Why Is No-One Pushing for ATO Income Threshold Increase?

gfjh567gh3 on 15/09/2023 - 15:28

Posting this as I am unsure why there's no popular pressure to push this policy:

Why has the ATO not increased the individual income tax threshold?

Inflation has raged, and is by no means stopping. We need multiple periods of NEGATIVE inflation to return to a 2020 baseline, and personally I believe that won't happen, these costs are now baked in until we have demand destruction.

For those lucky enough to get a wage increase (which surely hasn't met your true cost of living increases) the taxman eats straight into it. I can assure you that my cost of living has increased MORE than 7% ANNUALLY, and my wage increase YoY is less!

I don't even know why we tolerate paying income tax when the Government prints money, effectively double dipping on our buying power.

Perhaps the number of middle class voters getting bent over by PAYG is insignificant compared to non-taxpayers, be it by evasion or simply not being a productive citizen.

https://www.ato.gov.au/rates/individual-income-tax-rates/

Financial

Comments

          • brendanm on 15/09/2023 - 16:55
            +17

            @TooSerious2: Yeah, a specialist surgeon should definitely get the same pay as someone that cleans the floor at aldi.

            • megadeth on 15/09/2023 - 19:10
              +3

              @brendanm: Why not? Engineers get the same as fitters or electricians. Welcome to Australia.

              • brendanm on 15/09/2023 - 19:34
                +2

                @megadeth: I'm unsure if you are serious or not, so it's quite difficult to respond.

              • brad1-8tsi on 15/09/2023 - 20:13
                +2

                @megadeth:

                Engineers get the same as fitters or electricians.

                Not in my world.

                • nigel deborah on 17/09/2023 - 13:55
                  -2

                  @brad1-8tsi: Dunno, anyone doing actual design work as an engineer (not management/exec) is likely to earn similar money to a good electrician, think 80-160k.

                  Even traditionally higher demand engineering diciplines, CS, Geo, etc are on the decline (or at least haven't moved a whole lot).

                  Not to say this isn't 'fair' though, I personally don't see why a few years at uni should qualify you for a big pay increase beyond what's necessary to make up for that time studying. Not like it takes much besides moderate dedication to actually finish an honours degree.

                  • brad1-8tsi on 18/09/2023 - 15:23

                    @nigel deborah: I did a trade and night school and then used years of experience to be recognised as an engineer. Government department so grads were $75k, Entry level was $100k and it topped out at $135k.

                    Our experienced sparkies were on ~$70k.

                  • R4 on 18/09/2023 - 22:36

                    @nigel deborah: Your figures are way off for design engineering

                    • nigel deborah on 19/09/2023 - 07:18

                      @R4: Based on what? Gov data data all has averages around or below the $120k mark. Plenty of consultants, managers and execs on more than 160 but very few of them still designing anything.

                      • R4 on 19/09/2023 - 08:20

                        @nigel deborah: Based on my personal experience. But go with what you've written.

                  • OzzyOzbourne on 19/09/2023 - 15:32

                    @nigel deborah: If there was no incentive to study difficult STEM subjects to a high level and then do extremely intellectually difficult work then we would have no technological advancement of human society (this is the case in Australia, fortunately there are highly educated people overseas doing the difficult stuff).

                    Let's face it, pretty much any able bodied person can do non-skilled, semi-skilled, skilled manual labour. It's not rocket science.

          • Ugly on 16/09/2023 - 07:26
            +5

            @TooSerious2: No, that’s equity.
            Equality would be a single tax rate for everyone regardless of income.

        • filmer on 15/09/2023 - 16:40
          +3

          When you speak about equality. Consider how much of your funds that would go towards more than the bare essentials are getting taxed. Losing 30c at 46k is a lot bigger than losing 30c at 199k.

          If you look back 20 years after adjusting for inflation those on the median or lower are paying basically the same tax. Those on 120k+ are already paying quite a bit less, as the top bracket kicked in at 120-130k ish adjusting for inflation.

          • EightImmortals on 15/09/2023 - 17:32
            +3

            @filmer: Actually they are paying quite a lot more.

            30% of 120K is a lot more than 30% of 40k.

        • gfjh567gh3 on 15/09/2023 - 18:20
          +1

          Thank you.
          Still, with raging inflation, we are only getting a mild reprieve halfway through 2025 (when we file our return for the previous year)

          • EightImmortals on 16/09/2023 - 06:20
            +5

            @gfjh567gh3: Yep, I think they have us exactly where they want us, they always seem to leave us just enough so that the general population wont rebel but not enough to live free of enslavement to debt or stuck in a soul-sucking non productive vocation. Not everyone of course, just the majority.

