If they pare back the promised stage 3 tax cuts would you:
Stage 3 Tax Cuts - Who Will You Vote for Now?
minijumbuk on 24/01/2024 - 07:31
Last edited 26/01/2024 - 07:18 by 2 other users
Last edited 26/01/2024 - 07:18 by 2 other users
Poll Options
- 1147Voted labor, will continue to vote labour. It's the right thing to do.
- 209Voted labor but won't anymore, breaking election promises is the wrong thing to do.
- 116Didn't vote labor but will now, he's doing the right thing.
- 446Don't vote labor and won't next time, breaking election promises is the wrong thing to do.
Comments
@SBOB: Changing 5 tax brackets into 4 isn't that much "simpler", and it seems you actually want a progressive tax rate, which is not a "simple" system. Maybe you should find an alternate argument if you really don't like these changes.
Maybe you should find an alternate argument if you really don't like these changes.
Was unaware you were the gate keeper of opinions or discussions around nuances to tax changes, and I needed to get approval. I'll remember for next time
If you're unable to see why the broad 30% range added a benefit, then I'm not here to convince you.
@SBOB: I can see the benefits, but "simpler" is not one that you seem to really want, given you are in favour of a progressive tax system. For this reason, I'd find a different one.
@Eeples: Yeah, but I'm finding it hard to see if there are any strong arguments against this tweak to the tax reform generally.
It'll be interesting to see if the liberals actually oppose the changes to the legislation, basically put their money where their mouth is.
Most of the people who voted in the poll are illegal immigrants not even eligible to vote 😝
Labor are REALLY messing up this whole out of touch, corrupt and screwing over the average Australian image that our Prime Ministers have been meticulously crafting over the past 10 years.
Didn't vote Labor, will continue to not vote Labor, though I do agree with what they are doing here.
Vote minor parties & independents. Liberals/Labor/Greens all need to be shaken out.
I guess the poll would have been better served with I preferenced Labor over Liberal, and will /will not continue to do so and visa versa.
But I agree, if you have a competent minor party or independent in your electorate, its probably the better choice.
Vote minor parties & independents. Liberals/Labor/Greens all need to be shaken out.
What exactly have the minor parties or independents delivered for you?
In the House of Reps, your vote for the minor parties and independents will almost always flow to one of the major parties anyway, and if not, and an independent is actually elected, they will basically have no power and will achieve practically nothing.
In the Senate yes, there is more of a case for minor parties and independents, but they have basically no platform, and hence, no accountability. You simply do not know what you are getting.
I'd rather try something new than stick with the long serving trash we've been getting decade after decade. If nothing changes nothing will continue to change.
The major parties have demonstrated that they are not going to change a damn thing no matter what they say so long as all we do is flip-flop between them. Switching seats from liberal to labor doesn't seem to count as a loss in terms of their behaviour so perhaps losing seats to minor parties and independents will serve as proper motivation.
People not understanding the purpose & impacts of preferential voting is why they are so comfortable in ignoring the electorate. Politicians can see where their preferences flowed from even if a mveryajor party wins. If they only won because some independent's preferences went to them it's signals their position is precarious. Every politician should be terrified their next bad decision will lose them their seat. Labor and Liberals take the bottom two spots every time but I always preference the side projected to lose just to make my seat a little less safe.
Wouldve been more worthwhile getting rid of that superannuation division 293 bullshit tax.
There is no incentive for working one's arse off in this country. One just gets fcked at every avenue.
You should go back to the 60s where the top marginal rate was so much better.
The thing that shits me the most with Div293 is that politicians are exempt. What fair reason is there for them to be exempt but the rest of the population isnt.
Hear hear
"717 voted labor and will vote labor again, it's the right thing to do."
I guess the labor party is really living up to it's name.
There must be some really wealthy left wingers on these forums, which is an oxymoron in reality.
I do alright. Enough that this change means I lose money. Wouldn't be earning that in the first place without public schooling and austudy paid for with….taxes.
