benefits literally as we speak. They're talking about supporting women in the workplace, yet they canned the free childcare that would have allowed a lot more women to continue to work. Their investment into the environment is literally 250 million over four years. There's a piddly little tax break that is useless to people who are on lower incomes who need it the most.

                    There's a tiny mention for apprenticeships and "supporting job seekers" that is then promptly eclipsed by the four billion dollar fund they're creating for businesses to claim against for hiring these people.

                    I don't hate rich people. For clarity, I earn well and truly wayyyy too much to receive even a dollar of government money. I am comfortably in 'above average' income area. I'm approaching middle age with a wife and a kid, I own a home, I make a comfortable living. The budget benefits me just fine.

                    So if you want to sit there and preach about faux morality you can jam that right up your back end. I'd gladly give up the measly pittance this budget has afforded me so that it could go to people who need it the most. The lower end.

                    But under the LNP it will never go there. They don't support higher education because smart people aren't so easily duped by their bullshit. They rely on keeping people lazy, apathetic and misinformed. They don't support wage growth, a strong economy, they are a DOG SHIT party run by greedy pieces of hypocritical shit who's sole purpose in politics is to get rich and get out.

                    And just to cap off your incessant bitching about this '10% of earners pay 50% of the tax',.yes, they do and they should. I never disagreed with your statement about that. I mean, you presented those articles as some gross evidence that the top 10% paying 50% of the tax means the other 90% of the population aren't being f'd by the Liberals? When was the last time the LNP introduced a policy that almost exclusively benefited poor people? If you want to be cheap and use COVID you can do that, but I will advance counter that with the fact that the LNP's COVID JobSeeker/JobKeeper plan was written by a former Labor MP under the Gillard government because the LNP are so bad at giving money to poor people they couldn't come up with it on their own so they got a Labor pollie to write it then they just dialled it back. Then they implemented it and begun counting down to when they could start to wind it up.

                    Your top 10%/50% tax statement was a straw man at best, I'm ashamed I even got roped into talking about it. It doesn't prove anything about the Libs giving zero f's about poor people.

          • leiiv on 09/10/2020 - 23:57

            @Dogsrule: Many people do not seem to realise or care that the the top 0.1% (or the 0.01%) are far above and beyond compared to the rest of the top 10% in terms of political power, connections and wealth. They may be in the same tax bracket and pay similar amount of taxes, but huge different in the accumulated wealth.

            • Dogsrule on 10/10/2020 - 00:28

              @leiiv: Yep, there are cohorts within cohorts in the top 10%, or even top 1%. These tax cuts actually mean nothing to those people. Unfortunately, people see ‘top 10%’ and assume they’re all rolling in Bentleys and living in mansions on the beach, whereas the reality for many is they’re simply trying to build a bit of wealth and security for themselves and their families, plus a nice but not lavish non-taxpayer funded retirement.

              Usually achieved not through political connections or graft, but gaining in demand skills and education then working stupid hours producing great value for others over many years.

    • netjock on 08/10/2020 - 11:21

      I thought most people prefer getting a screw than a wank fest. But unusual times!

  • Seaword on 07/10/2020 - 16:14

    Straight to the mortgage. I will start spending again when my mortgage is smaller and my job is safer.

  • mrhanky71 on 07/10/2020 - 16:21
    +2

    Extra money is going towards my grow tent for my “tomatoes”

  • big on 07/10/2020 - 16:58

    I wonder why OP has not included Eneloops in the poll, given we are on ozbargain ….

  • [Deactivated] on 07/10/2020 - 17:42

    Very weird policy conditions…
    Anyone who saves the tax money will mean bigger debt to the economy.
    (2500 isn't alot of money to the rich)
    And those struggling will be penalised by christmas.

    What's funny is you must have less then $10000 to receive government assistance liquid assets test, that the governments implementing.

    Lol $2500, to the rich will not even see the gift.

    • brendanm on 08/10/2020 - 13:59
      +1

      How will those struggling be penalised? Are they going to be paying more tax?