            • Brianqpr on 17/09/2023 - 13:06

              @EightImmortals: spot on and its been deliberately built this way since the 1980s.

              • ssfps on 19/09/2023 - 23:09

                @Brianqpr:

                spot on and its been deliberately built this way since the 1980s.

                More like since the 18th century. IIRC the 1700s marked the first introduction of modern fractional reserve banking and the first use of private central banking.

        • DingoBilly on 17/09/2023 - 15:49
          +1

          Not sure what you're arguing - the tax cuts are terrible and only benefit the wealthy…

          This wouldn't help the OP's original point at all.

          • EightImmortals on 17/09/2023 - 15:53

            @DingoBilly: Define 'the wealthy'?

            Is it just people who make more than you?
            Why are tax cuts terrible? Because they aren't large enough?

            • DingoBilly on 18/09/2023 - 12:33
              +1

              @EightImmortals: I benefit a lot from this, I am a high income earner.

              Do I need the extra money? No lol - people earning over a certain amount just have extra money to spend on garbage. I can easily see why my money is better spent to reinvest for social programs. If you start hitting $250k and over then you need the money even less - people are just wasteful from that point on.

              But yes, cutting tax rates means the government has less money to spend and help out Australians. So cutting them is terrible as we likely need higher tax rates, not lower. Government is struggling enough as it is.

              • EightImmortals on 18/09/2023 - 13:17
                +2

                @DingoBilly: Oh yeah my heart bleeds for government. Government is happy to let Australians suffer while they waste our tax money on crap that does not help Australians one bit. I'm getting sick of posting the list so I'll spare everyone.

                Also, if you you think you have too much money then you are free to choose what you do with any surplus. 250K is only a lot if you are debt free with no mortgage. However you feel about it does not mean that your beliefs on the matter are representative of all aussies who will be plundered by government who are not in the same position as you.

                Also, government gave itself QE powers back in 2020 so they have ZERO need to raise our tax burden any higher.

        • Diji on 19/09/2023 - 11:16

          The same rate from 45k to 200k looks ridiculous. If anything, between 45k and 200k should be even more gradual with a lower rate at the bottom end

          • EightImmortals on 19/09/2023 - 11:19
            -1

            @Diji: Like I said, the person earning 220K is paying way more money than the one earning 40K even if the rate is the same.
            I have heard no logical reason ever for why someone should be paying different rates than anyone else. Heard a few emotional reasons though. :)

            • Diji on 19/09/2023 - 11:25

              @EightImmortals: Tax on a person earning 50K has more of an impact than one earning 200K because they're less able to pay for costs of living. If you take away $100 from a low income earner, that's grocery money they no longer have. If you take $100 away from a high income earner, they're not going to be hard up to feed themselves or pay rent.

              • EightImmortals on 19/09/2023 - 11:40

                @Diji: OK? And?

                It sounds like you are supporting taxation as a punitive measure for success rather than an equitable impost on a nations workers. Most people here know what I think if taxation generally so I'd be happy if nobody paid income tax. But the person earning 50K would still have tighter budget constraints than those earning more, but in that case they would at least be incentivised to earn more money. But if we must be burdened with income tax (which from memory was only brought in around 1918 to 'pay for WW1' and then like most other taxation, never left when it's purpose was accomplished.)

                • Diji on 19/09/2023 - 12:02

                  @EightImmortals:

                  OK? And?

                  It's a logical reason. You said you have heard no logical reasons, so there you go. I'm starting to think that statement was a smarmy way of saying "people I disagree with are wrong", though.

                  Most people here know what I think if taxation generally so I'd be happy if nobody paid income tax.

                  Sorry for giving you the impression that I wanted to know your thoughts on taxation. I just wanted to provide a logical reason for different tax rates. :)

                  • EightImmortals on 19/09/2023 - 12:16

                    @Diji: You didn't supply a logical reason, you provided an emotive one.

                    "Tax on a person earning 50K has more of an impact than one earning 200K because they're less able to pay for costs of living."

                    OK, that's true of course but I don't see how it follows therefore that someone earning more than 50K should pay an unequal percentage of their earnings?

                    "If you take away $100 from a low income earner, that's grocery money they no longer have. If you take $100 away from a high income earner, they're not going to be hard up to feed themselves or pay rent."

                    But you don't want to take away $100 from the guy on 200K, you want to take $1000. So the 'impact' (still not seeing the relevance of that) may be just as or more grievous to that person as the lower rate is to the guy on 50K.