Education and empathy. You should try it sometime.
Whoops! I made a mistake on my behalf.
Just so we're clear, by no means am I against public schooling or austudy.
It's just that these politicians barely do anything and when they do it's the opposite. Not that I want potato head in there either, he's just as bad….but is he any different? Now some of us know the answer to that one.
Oooohwaaa, was that a little heckle??? Maybe you should take some of your own advice.
I wish they did it properly too.
When you chose a side, you automatically lost.
Why create division with your “left wingers” comment?
This automatically pigeon holes you into one of the categories.
Well done…2 points
Can't formulate your own posts hey?
Well done!
Lol whoosh.
You really struggle with wit and irony. Cute.
So many short sighted individuals. Corporate tax is 30%. The original 45-200 bracket is where the vast majority of the working population sits - why would that be a bad thing to have PAYG the same rate as company tax?
If only the corps paid anywhere near 30% the country's budget would be overflowing with cash
It’s frustrating. But nothing another negatively geared IP won’t fix.
OzPolitics
sigh All yelling one of these flavours: RWNJ! Left wing snowflakes! They're all corrupt and I'm above that!
No thought, no reflection, just yelling.
Pretty neutral on this.
But one thing I see missing from a lot of the conversation is those on $180k+ tend to sacrifice life, health, hours to get to that position. It's usually not just given to them either.
Govt should just tax everyone a lot less. If tax is heavy, then services should be top notch and they aren't.
Everyone has stories of how inefficient govt is…
People need to put this into perspective. Despite the celebrations amongst the majority of OzBargainers, Albo hasn't delivered us single-handedly from capitalist oppression. A highly paid lawyer, dentist or tradesman is still getting 4 times as much financial benefit from modified Stage 3 as a courier or shelf stacker on $55,000 a year.
Perception is all that matters though. People think Albo has stuck it to the top end of town but the top end are still coming out winners, just to a lesser extent than before. It initially looks like Albo is waging class warfare against the rich but the reality is that he isn't.
Stage 3 had income earners over $45,001 to $200,000 paying 30c on the dollar. (lawyers, dentists or tradesman, couriers or shelf stackers alike)
By 'maintaining' the 37c bracket for $135,001 to $190,000 recognises that higher income earners are more able to pay a higher share (especially as cost of living pressures necessarily effect low income earners deeper) of tax.
I think that it is class warfare (as imo so too were the original Stage 3 cuts).
That's true, but as a higher paid lawyer I think the difference is that the courier or shelf stacker is likely going to use that money for housing, food, or to have the ability to actually save cash, while I was going to use the tax break to upgrade the center speaker in my home theatre.
I appreciate both are noble causes, but I can wait a tad longer for the speaker.
You forgot about Stage 1 and Stage 2.
Anyway, don't work hard and spend $50k on a degree .. it's not worth it.
So what if they're getting 4 times as much benefit? Those in the top bracket are paying the highest tax in the country.
Those on $200k will pay just over $50k tax. They don't get childcare subsidies. They didn't get any COVID-19 relief. They also have to pay significantly more to Medicare, despite being predispositioned to use it less.
Every year due to inflation there's bracket creep and while their wage may be adjusted for inflation, the government will continue to take 45% of that extra money received.
The time had come for either tax to be overhauled and brackets indexed to inflation, or for there to be some relief to the top due to bracket creep.
It’s actually more like $61k on $200k
If it's so difficult earning that much and paying that much tax, earn what you earn in another country. With a far poorer quality of living to boot :)
Here's perspective: violent terms like "warfare", "oppression", and "stuck it to the top end of town" are hyperbole.
Vote with your feet if you can.
Plenty of places with lower taxation regimes. I still don't know why people aspire to own a $2m home, if you can cash out with a $1m profit and your capital there is plenty of places to have same level of living.
Same argument I guess as not moving for a better job. Can't move away from family, local hipster coffee shop etc.
