The Federal Budget 2025 Thoughts?

Trying2SaveABuck on 26/03/2025 - 10:50
Last edited 26/03/2025 - 15:06

The 2025 Australian federal budget, delivered by Treasurer Jim Chalmers, outlines significant measures aimed at addressing cost-of-living pressures, healthcare, housing, and economic growth. Here's a detailed breakdown:

Tax Cuts

  • A $17 billion tax relief package is the centerpiece of the budget.
  • The tax rate for the $18,201-$45,000 income bracket will be reduced from 16% to 15% in 2026-27, and further to 14% in 2027-28.
  • This translates to a $268 tax cut in 2026-27 and $536 in 2027-28 for individuals in this bracket.

Healthcare

  • An $8.5 billion boost to Medicare aims to expand bulk billing and improve access to healthcare services.
  • Additional funding is allocated for women's health initiatives, including specialist clinics for conditions like endometriosis.

Housing

  • The "Help to Buy" scheme is expanded, enabling more first-home buyers to access government contributions towards their homes.
  • Investments are made to increase affordable housing options.

Energy Relief

  • Households and businesses will receive an additional $150 in energy bill relief, continuing efforts to mitigate rising energy costs.

Education

  • Free TAFE places are being expanded to enhance workforce skills and readiness.
  • Specific funding is allocated for educational initiatives in Western Australia, including support for First Nations students and upgrades to educational facilities.

Public Service and Infrastructure

  • The Australian Public Service (APS) sees significant changes, including the creation of new roles and reductions in outsourcing costs.
  • Major infrastructure projects include upgrades to the Kwinana Freeway in Western Australia and investments in regional road infrastructure.

Deficit and Economic Outlook

  • The budget projects a $42.1 billion deficit for the 2025-26 financial year, with deficits forecasted for subsequent years.
  • Real wages are expected to grow by 0.5% by the end of the current financial year, and GDP growth is forecasted at 2.25% for 2025-26.

This budget reflects the government's focus on balancing immediate cost-of-living relief with long-term economic sustainability.

https://budget.gov.au/

Poll thoughts on the budget

(Assuming someone doesn't beat me too it I'll post another forum on the Federal budget reply after it is released)

Poll Options

  • 145
    Very Poor
  • 13
    Poor
  • 43
    Average
  • 194
    Good
  • 10
    Very Good
Financial Federal Budget

Comments

  • Duckie2hh on 26/03/2025 - 10:54
    +35

    Same thing as always. Waste a bunch of tax payer money with no real long term plan for any of the critical topics (i.e., energy, housing, etc). Tax cut really? Last I checked the definition of 'deficit' means that you spent more than you make.

    • Boioioioi on 26/03/2025 - 12:21
      +48

      Us individuals being taxed less is good. We should be taxing billionaires and mining companies harder for taking our resources.

      • Duckie2hh on 26/03/2025 - 15:22
        +11

        I would argue that most Aussies wouldn't mind higher tax if they saw that their money is not being wasted

        • SpainKing on 26/03/2025 - 16:55
          +15

          Most parties running on raising your taxes aren't going to do too well

          The Labor party does have a long term plan for energy, they're building batteries for storage so we can create jobs, and store the energy from the renewable sources currently being built (more jobs). If you want to look into it, it's the Future Made in Australia plan. We're on track to be an energy powerhouse in the world, especially now that Trump is in office and retarding the US' own renewable energy investment

          They plan to bring back manufacturing via this plans, and processing steel/value adding to the resources we dig up and sell to other countries so they can profit

          They ran on trying to end negative gearing (except on new properties, which would increase housing development) a couple of times (2016, 2019) and lost both because people love having multiple investment properties

          They're also currently the main drivers pioneering an end to multinational corporate tax evasion, which would bring in billions of dollars to our economy. Their budget management is ranked 2nd out of all G20 countries, only beaten by Canada (up from 14th place under the Liberals)

          I could go on, but those are enough facts about the Labor party for one comment

          • SlickMick on 27/03/2025 - 09:45
            +1

            @SpainKing: So they've done nothing, but if we give them one more chance…

            • SpainKing on 27/03/2025 - 17:16
              +5

              @SlickMick: They've actually done quite a bit, massive infrastructure projects don't often get finished in <3 years. Same goes for ending tax loopholes by introducing a global corporation tax, you can't get every country on board that quickly when the businesses are going to lobby against it with everything they've got

              If you want something that's already been implemented, workers now have 3.75% annual wage rises. From [this site]:(https://www.actu.org.au/media-release/workers-take-home-pay-…)

              The 3.75 per cent annual wage increases will apply from the first full pay period on or after 1 July. An entry-level retail or hospitality worker will be $2,600 per year better off; a mid-level community sector worker will be $3,260 a year better off; and a forklift driver will be $3,170 better off.