                    • Diji on 19/09/2023 - 12:48

                      @EightImmortals:

                      You didn't supply a logical reason, you provided an emotive one.

                      You take more money from people who are more able to afford it because they will suffer the least negative consequences to their standard of living. Logically, it follows that it will also provide the least negative impact to society while providing the money for critical government services.

                      If that's not logical to you then you may be confusing logic with something else.

                      But you don't want to take away $100 from the guy on 200K, you want to take $1000.

                      Yeah it was a simple example that shows how an equal tax rate is more of a burden on those with lower incomes. In general, the "flatter" the tax, the more of a burden it is on the poor, which is simple mathematics.

                      So the 'impact' (still not seeing the relevance of that) may be just as or more grievous to that person as the lower rate is to the guy on 50K.

                      No, because the cost of living is not progressive. You don't pay more for food or shelter as your income increases. Think about a speeding fine. If you gun it down the freeway 20 over, you don't get fined more for driving a Lambo than for driving a Camry.

                      It's also rather strange that you don't see the relevance of the impact of tax burden when considering the topic of tax.

                      • EightImmortals on 19/09/2023 - 13:01

                        @Diji: "You take more money from people who are more able to afford it because they will suffer the least negative consequences to their standard of living. "

                        So why is other people 'standard of living' anyone else's responsibility? What of the people who waste what little money they have on smokes, booze, junk food, gambling, toys etc? Is it incumbent upon me to fund their irresponsibility? And yes, I realise not everyone is like that, but a lot are and need to learn to live within their means.

                        "Logically, it follows that it will also provide the least negative impact to society while providing the money for critical government services."

                        No it doesn't. You are assuming an honest government (lols) that doesn't waste billions and billions each year on nonsense instead of helping those people you are so concerned about. Remember the Lismore floods? (for just one of many examples) while people were still wading through garbage and begging for help, government was sending hundreds of millions of dollars of supplies and ammo to Ukraine. The 'roads and schools' argument is well and truly played out at this point in time.

                        "Yeah it was a simple example that shows how an equal tax rate is more of a burden on those with lower incomes. In general, the "flatter" the tax, the more of a burden it is on the poor, which is simple mathematics."

                        Sure, I'm not arguing that you are wrong on that point, I'm arguing that having unequal tax rates in 1 'unfair' and 2 obviously doesn't fix the issues you are concerned about otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

                        "No, because the cost of living is not progressive. You don't pay more for food or shelter as your income increases."

                        Sure you do. Do you think rich people eat maccas and drink XXXX or Grange and FoieGras? If one is on a greater income why wouldn't you put some of the extra money into healthy food and lifestyle? And spending more on higher priced items actually produces more tax receipts for the thieving government anyway.

                        "It's also rather strange that you don't see the relevance of the impact of tax burden when considering the topic of tax."

                        Actually I do, but you said you weren't interested in my opinion on that subject. :) I agree with your stated concerns, I do not agree with your solution.

                        • Diji on 19/09/2023 - 13:57

                          @EightImmortals:

                          So why is other people 'standard of living' anyone else's responsibility?

                          We live in a society, etc.

                          No it doesn't. You are assuming an honest government

                          Not interested in having this debate, private solutions are just as bad if not worse.

                          I'm arguing that having unequal tax rates in 1 'unfair'

                          It's more unfair for a poor person to pay a greater portion of their income than a rich person.

                          Sure you do. Do you think rich people eat maccas and drink XXXX or Grange and FoieGras? If one is on a greater income why wouldn't you put some of the extra money into healthy food and lifestyle?

                          Someone having less money to spend on luxuries is a "grievous" impact while a poor person being unable to afford living expenses under a regressive income tax is fair? You hitting the pipe or what?

                          Actually I do

                          Also you:

                          So the 'impact' (still not seeing the relevance of that)

                          I laff'd

                          • EightImmortals on 19/09/2023 - 14:30

                            @Diji: "Not interested in having this debate, private solutions are just as bad if not worse."

                            So what's the private solution to income tax equality?

                            "It's more unfair for a poor person to pay a greater portion of their income than a rich person."

                            Just your opinion. I say it's totally fair.

                            "Someone having less money to spend on luxuries is a "grievous" impact "

                            Good quality food is hardly a 'luxury' or at least it shouldn't be.

                            "a poor person being unable to afford living expenses under a regressive income tax is fair?"

                            Stop putting words in my mouth, that's not what I said.