Definitely doesn't pay to work hard in Australia .. better off to be a slacker and get all the benefits.
Everyone forgot about Stage 1 and Stage 2 charges.
I'd really like to see people on higher salaries quit their jobs and take up lower paid jobs in the $60k to $70k range. I mean they might as well put their money where their mouth is; if they really want to pay less tax and "get all the benefits" let's see how they feel when they're earning that much.
For some reason I can't see it happening though. Maybe because they realise that life on that kind of salary would actually be a lot harder, even with the lower taxes and "benefits".
Can you organise my refund for:
a) $70K for my 1 Bachelor degree and 2 Masters degrees = $70,000
b) 8 years of full-time study time at circa 2,000 hrs per year = 16,000 hrs x $25/hr = $400,000
c) 300 hrs per year of unpaid overtime over 25 years, so 7,500 hrs x $25/hr = $187,500
Total career investment = $657,500
Organise my refund for $657,500 then I'll drop back to a fun and stress-free job with no responsibilities doing something I enjoy.
a) $70K for my 1 Bachelor degree and 2 Masters degrees = $70,000
And what job do you have and what do you earn? You're conveniently leaving out the parts that matter.
b) 8 years of full-time study time at circa 2,000 hrs per year = 16,000 hrs x $25/hr = $400,000
Lol. So you're pretend paying yourself to inflate your imaginary argument?
c) 300 hrs per year of unpaid overtime over 25 years, so 7,500 hrs x $25/hr = $187,500
Doing what? If you work beyond your contracted hours, that's your problem. If the job "requires" it, then you really need to look at how much you're actually worth. Ie. It's a lot less than what you tell yourself that you're worth.
Total career investment = $657,500
Take out the imaginary stuff and it's $70k. Assuming you're not making that up too.
Organise my refund for $657,500 then I'll drop back to a fun and stress-free job with no responsibilities doing something I enjoy.
You mean $70k. And that's on you too. No one put a gun to your head and forced you to go to uni. So, let's make it zero. Please continue to bleat on about how hard done by you are.
@Beef jerky time: If everyone was so simple minded like you, we would have no advanced medicine in this country. Or advanced anything for that matter. Go mediocrity!
Bet you’re the first to complain about waiting too long for a specialist or skilled service.
You also sound like you did very well at school 😉
c) 300 hrs per year of unpaid overtime over 25 years, so 7,500 hrs x $25/hr = $187,500
Is this your main job? $25 an hour is very average pay, if you're just floating through life not constantly trying to earn more that's on you. The fact you've completed three degrees and you earned $25/hr for 25 years is alarming.
Ah I see, so you're complaining about being taxed too much (presumably on a $100k+ salary) and then when you're told you can always go back to a lower salary you want all your past decisions which you made consciously to be reimbursed.
Sounds like you just need to suck it up and accept the amount of tax you pay. If you're earning $200k+ or whatever you're getting back $4k this year, it's not $9k but it's better than nothing. Seriously get over it, there are so many people out there living paycheck to paycheck on presumably a lot less pay than you.
I'd really like to see people on higher salaries quit their jobs and take up lower paid jobs in the $60k to $70k range.
You do realise this is exactly what this progressive tax system incentivises… odd that you can’t see how this fundamentally stifles a nation’s progress and development. Have you heard or talent or brain drain? This is a huge reason why.
Secondly, you’re incredibly naive if you don’t think this exactly what the wealthy do via income restructuring and dividend streaming that you are so jealous of.
It’s really not by taking a voluntary pay cut like you suggest.
Stage 1 was temporary, nice one.
Live elsewhere if you don't want to contribute to society.
Find somewhere where you can earn the amount you do, with the same or better quality of living - please let us know which mythical country you relocate to
So filthy on this. Will never vote Labor again. Single income family here. I watched as Stage 1 and 2 went through… and applauded. Now it was my turn. Apparently if you're a single income family paying off a mortgage your cost of living increase doesn't matter. Good to know.