      • Dogsrule on 08/10/2020 - 15:11
        +2

        From their perspective, the 'strugglers' rely on higher earners to fund their present quality of life via social transfers in kind. Less tax from their work mules = decline in their quality of life. This is their 'penalty'. I suppose if you take the word in it's literal context, that being something like 'a punishment imposed for breaking a law, rule, or contract', then yes, they are being penalised for breaking their obligations to our shared social contract.

        • Bargain Hunter 007 on 09/10/2020 - 10:05
          +1

          Work mule here.

          More than happy to pay more tax to fund education, health, and social welfare programs, I believe that a society is only as strong as its weakest link.

          It's hardly going to affect my way of life in a material manner.. I suppose I bought a 65" LG CX OLED TV instead of a 77", but I could just about live with a 55".

          • Dogsrule on 09/10/2020 - 13:01
            +1

            @Bargain Hunter 007: I have rather different beliefs. I believe society is as strong as the sum total of it's strongest members. A society with more highly productive people will be superior to one with less of those people.

            Providing sufficient incentive for these people to be highly productive is important.

            Low output people will remain heavily subsidized despite these tax cuts due to bracket creep, the LNP are just addressing the bracket creep to prevent undue burden on the high output people. The funding of health, education and social welfare for your 'weakest links' will continue essentially unabated, so you don't need to worry.

            I won't be buying a fancier TV with this portion of my labour that is being returned to me. I'm putting it into retirement savings so I can remain non-burdensome to other taxpayers when I am no longer highly productive, it's only moral to do so.

  • Munki on 07/10/2020 - 17:45
    +2

    I'm giving my money to overseas companies who dodge taxes.

    • cloudy on 07/10/2020 - 21:14

      Many of us do, amazon, ikea, etc lol

      • Munki on 07/10/2020 - 21:31
        +6

        Thatwasthejoke.mp4

    • OzzyOzbourne on 07/10/2020 - 21:33

      How about local tradies?

      • netjock on 08/10/2020 - 11:24
        +4

        Nah they are legit. 25k homebuilder

        150k instant asset write off.

        Basically if you by a $100k Ute.

        GST back $9k
        25k home builder
        30k deduction

        50k for a Ute that would cost an employee $100k. Bargain!

  • beefpatty69 on 07/10/2020 - 20:58

    Will we get taxed more in the future? Like in 2022 will they increase tax to get money back into the government's pockets? This almost sounds too good to be true haha

  • earth worm jim on 07/10/2020 - 21:13

    Gona blow it all off at a gentlemans club.

  • Donaldhump on 07/10/2020 - 22:01

    save it for a trip to thailand when the borders open in 2094

  • FromAtoZ on 07/10/2020 - 22:15

    Just my 2cent thought, everyone voted “to save the monies”.

    I am not good at that. I may save it for like a week or two, and spend here and there on Ozbargain deals .. i will spend All of them Without realising it.

    I probably change the strategy this year - will do one big spend for the full amount. So at least i feel more self-rewarded with my hard earned tax cuts.

  • RefusdClassification on 08/10/2020 - 05:24
    -3

    "with people earning more than $120,000 receiving the maximum benefit". A typical Liberal budget, rewarding the rich and punishing the poor. The main reason the Libs cut income taxes is to push up the price of houses since people have more money to sink into a home loan. Everything the government has done for the past 20 years has been aimed at making housing more unaffordable so rich investors end up even richer.

    • brendanm on 08/10/2020 - 14:00
      +1

      I agree, people who work hard should be penalised.

      • [Deactivated] on 08/10/2020 - 17:11
        +1

        I upvoted due to your dry humour 😹

    • sareth on 08/10/2020 - 16:59
      +4

      Who do you think subsidises the existence of the poor? Millions of people would be homeless and starving if not for the taxes paid by the rich. Mostly by the top ~10% of income earners.

      • Dogsrule on 08/10/2020 - 19:36

        Yep. Besides, income≠wealth. A high income earner may not actually be rich, in fact if they spend $1 more than they make each year, they're technically insolvent. Whether or not they're rich, they are certainly subsidizing lower income earners though.