              Australia is experiencing its strongest annual wage growth since 2009 – with wages growing by at least 4 per cent in the last three quarters, the first time this has happened in 15 years.

              Along with their $300 energy rebate and tax cuts, these are part of the cost of living relief that people keep asking for but don't appreciate. If we do some loose calculations (assuming everyone is an entry-level full-time worker), the extra money being taken home by all working Australians is $37.824 billion dollars annually from the wage increase alone. That number may be off, but it's a good ballpark range considering much of the workforce isn't an entry-level retail/hospo worker. Most of that money is going to come from corporations, many of them very large who pay comparatively little in tax

              Then you have the budget surplus 2 times in a row, after having no budget surplus since Kevin '07 (shock, another Labor leader). That was 15 years of the Liberals and their dogshit "better economic management"

              You might say all this leads to inflation, but the inflation rate has more than halved going from 6.1% to 2.8%

              They implemented Same Job, Same Pay. Now, you can't have a random migrant from another country coming in and taking your job because they're willing to work for a pittance. People are hired for best fit and not just because they're cheap. The cream rises to the top

              Tripled Medicare incentives, which should lead to more bulk billing doctors

              Created the National Anti-Corruption Commission. In 12 months of operation it opened 31 cases, with 5 of them already being in court

              Created 1 million new jobs, the most of any first term government

              Again, I could go on

              • Duckie2hh on 28/03/2025 - 09:58
                +1

                @SpainKing:

                Created 1 million new jobs

                source?

              • SlickMick on 28/03/2025 - 10:23
                -3

                @SpainKing:

                Again, I could go on

                Yes, you could keep regurgitating the same dribble. e.g. using taxpayer's more to give a rebate on electricity bills does nothing for anybody but the unemployed. There are far better ways to approach problems, but what we got were idiotic responses (I can't call them solutions.)

                • SpainKing on 28/03/2025 - 15:21
                  +3

                  @SlickMick: Ah, so just arguing in bad faith, gotcha

                  You queried "so they've done nothing", because I gave examples of things that were in motion but not completed and planned. I followed this up by giving you a list showing what they've done. You've picked one example you don't agree with and decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater

                  It's not my fault if you've heard those answers before and decided they weren't satisfactory for you. I can't pull a magic policy of theirs that no-one's heard of out of my hat that will make you instantly change your rusted-on views. You can be stuck in your ways and disregard the evidence all you like, it's a free country (under the Labor party)

          • ajr5k on 27/03/2025 - 11:47
            +2

            @SpainKing: Negative gearing has been removed before and it was a total disaster. I wouldn't be betting on that being an economically good thing as a entire removal.

            Grandfathering the current arrangement, and limiting it from 2027/8/9 to only be available to owners of new builds or something that encourages private investment in building homes while simultaneously investing in government run housing projects for those at the very bottom would be better economically.

            Grandfathering the existing arrangement would be the only way to not be turfed out of power. The levels of investments people have made in housing form a powerful voting block.

            • SpainKing on 27/03/2025 - 17:30
              +1

              @ajr5k: What negative things happened when it was removed previously? I know the original intention in the 1930s was to increase housing supply, but it seems to be quite lackluster in that regard.

              The plan Labor ran for in those 2 most recently lost elections was to limit negative gearing to new builds as you allude to, which I reckon would've been much more conducive to negative gearing's original intentions (more housing development).

              You're likely right about grandfathering being the only way to get it to pass. Some people are just plain selfish and greedy, but others have been saddled with this massive debt on what they've been sold as a "sure-thing" investment when they buy their first home. If the housing market crashed, those people would have paid potentially twice as much for their homes with no recourse.

              Grandfathering it in would likely lead to a much slower decline, but be better for those who have bought now when the prices are so inflated (rich and poor alike). I wish housing had never been made an investment in the first place

              • gromit on 27/03/2025 - 17:57
                +1

                @SpainKing:

                What negative things happened when it was removed previously? I know the original intention in the 1930s was to increase housing supply, but it seems to be quite lackluster in that regard.

                Huge rental price increases and a rapid shrinking of investment in new housing. They were bad back in the 80's when that happened, if either or both of those happened again it would be a disaster of epic proportions in the current housing market.

                • SpainKing on 27/03/2025 - 18:16

                  @gromit: Thanks for the info. Australia's definitely over leveraged itself in its housing sector. I'm glad the government has banned foreign buyers for 2 years after April 2025 so we don't get instantly outbid by rich people overseas

                  • gromit on 27/03/2025 - 18:56
                    +1

                    @SpainKing: The banning foreign buyers will make bugger all difference, but yeah it is a positive. Reality is though they make up a tiny portion of the buyers and mostly at the top end of the market.