                            "So the 'impact' (still not seeing the relevance of that)"
                            "I laff'd"

                            Maybe you should have 'thought' instead? Or at least reread what I wrote and made an effort to understand it. I don't see the relevance of 'impact on lifestyle' as a relevant factor in determined tax brackets. I still don't, and yes I am concerned for low income but not at the expense of unequal taxation rates that do not help the lower income peeps anyway. It all goes into the black hole of general revenue, a great deal of which is pissed away by incompetent or malfeasant politicians.

                            • Diji on 19/09/2023 - 14:44

                              @EightImmortals: That's cool and all but what do you think of nanomachines, son?

                            • Diji on 19/09/2023 - 15:25

                              @EightImmortals: On a serious note, I don't really wanna post much further than this since I think there are just things about my opinion you think are fundamentally wrong but I'll post once more about what I think may be misunderstandings.

                              So what's the private solution to income tax equality?

                              I thought you were referring to fully privatised health care, education, etc. I didn't want to get into the conversation that always ends up going like "private X is always better", "no, not always", "yes it is" until the end of time. Of course in reality the government spends a lot on things that aren't in everybody's interest, that we can agree on, but I have no reason to believe that corporate ownership of every would be better either.

                              Just your opinion. I say it's totally fair.

                              It's just hard for me to think that a person having generations worth of wealth while people can't make rent is not fundamentally unfair. Progressive income tax is a tool that helps work against this (slightly), which by extension makes it seem fair to me.

                              Good quality food is hardly a 'luxury' or at least it shouldn't be.

                              I agree, I mean things like sports cars, yachts, holiday homes, high end dining (or "gastronomic experiences" or whatever). Same as luxuries like alcohol, cigs, etc., that you cited as being wastes of money.

                              Stop putting words in my mouth, that's not what I said.

                              I thought you were saying a flat tax policy would be better. And IMO the outcome of such a thing would be terrible for the poor.

                              I don't see the relevance of 'impact on lifestyle' as a relevant factor in determined tax brackets

                              Well my logic is that it should be designed to get the money required for critical social services without burdening society such that it makes people's lives worse than not having such services in the first place. If the tax is making it so the people are unable to pay rent or afford food or even access the services that tax is paying for then the tax is a failure (IMO).

                              • EightImmortals on 19/09/2023 - 15:34

                                @Diji: OK sweet, at least we kinda agree on that last point. :)

                                (Tip, it aint working. )

                      • ssfps on 19/09/2023 - 23:17

                        @Diji:

                        No, because the cost of living is not progressive. You don't pay more for food or shelter as your income increases.

                        I guess you've never heard of PBS, state government housing commission, NRAS, subsidized transport, medicare "surcharge", etc etc.

                        The whole discussion is moot, this idea that tax paid to government benefits poor Australians is so laughable i'm not sure what kool-aid you have to drink to become so indoctrinated. Scrap all social safety nets, all payments, scrap all superannuation, scrap all personal taxes and levies. Nationalize mining and agriculture and banking and give all citizens of Australia a UBI regardless of their income. Modify banking legislation so the gov/banks can't devalue our FIAT. This would be far better for everyone across all regular income bands, the only disadvantage would be to the elite.

                        • Diji on 20/09/2023 - 00:00

                          @ssfps:

                          I guess you've never heard of PBS, state government housing commission, NRAS, subsidized transport, medicare "surcharge", etc etc.

                          To a degree, I guess. PBS and medicare is a good point though. Government housing (well, I can only speak for VIC…) is basically non-existent now. Waiting list is so long I'll either be in my grave or in a decent job before I see anything in the way of that. Dunno about NRAS, thought they scrapped that. Never had any luck with it myself but such is the rental market these days. But my point was that you earning more doesn't mean you have to pay more for food or pay more for rent. There are benefits at the lower end but after a point a person on 50k is paying the same for their groceries and rent as someone on 200k. You can afford to rent nicer and eat better but you've also got the option to live frugally.

                          this idea that tax paid to government benefits poor Australians is so laughable i'm not sure what kool-aid you have to drink to become so indoctrinated.

                          I figure the money for my education and medication came from that because I don't reckon it's coming from corporations. Am I wrong? I don't think saying that it's better for those on a low income than a regressive/no income tax system and no social safety nets is indicative of being indoctrinated… I don't think the person I was replying to was suggesting UBI so I didn't mention it. The comment about not wanting to pay for others lead me to believe they would also be against UBI or similar. And probably also against nationalising anything, since that would be along the lines of making people (mining industry) pay for others. Could be wrong, dunno. Just sounded like they wouldn't be happy with their money going to UBI either since that may involve what was once private profit going to "fund others' irresponsibility".