Yeah feel the same. Screwed by Albo.
What doesn’t make sense is if your single income family earns $200k you’re taxed ~$61k
While another family with two working parents earning the same household income $100k
+ $100k would be taxed $46kYour choice to be a single income family, having the other individual in your family kicking around at home, unemployed, is a luxury that others cannot afford. If you're doing it so tough, then perhaps time for the other one to get a job.
WTF - for all you know the other half is dead!
Sometimes is not our choice. And even if it is, there is no strong reason to penalise the single income family. The ATO already consider combined income for other benefits, so they are not being consistent.
@leiiv: My followup question:
Is it fairer to jointly tax the dual income family so that household also pays $61kOr should the single income family pay $46k inline with the second household?
Pretty gross / misogynistic to frame up the role of a homemaker / stay at home parent that way. “Kicking around at home”, “a luxury”… what’s wrong with you?
It’s honestly sad that most families these days need 2 incomes to survive, so their kids spend more time in daycare than with them.
And now if you’re able to scrape together a large enough income to be able to afford for one parent to stay at home and raise the kids / manage the house you get stung with significantly higher tax than a dual income family on the same salary combined.
How is that fair?
Let's leave out family tax benefits and medicare levys, hey, otherwise the numbers don't look as good.
You might be interested to know that the Morison stage three cuts cost way more than stage one and two.
Fixed it for you;
Voted labor, maywillcontinue to vote labour.It's the right thing to doTax cuts puts more money in pockets. It reduces the need for businesses to raise wages.
But it affects rich people the most who would love reduced highest tax brackets.
I knew this site was full of lefties, now the polls prove it. No wonder I see so much tripe and wokeness in the comments, not sure what attracts them all here. Might be an unemployed-by-choice thing then. Eagerly awaiting my 3 Negs for each Like now!
How very "woke" of you.
For me, your dopey comment is not worthy of a vote.
GUYS DOES LIKING A TAX BRAKE MAKE YOU A WOKE WEFTY?
Liking a tax break (not brake) doesn't make you a woke lefty. But last minute social engineering changes to an agreed law that sees money going from the higher-tax payers to the lower tax payer in the hope it will give a failing government some lower class support, does. Nevermind stage 1 and stage 2 cuts gave the higher earners zero reprieve.
I wonder what the left would do if the higher income earners deserted this country and the only revenue the government got was from people earning $100k or below.
It would solve the housing problem.
if the higher income earners deserted this country
Plenty of people do just that. Run off to Saudi and rake in some very healthy tax free income. They inevitably return to Australia despite our tax structures because life is good here and a fairly big part of that is the sensible redistribution of wealth. In countries that have massive divides between rich and poor, society crumbles.
Liking a tax break (not brake)
'Twas facetious
You use the term "woke" unironically, you literally have zero input of value.
Nevermind stage 1 and stage 2 cuts gave the higher earners zero reprieve.
Per the Australian Institute:
Stage 1 increased the threshold for the 37% tax rate from $87,000 to $90,000 – this did nothing for those on low-middle incomes, given the current median full-time income is $83,200. Stage 1 also included the introduction of the low-middle income tax offset. That might have been “immediate” to use Senator McKenzie’s words, but [b]it was also only temporary[/b]. It is no longer in place. Thus the only thing remaining from Stage 1 all goes to those earning above the median full-time income.
Stage 2 included changes that assisted those on low and middle incomes, such as the 32.5% threshold increase from $37,000 to $45,000. But it also included an increase of the 37% threshold again, this time to $120,000, which once again this part provided no benefit at all to low or middle-income earners.
Can we spare a thought for the top 4% on over $180k p.a. who are now not only burdened with losing half their promised $9k tax cut but, as inequality continues to deepen in the coming decades and their incomes strongly outpace the average/median as they have in recent decades they will be forced to incur an even greater burden proportionally than they already do.