                • BatmanBeer on 28/03/2025 - 06:40
                  +2

                  @gromit: Here’s a new and unpopular thought for you. Reduce investment in housing, use that money to invest in more meaningful tangible stock?? Leave housing supply to be scooped up by FHB?? The whole idea of ‘don’t touch my pile of gold’ is ridiculous. You still have your gold, put it elsewhere. Risk averse attitudes is why we regress and end up where we are, whinging and when a solution is put forth, whinge harder.

                  • gromit on 28/03/2025 - 09:02

                    @BatmanBeer: That works only if we don't have a growing population. while we have a growing population we absolutely need investment in housing. Now you could argue we simply end immigration etc etc, which may solve that, but at the cost of a crap load more problems. Put together a real working solution instead of jumping on a bandwagon and whining about why don't they do X even though X has proven to be a failure.

                    What they really need is smarter rules that encourage investment in NEW housing.

            • SlickMick on 28/03/2025 - 10:35
              +1

              @ajr5k: Grandfathering changes to the rules is the only fair way of introducing change.

              But removing negative gearing is taking a sledgehammer to the smallest part of the housing problem. Negative gearing doesn't stop houses being built or cause more immigration.

        • morse on 27/03/2025 - 09:56

          Which part is wasted?

      • cfuse on 27/03/2025 - 11:33
        -2

        This is called killing the golden goose.

        These entities know how to use the system to dodge tax, and they also have the means to leave if you close those avenues for them.

        Tax is a portion of a total. What you want is to increase the total pool of taxable monies as much as possible. It doesn't matter what the tax rate is if your cut of the total is more than if you went full idiot and taxed businesses right out of the country.

        Or if you are smart (so that excludes Australian politicians) you make deals with these entities that create jobs, industries, infrastructure, and the like. I don't want a one-off payment, I want them to make revenue streams that aren't permanently welded to their wallets (and subject to the first nation that offers a better deal to domicile to snatch from me). I want the wealthy to say "Put your money into Australia because business is easy there and the government will play ball".

        • Crow K on 27/03/2025 - 12:33
          +14

          a smart government would negotiate with a business on how much tax the business wants to pay

          People pay $5.00 to read this sort of cheerleading for corporate interests in the AFR and here you are giving it out for free

          • cfuse on 28/03/2025 - 03:10
            +2

            @Crow K:

            a smart government would negotiate with a business on how much tax the business wants to pay

            What do you think happens right now?

            The absolute irony of being on a bargain website where people will quibble over a few bucks but baulk at bucking servile Australian political culture outside of that. Billions at stake but God forbid we ever even try to negotiate a better deal for ourselves.

            • SpainKing on 28/03/2025 - 03:56
              +2

              @cfuse: That's what Labor's doing though, trying to negotiate a better deal via a global corporate tax so other countries can't just set up shop in the Cayman Islands or Ireland where they get to keep it all to themselves

              • cfuse on 31/03/2025 - 07:24

                @SpainKing: Our politicians are tepid. I want Australia to be more attractive than Ireland so we can clean up like they have.

            • Crow K on 28/03/2025 - 07:23
              +4

              @cfuse:

              Billions at stake but God forbid we ever even try to negotiate a better deal for ourselves.

              Yeah, only the "we" in that discussion are the billion dollar corporate interests (Google, Rio Tinto, etc) you're cheerleading for?

              "We'd better treat them nice with juicy fat tax deals or they'll take their business elsewhere" is nonsense straight from the Business Council of Australia. The giant businesses are here because they want to buy stuff from the ground and sell things to us, they aren't here out of an overall sense of community goodwill.

              • corvusman on 28/03/2025 - 09:17
                +1

                @Crow K: Australian market may not be large, but it's still a multi-billion dollar market. Alphabet 2024 Aus revenue was ~$7 billion. Not much compared to US or EU, but it's still a huge amount no one willingly wants to wave goodbye.

                • Crow K on 28/03/2025 - 09:35
                  -1

                  @corvusman: Waving goodbye is the empty threat though.

                  The businesses have an opportunity to make $7 billion dollars in selling to a cashed up first world remote island of consumers.. if they don't want to pay the same corporate tax rate as everyone else (let's say it's 30%) and they actually leave, all that does is make a void that will be filled by a smaller company that wants to step up and finally make 7 billion dollars in sales and doesn't mind paying the corporate tax rate.

                  The consumers are here, the minerals are here.

              • cfuse on 31/03/2025 - 07:23

                @Crow K: They aren't here out of a sense of goodwill, but they do understand the costs of doing business. All this comes down to for them is accounting between the cost of paying taxes or the costs of dodging taxes. Tilt the ratio in either direction and you'll get more of that particular outcome.

                Honestly, who do you think set you up for the pay their taxes narrative in the first place? This sort of stupidity makes business happy because they've already figured out how to pay next to nothing under that paradigm. You'll never ask them for a different deal and they love that.