                          Nationalize mining

                          Would be nice but gets you ousted unfortunately. I think we'd need to see a huge shift in opinions both in politicians and voters. And perhaps growing a spine to stand against lobbying.

                          • ssfps on 21/09/2023 - 00:09

                            @Diji:

                            I figure the money for my education and medication came from …

                            … wouldn't be happy with their money going to UBI …

                            The thing is, and perhaps we would disagree here, is that as far as I can tell almost every "good thing" including social welfare is ultimately introduced and hijacked only if the elite can benefit from it. A UBI could be done fairly in theory, but when we do eventually get it introduced (and i'm sure it's coming at some point) it won't be fair, or meant to improve the general populations quality of life, it will be done to destabilize us, or to somehow make the incumbent elite more wealthy or powerful. Central banking, and later FIAT currency, was sold to the public with lofty ideals of stability and fairness, but in reality it was just another field a cartel could entrench themselves in and steal from us. Regulatory bodies generally serve the corporations in the industry they are meant to regulate. The point of tax ultimately is not to help us, it goes to supporting industry cartels and oligopolies and, in the midst of that corruption, a heartless bureaucracy happens to throw us the odd bone in an inequitable enough manner that people on 170k and people on 60k are frustrated at each other.

                            As an aside, as somebody else further up mentioned, apart from the fact tax is not there to serve us, the government doesn't need to spend our tax on anything - they have a record of printing money and devaluing our currency to pay for their "services" like the $200bn printed in 2021. If they need "money" to pay for services, they can just rob us all by printing it, which is a government scam that's been around forever.

    • Brianqpr on 17/09/2023 - 13:03
      +3

      There's no way Labor can go back on those now, no matter how much they may secretly want to. Albo has answered the question the same way too many times.

      Labor have had to become Liberal lite to get elected and the recent dealings with Qantas in terms of shutting out competition are a good example of this.

      • ThithLord on 18/09/2023 - 08:22

        Labor have had to become Liberal lite to get elected and the recent dealings with Qantas in terms of shutting out competition are a good example of this.

        You swallowing up the LNP talking points about QANTAS? The decision was made 4 years ago (by the LNP) to not make a decision, to kick the can down the road 4 years, on giving QATAR Airlines extra services.

        The Federal Government this year said you can fly to x, z and y regional airports to which QATAR said no thanks.

        The ALP have kinda taken issue with the fact that QATAR airlines have violated the bodily autonomy of a few passangers (illegally strip searching two women, from memory). The QATAR government are pretty … extreme.

        You want this airline to be granted more flights, m8?

        • Brianqpr on 18/09/2023 - 13:14

          Except that's not the real reason, otherwise Qatar wouldn't be flying here at all. Just how much of a moral stance should be taken then? Just a little bit? Or a bit more? Or less?

          They were also recently told they could apply again which surely wouldn't be the case if your reason is accurate.

          • ThithLord on 18/09/2023 - 13:43

            @Brianqpr:

            Just a little bit? Or a bit more? Or less?

            ?They were also recently told they could apply again which surely wouldn't be the case if your reason is accurate.

            Uhhh.. so they were told to apply again, and this is your smoking gun? You gonna make a point or do I need to do that for you?

            Here you go: Transport Minister Catherine King made ‘same’ decision on Qatar Airways as Michael McCormack did years ago.

            Nationals MP Michael McCormack was the responsible minister, put a similar application on hold **for four years, before only granting the airline an extra seven flights per week.**

            People are only outraged about this literally because the media machine wants you to be - GG, NPC

            https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-06/transport-minister-ac…

            Home Affairs Minister Clare O'Neil said she supported Ms King's decision, and reaffirmed that Qatar Airways could add extra capacity to Australia through secondary airports, or by flying larger aircraft.

            QATAR Airways have been offered additional routes, but refused.

  • dtc on 15/09/2023 - 15:51
    +1

    This comment has about 6 contradictory or just plain incorrect statements, which I would like to think is some kind of record given how short it is. However, this is the internet so its not the worst comment I've ever seen

  • MrHyde on 15/09/2023 - 15:58
    +12

    There is already tax rate cuts scheduled for next year.

    From 1 July 2024, the 32.5% marginal tax rate will be cut to 30% for one big tax bracket between $45,000 and $200,000.

    • hothed on 15/09/2023 - 16:14
      +1

      This. Do some research OP before going on a rant.

      Inflation has a long term average increase of arouind 2-3% since day dot.

      • Protractor on 15/09/2023 - 16:33
        +1

        But!