Like the game of monopoly, when the other 96% of players no longer own a single property between them whatsoever they will not contribute a single cent to the dreaded $25 per house/ $100 per hotel tax and the burden will be unfairly levelled in it's entirety at the 4%.
Obviously things are only going to get worse for the high earners in this country until the remaining 96% of indebted earners start pulling their weight and relieve the propertied class of such a burden by paying higher rents than ever.
It'll never happen though as the 96% just don't want to work harder and harder, for longer, for less, in perpetuity, to make right this horrific injustice.
All I ask is you spare a thought.
LOL haha… its a hard life for someone earning $180k+ its going to be hard for them when they start making more!
:) Anyone on 180k+ per year would have multiple investment properties reducing the REAL tax they pay.. They will be able to retire like kings! … if they haven't been doing any tax offsets then wow… that's just crazy
I would not have voted for Labor if they had been honest and told me they intended to steal 4 grand from right under my nose.
Well, they saw you coming a mile away.
FYI, politicians of all persuasions are somewhat renowned for backflips, justifiable or otherwise. This one was hardly surprising, particularly given recent economic and political realities.
As someone who doesn't follow politics particularly closely, I was well caught off guard. I tuned out completely after Dan unleashed his inner dictator.
Imagine Libs getting in (V unlikely over the next decade at least) with the promise of a raise of the tax free threshold, but then once in power "redistributing" the same cut to the upper tax brackets and trying to convince us that it was still the same tax cut, just "redistributed" so was not a lie or an election promise being broken.
Everyone loves other people paying more tax. I reckon everyone should pay less and the wastage should be reduced, but eh.
I tuned out completely after Dan unleashed his inner dictator.
Are you related to jv?
The 3rd stage cuts were not promised by labour in order to get in, they were already legislated by the libs after they wedged a reluctant labour to get stage 1 and 2 (temporary, significantly smaller) cuts through that marginally benefitted most Australians. Kinda like these ones
Before the covid spending blitz and interest rate hikes, inflation all changed the economic, political landscape.
I empathise with you for tuning out, but ScoMo, Dutton and the media repeatedly asking Albo if they'd keep the stage 3 cuts since pre election was all the forewarning anyone should have needed. It took few by surprise.
Redistributing the same cut to the upper brackets would make absolutely no sense in the current climate, be amount to political suicide, and probably result in riots. It would be categorically indefensible.
So….. chalk and cheese
Noone likely disagrees with your last comment.
The reality is as income inequality grows, so should we expect further redistribution. See Howard govt. and family tax benefit payments. The reality is upper-middle, middle and low income earners are being partially compensated for missing out on sharing in massive corporate profits. The same corporations that donate to the libs, and a lessor extent labour, to buy your votes and keep the gravy train moving further down the track.
@Funky Kong: Wrong. They fiddled and made it hugely political, wedging wage earners against one another.
Given the margin with which Labor trounced the Libs, sorry to tell you that your vote would have literally made zero difference.
I'm not the only person in Australia who voted like this.
I'm not the only person in Australia who voted like this.
Yeah, there are dozens of them!
How is it stolen if it was never yours in the first place.
Be careful where you say that, it would have had you lynched in Melbourne on Friday.
Anger is one the first emotional responses from irrational actors.
Here's an idea: abolish all income tax, raise the GST and cut out all the exemptions. Then simply if you spend money you pay tax. Doesn't matter where the money comes from, inheritance, lottery, 500k income. If you want to be a part of the Australian economy you pay tax and the more you spend the more tax you pay. Want a BMW instead of a camry, you'll pay more tax for it. That waterfront mansion in double bay, you'll pay more tax than a 2 bed unit in Bankstown.
Same for companies, get rid of the GST input credits. Anyone that wants to trade here pays tax on purchases but they will be charged 0% on profits.