  • CheeryCheapskate on 08/10/2020 - 08:44

    I'll probably spend it on taxes when I submit the next tax returns.
    A huge chunk will not boost the National economy as many people have international spending habits such as international travel and ordering online from international retailers.

  • funnysht on 08/10/2020 - 10:38

    Most people would buy online from amazon kogan ebay- not sure if that is the way to create jobs…

    • OzzyOzbourne on 08/10/2020 - 17:02

      I think Amazon hired a guy to watch the robots in the local distribution centre

  • Bargain Hunter 007 on 08/10/2020 - 10:41
    +9

    I earn $150,000 a year, I definitely don't work 2-3 times harder than low income earners, just got a good education courtesy of our government (single parent with low income), and took my opportunities from there.

    I won't notice the extra $50 per week at all, will go into the house fund / charity. The fact I'll be getting an additional $120 a week in future tax cuts defies belief considering how people are struggling during these times.

    I was hoping to get royally screwed on budget night, but I suppose the wealthy always win with the Libs.

    • Joku on 08/10/2020 - 12:47
      +2

      Respect for not just acting on your self interest.
      IMO neither party strongly supports what you're saying though.
      Yeah Labor does do better, but it's more lip service than action, it's more about doing just enough to buy your vote while not really wanting to shake up the status quo.
      The superannuation systems extremely regressive tax design is a good example, but there are countless others.
      Kidding yourself if you think they didn't generally know what they were designing into the system with stuff like that.
      I don't doubt they're too stupid to fully know all effects, and the exact effects, our system is a complicated mess.
      But generally there is what they know, and then there is what they tell you.

      • Bargain Hunter 007 on 08/10/2020 - 13:47

        That's fair, Labor is far too central for my taste, and are fast tracking these tax cuts as well in any case.

        I'm in favour of a major shake up, but I suspect only a major tragedy on the world scale will enable that. Interesting times!

    • netjock on 08/10/2020 - 12:54
      +4

      I earn $150,000 a year, I definitely don't work 2-3 times harder than low income earners, just got a good education courtesy of our government

      I thought the point of getting an education is to NOT have to work hard as unskilled for low incomes. It is a courtesy that more people should take up.

      was hoping to get royally screwed on budget night, but I suppose the wealthy always win with the Libs.

      Thought it was the poor farmers in QLD that put the LNP in.

      • onesandtwos on 08/10/2020 - 18:26
        +4

        Low income earners are not necessarily unskilled and high income earners are not necessarily educated, you can have pharmacists on their award wage at approximately $30 per hour. Honestly, getting an education is simply a stepping stone to certain job pathways but guarantees very little.

        • netjock on 08/10/2020 - 18:28
          -3

          Honestly, getting an education is simply a stepping stone to certain job pathways but guarantees very little.

          Pointless getting educated if you can't work out the simple problem of whether you are going to make money out of it. Do you think even with an education and you can't make money you deserve to fail.

        • Dogsrule on 08/10/2020 - 18:45
          +3

          This idea about 'getting educated' is a fundamentally flawed premise. The only thing a degree represents is the accumulation of a very small amount of theoretical knowledge about a certain (ofter narrow) field of human endeavour.

          This doesn't guarantee you'll be able to create economic value for your employer in that field. It doesn't guarantee there'll be demand for your labour in that field. Even if there is, it doesn't guarantee there will always be demand for your labour into perpetuity.

          Think about it, unless you can make your employer at least $1 more than they pay you, why would they pay you? You may have tremendous skill in the field of watchmaking, but if everyone has smartwatches, why do they need you?

          Lesson: create value for other people. Provide what they want. People will pay cold hard cash for things they value.

    • Dogsrule on 08/10/2020 - 18:28
      +1

      I do 200k a year, and the value I create for the company I work for far exceeds both my income from them and the value created by the cleaners on 50k a year.

      I would certainly hope that you provide 3-4x more economic value for your company than your low income counterparts, otherwise your employer is getting a bad deal, and probably have a failing business model.

      Note: this was not a cheap shot at cleaners or any other lower skilled worker, (most) work is noble, it's just that low skill labour will be valued less due to the lower economic value to the company and the high supply of such labour.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join