        I wannit all, and I wannit now!

    • gfjh567gh3 on 15/09/2023 - 17:49
      -1

      Thank you!
      Still, raging inflation for years, and middle class punters won't see bracket creep adjustment until they file their returns mid 2025.
      Surely this could have been brought forward
      They were certainly quick to hand out payments for everyone to sit at home

      • larndis on 17/09/2023 - 13:31
        +3

        If the tax cuts take effect from 1 July 2024, take home pay will increase from that date.

        Your complete ignorance of the tax system coupled with strong views about how it should be 'fixed' is quite impressive.

      • us3rnam3tak3n on 18/09/2023 - 12:50

        Why would they bring forward tax cuts when they're trying to take heat out of the economy?

        Also, if by middle class you're talking about people on median incomes ($52,338), they stand to gain about $183 pa. Not going to make any real difference.

        source: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-workin…

  • pharkurnell on 15/09/2023 - 15:58
    -1

    I don't even know why we tolerate paying income tax when the Government prints money, effectively double dipping on our buying power.

    GRAB YA PITCHFORKS AND BURNING CLUBS AND HIT THE STREETS!!!!!!

  • JIMB0 on 15/09/2023 - 15:59
    +1

    There's always the option of putting yourself in a lower tax bracket by working less.

  • deme on 15/09/2023 - 16:02
    +3

    NEGATIVE inflation

    Deflation.

    • GG57 on 15/09/2023 - 16:07
      +4

      Isn't deflation what is happening to big 4WD vehicles in wealthy neighbourhoods?

      • hothed on 15/09/2023 - 16:31
        +1

        You mean depreciation. Depreciation is the reduction in an assets value over its useful life.

        Deflation is the reduction in a new goods(or services) value. Eg a new 4x4 cost 80k this year, and next year it costs $75k.

        Inflation of vehicle prices is what is actually occuring, where manufacturers are continuing to ramp up the RRP of their vehicles. (lower AUD = higher import costs, and supply and demand)

        • GG57 on 15/09/2023 - 16:32
          +7

          No, I meant deflation; the action or process of deflating

        • deme on 15/09/2023 - 16:42
          +3

          Woosh

        • mbck on 15/09/2023 - 17:04

          Derplation

    • Protractor on 15/09/2023 - 17:59
      +3

      defenestration

  • DJR9000 on 15/09/2023 - 16:14
    +4

    inflation has increased but wage growth hasn't.

    not that big a deal. there is already tax cuts coming in next FY

    I still remember when it was 47% on anything earnt over 60,000 a year!

  • TheRealCher on 15/09/2023 - 16:25
    +6

    A more progressive tax rate would actually be better. Those on lower incomes would be better able to afford rent and food, and those on higher incomes could contribute to the increased costs of health care etc. Having one large group all paying the same percentage is not helping anyone except those at the upper end of the bracket.

  • brendanm on 15/09/2023 - 16:35
    +4

    Can't cut taxes, how would they pay for all the politicians flights?

    • Protractor on 15/09/2023 - 17:41

      By scrapping AUKUS and charging rent for the NT Yank invasion, and lift Royalties on all mining and double it on rare earths,lithium etc?

      • brendanm on 15/09/2023 - 18:51
        +3

        But how would we survive without submarines? 😂

        • Protractor on 15/09/2023 - 19:47
          +2

          We won't, if you listen to the spin

          • brendanm on 15/09/2023 - 20:31
            +1

            @Protractor: How have we survived for this long without them? I assume by pure luck.

            • Protractor on 15/09/2023 - 20:42

              @brendanm: I don't think you need luck to avoid a false paradigm.
              Straya govts just keep buying 'pups' , so the the Yanky war machine doesn't suffer a cost of living crisis.

              • brendanm on 15/09/2023 - 22:39
                +1

                @Protractor: I was being facetious. I assume you think I would disagree with all the things you listed above?

                • Protractor on 16/09/2023 - 09:45

                  @brendanm: I wan't sure .But it was more a general reply to add to the discussion for anyone else peering in.
                  Strangely enough (judging by the silence) the majority of the general populous fall into the apathy or support category ,when it comes to AUKUS etc. It amazes me how govts bleat about how democratic we are and yet disallow any community input to all major existential issues. And instead handball that consultation opportunity to foreign military entities , to sell us what they tell us we need to defend their bottom line ( indefinitely) .
                  Darwin is just another Pearl Harbour replica, and soon it will look like 'it' did in it's pre-obliteration heyday.
                  I note in media today the Yanks are trying to speed up AUKUS as much as they can in case Trump gets in and scuttles it. ( On that front, a Trump win would be a blessing). Sadly the rest of his chaotic DF-ery going fwd,would wipe out the gains of canning AUKUS.