I'm sure it would need to be tweaked to suit some situations, but in general everyone pays proportionate to their wealth and lots of the tax loop holes are closed. And most importantly no one can complain about bracket creep.
This is real solution. The only issue is getting it across parliament, without the left just focussing on "but GST is going up, old Aunt Ethel can't buy her radishes anymore"
left just focussing on
I've never understood this left vs right thing. Every time I've done vote compass I've turned out to be dead centre… Maybe that's the reason for my non-understanding. A lot of Labor policy usually aligns with my view more than liberal. But even then on some policies I'm way leftist/rightist. I think the reason party has the most aligned policies: evidence trump's emotion/religion especially living in a secular society.
The only liberal leader since Howard I voted for was Turnbull but I guess that's why he got ousted. I'm very keen to watch nemesis tomorrow and find out the juicy goss!
As for Aunt Ethel and her radishes, well im all for her buying something else instead. The biggest issue in my view is wealth inequality, and when it gets to breaking point, no one will be able to buy anything. I also fear another president trump might make it all the closer.
So how do you solve for wealth inequality. Taxing income doesn't help.
@shkippy: Under Torrens title, land is guaranteed by the state, so how about going full Georgist? 6% land tax on $2.1T (NSW residential) is about $126B, which is roughly how much revenue NSW currently gets from the current tax system.
On a national scale land tax while abolishing all other taxes would need to be around 10% a year in order to match current government revenues. Land and property will hence forever be unattractive to invest in, and basically all investors would be forced to divest.
A consumption-side only tax would probably lead to non-essential-retail-industry collapse unless the vast majority of countries also changed to consumption-side only tax.
This is actually not a half-bad idea.
As for the "Aunt Ethel" radishes comments - there is a list of GST-free foods.
So, abolish income tax. Crank up GST.
Have a list of key items/services (i.e. food, medical, public transport, ?key utilities) that are exempt from GST.This way you'll be taxing wealth and expenditure and not just "income"
This would be a regressive tax. It would mean that lower incomes would have a much higher portion of their income taxed
Yeah true…
Depends what goes on that list of "GST Exempt"
This would be a regressive tax. People on Lower incomes would pay a much higher rate of tax in proportion to their income than the wealthy.
Lower the GST and introduce "luxury" taxes. Have a defined list of GST-exempt items. Income tax doesn't work because the rich can get around it with various means. But they still buy things. Lots of things. Usually high-end things. Most overseas online retailers now collect GST, so it's not much of a stretch to change the percentages.
Yeh, they'd be interesting. But what is the definition of luxury? Is a big green sucker a luxury item?
@skid: Well, that would be up to out-of-touch pollies to decide. Start with large brush strokes first and get in the finer details later :)
You can't afford exotic cars and waterfront mansions on $180,000 my friend.
After tax, $180,000 is around $10,000 per month.
The median house price is around $1m, so a standard 80% LVR mortgage will already be $5,000 per month. Sure it's a comfortable salary to be on, but let's not kid ourselves that you're able to afford more than an average to above average house, not a waterfront mansion.
Those who can afford waterfront mansions are either start-up founders or those lucky enough to have had rich parents who left it to them through inheritance.
Precisely. The amount of people spouting complete bullshit about the higher income earners (and greatest contributors to tax in the country… Which fund all the services) is astounding.
11k per month, mortgage for me is 7k a month (average house - waterfront is over double this, mansion a lot more, bought Jan 2022). 4k per month left for groceries, insurances, rates, bills etc, childcare). Love to see how how I'm going to buy exotic cars or a mansion. Unless you mean my 2003 suburu impreza is exotic.
@AlanHB: No, because I think low income earners shouldn't pay as much, and very high income earners should be taxed higher. The middle range should cover the large percentile of the payg spectrum allowing for uniform tax over a broad base.
Lower the upper threshold if need be. There was a legit tax simplification reason behind the broad 30% range that was in the initial stage 3 cuts (apart from the LNP trying to give upper earners a 'large' tax cut)