                  • brendanm on 16/09/2023 - 16:28
                    +2

                    @Protractor: I actually agree with all the things you listed. No one gets upset about the subs because there is nothing anyone can do. Everyone knows that the people in politics are in it for themselves and to line their and their mates pockets. Someone's getting a great deal on these subs, but it sure it's the taxpayer.

                    We should have higher mining royalties, the things they are digging out of the ground are owned by the Australian people, however it's the mining companies and their mates who are getting the benefits. Should also tax multinationals correctly, as well as putting in proper checks and balances when they do stupid things like giving jobkeeper payment to companies who made massive profits through covid.

                    • Protractor on 16/09/2023 - 18:48

                      @brendanm: Totally agree. Hopefully we can use the new fed NACC to get some of those outcomes by draining the swamp.Even militant unions screw it for the other unions.
                      Adani project approval needs to be referred to the NACC. Dodgy

            • dtc on 15/09/2023 - 20:55
              +1

              @brendanm: Well we have submarines at the moment and have since around 1957 so…

              • brendanm on 15/09/2023 - 22:38

                @dtc: We've had nuclear subs since 1957? Wow, I learnt something new today, thanks!.

  • Drakesy on 15/09/2023 - 16:36
    +4

    It would be nice if they built in Tax bracket creep in line with CPI.
    But of course anything that benefits the tax department is fine.

    • PandaExpress on 17/09/2023 - 20:07

      That's how it should be really. Right now it's just an ever-increasing tax.

  • ChrisLevo on 15/09/2023 - 17:18
    +1

    OP won't come back after venting his spleen with "I don't even know why we tolerate paying income tax when the Government prints money, effectively double dipping on our buying power." which makes zero sense.

    He must be having a bad day, so let's lay off him until he realises just what he sounds like…

  • payless69 on 15/09/2023 - 18:24

    Ah well caviar and dog food
    again and again…

  • megadeth on 15/09/2023 - 19:12
    +1

    Think the op is discussing bracket creep. Apparently stage 3 cuts (I don’t trust labour) are meant to do address it.

    • Protractor on 15/09/2023 - 19:51
      +5

      That whole concept was a brain fart by the Libs to win votes as their polls headed south.(low risk electoral insurance)
      They never ever expected to implement them , and left them hot and steaming in Labors lap. Then Albo had no choice but implement them. Devious but politically expedient.

    • gfjh567gh3 on 15/09/2023 - 21:07
      -1

      Yes, to clarify, I meant to ask why bracket creep hasn't been addressed earlier. I am not espousing for increased tax rates

      • megadeth on 15/09/2023 - 23:36
        +2

        Not a big fan of Scott Morrison myself however, the issue of Bracket Creep was addressed by the Morrison Govt in the 2018 budget by announcing a series of tax cuts; most of which have already been passed on to taxpayers; with the last one aka 'stage 3 tax cuts' remaining to become effective on 1/07/2024 (if ALP doesn't backflip and repeal the stage 3 tax cuts - and that's a big 'if'). This last tax cut was left out till late as the government intended to pass on the benefit to the lowest income groups first. In my opinion, if the Albanese backflips he'll shoot ALP in the foot, considering the speed scandals are taking shape as seen in the case of the Qantas/Qatar Airways issue. Food for thought here is that the Rudd government was sacked in the past 'primarily' by lobbyists due to his proposing a new tax on the mining industry.

  • GrueHunter on 15/09/2023 - 19:55

    RBA: we're trying to reduce spending by raising interest rates

    The ATO, according to you: let's do the opposite by lowering taxes

    clap

    clap

    • gfjh567gh3 on 15/09/2023 - 21:08
      -1

      30% into the pocket of mum and dad consumers is preferable to billions in deficit spending that the big end of town then need to find a return on, typically with huge asset inflation.

      The low and middle class reduced tax volume is a drop in the bucket compared to the deficit spending from the government

      • GrueHunter on 16/09/2023 - 00:32
        +7

        Look, you can stop

        We get it

        You're definitely right, and all the qualified experts are all wrong

        You alone have special and unique insights into the world that have escaped everybody who does this for a living

    • plowking8 on 16/09/2023 - 14:57
      +1

      Pretty much this.

      As hard and unfortunate as it might be - demand and spending needs to stop, hence things will be quicker to go back to normal. Higher rates and less disposable income, and unfortunately some struggle is the way.

      The 1% who aren't as impacted by all this, aren't the ones who are going to make some massive impact by keeping prices high. That is why they are the 1%.

      We have it great in Australia. Everyone has a flat screen, internet at their fingertips, clean water, etc but we have a rough patch of what won't even make up more than 1.5% of peoples total lifetime and we complain.

      • greatlamp on 17/09/2023 - 15:18
        +2

        It's not 1% that aren't affected

        30% of homes are owned outright. An extra $50 per week on the grocery bill means nothing.

        30% of homes are inhabited by tenants, the landlord's rising cost of living is offset by increasing rent.

        Inflation was never caused by working class people, which is why taking money out of their wallet isn't solving Inflation either. All that is achieved is increasing the wealth disparity.

  • Jaspa7 on 15/09/2023 - 23:21
    +1

    agree with you OP, but inflation means things are more expensive for the government too, and our taxes paid = government income, so they'd be receiving less money that's now also worth less.

    If you were content with the tax as it was applied to our incomes in the previous five years, you should want the government to shift the brackets such that the percentage of income stays the same
    (eg. you earned 100k last year and paid 20% in tax, got 10k increase due to inflation only, so still should pay 20% of 110k (22k) in tax).

    That being said, I'm of the opinion that the tax % to income curve in aus was weird to begin with.. should be a sigmoid where the mid point is the point at which ~50% of all income is generated (~280k). As an example:
    50k could pay ~5% (as opposed to 13% in current system)
    100k could pay ~10% (as opposed to 23% in current system)
    150k could pay ~15% (as opposed to 27% in current system)
    200k could pay ~23% (as opposed to 30% in current system)
    250k could pay ~30% (as opposed to 33% in current system)
    300k could pay ~35% (as opposed to 35% in current system)
    400k could pay ~40% (as opposed to 38% in current system)
    500k could pay ~42% (as opposed to 39% in current system)

    45% can stay the max rate as it is, and numbers can be tweaked so govnmnt still gets the same amount of money per year.
    but you get the idea.

    tldr: vote 1 sigmoids, not $h1tmounds

  • svoncrumb on 15/09/2023 - 23:57

    What services are you proposing we cut back on to pay for these tax cuts?

    • Hvrd on 16/09/2023 - 12:11
      +10

      submarines

    • locknuts on 17/09/2023 - 08:42
      +4

      I reckon there's a lot of government jobs that could go before services are ever affected. It's not the most efficient machine.

      • svoncrumb on 26/09/2023 - 10:02

        Of course you do Jeff. And while you're at it, why not sell all our infrastructure assets at the bare minimum to secure your role when you leave government, creating a beautiful monopoly for your sharemarket mates! Sell all the schools while you're at it, we don't need an educated Australia either.

    • Protractor on 17/09/2023 - 11:41
      +2

      Services related to maintaining the perverse status quo.

      War toys and deal,immigration,scrap free $$ kicks to resource,mining, any big impact negative environmental impact industries and big ag, export tax on gas.
      If they won't pay find another country who will.
      We should not allow any mine to expand it's footprint until it has completed (successfully) at least 50% of all rehab.
      We should be growing more forests and plantations ,not gutting them.
      Buy back all water licenses from foreign corps.Transfer ag leases back to Australians.
      Fixing the mess using our own laws and citizens as a labour source creates jobs and security and would reclaim our sovereignty from the USA and others.

      • svoncrumb on 26/09/2023 - 10:03

        If you're going to sell all our war toys, and I am not opposed to the suggestion, then I would prefer fund our hospitals, schools and aged pensions before I give tax cuts.

        • Protractor on 26/09/2023 - 10:07

          I agree, but I'd add , If that's your wish list you'll never need to vote LNP again. (if you ever did)
          Hopefully Trump will scrap DORKUS and we can refocus on meaningful expenditure.

          I can't believe the ALP has bought into so many disastrous LNP policies. And worse, has taken ownership of them

  • EBG on 16/09/2023 - 00:38
    +6

    It is not up to the ATO to change thresholds, it is the Govt of the day…

  • Sinnerator on 16/09/2023 - 08:30
    -1

    because the ATO only roll over for the rich, and the rich don't pay taxes so no need

  • jrvb42 on 16/09/2023 - 09:16
    +1

    Bracket creep is something both parties have allowed to happen for decades. There's no reason for them to change and every reason no to - it costs them no votes and it (gradually) gets more tax.

    Agreed that all limits should be indexed.

    Come the revolution, all will be fixed!

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join