                • Crow K on 31/03/2025 - 08:01

                  @cfuse: I wouldn't use the word stupidity but I think the following logic is incredibly naive:

                  "If we just tell business what taxes they have to pay, they'll use every trick and loophole in the book to pay as little as possible, but if we ask them what they want to pay, they won't use those very same tricks and loopholes to pay as little as possible".

    • richarddd169 on 27/03/2025 - 17:02
      +1

      Running a country isn't a commercial business, so a deficit is actually not a bad thing. A surplus means you tax more than you need to support your spending plans.

      • Duckie2hh on 28/03/2025 - 09:59

        Yes to a certain extent. I fail to see how a tax cut is appropriate in the current condition of the country; other than just an action to buy votes.

  • JIMB0 on 26/03/2025 - 11:06
    +3

    meh

    • askbargain on 26/03/2025 - 11:12
      +15

      If you cared this much you would have just googled why

    • Hybroid on 26/03/2025 - 11:15
      +22

      Taxable income is based on brackets, not absolutes. No one pays 45% tax on their entire income, only the portion from $190,001 and over. They still pay $0 tax on their first $18,200 and 16% on $18,201-$45,000 etc.

      https://www.ato.gov.au/tax-rates-and-codes/tax-rates-austral…

      • interlocal on 26/03/2025 - 15:32
        +4

        if you include medicare levy, actually you can pay 45% with just $1.5m/year salary!

        • ajr5k on 27/03/2025 - 11:51
          +3

          I don't know why you are being negged… That is correct assuming you don't take advantage of any of the available tax minimisation strategies.

          Total Tax Payable: $0 + $5,092 + $24,375 + $22,200 + $594,000 = $645,667
          Add the Medicare levy (2%): 2% of $1,500,000 = $30,000
          Overall Tax: $645,667 + $30,000 = $675,667
          Average Tax Rate: $675,667 ÷ $1,500,000 salary = 45%

          Why someone earning $1.5m would not buy private health insurance in Australia is beyond me, but theoretically it is right.

          • interlocal on 27/03/2025 - 12:14
            +4

            @ajr5k: private health isurance would not remove medicare levy, only medicare levy surcharge. So if you have $1.5m salary and no insurance, you would pay more than 45% of your income.

          • bio on 27/03/2025 - 12:40
            -2

            @ajr5k:

            I don't know why you are being negged… That is correct

            Because it is not correct. Medicare levy can be seen as a type of tax, but it is not income tax. Why don't you also include the VAT you pay when you purchase goods, for example? It is a type of tax too.

            • ajr5k on 27/03/2025 - 12:46

              @bio: I think saying it is not a tax because it is called a levy is a bit disingenuous tbh. It might as well be a tax.

              It is compulsory, unavoidable and used to fund a government service… It's a tax by everything but name.

              • bio on 27/03/2025 - 12:47

                @ajr5k: Where did I say that it's not a tax?

                • ajr5k on 27/03/2025 - 12:51
                  +2

                  @bio: "Medicare levy can be seen as a type of tax, but it is not income tax. "

                  ?

                  Sorry I really don't want to get into the semantics of what an income tax is and what a levy is unless you can point to an actual difference between them beyond what they are called.

                  Medicare Levy is basically an additional income tax because it's derived from your income and is used to support government services.

                  • bio on 27/03/2025 - 13:01
                    +1

                    @ajr5k: It is a tax, but not income tax. GST (Goods and Services Tax) is also a type of tax which is compulsory and unavoidable. Why don't we factor that in as well?

                    Plus you can be exempt from the Medicare levy (e.g. if you are a foreign resident) but can't be exempt from the income tax (unless you are below the lowest bracket).

                    I agree that it could have been included in the income tax, but then the highest bracket would be 47% and saying that "nobody pays 47%" would hold true. If you go back to the beginning of the discussion someone said that "nobody pays 45% (which is the highest income tax bracket)" and someone else replied "oh, yes, some people do", factoring in another tax, which is disingenuous.

                    • ajr5k on 27/03/2025 - 15:58

                      @bio: "factoring in another tax"

                      And here I was nearly convinced it was a levy not a tax

            • interlocal on 27/03/2025 - 13:49

              @bio: Parent comment never mentioned income tax, just tax on personal income. Medicare levy is a part of tax on your personal income, in addition to income tax. GST is not a tax on personal income.

          • cktftw on 28/03/2025 - 10:13

            @ajr5k: You forgot the secret tax Division 275, which doesnt apply to politicians conveniently

    • foursaken on 26/03/2025 - 11:16
      +21

      Hello! You now earn $100 and I earn $1000. Tax takes 50% of our earnings. You now have $50 and I have $500. Who's going to have trouble eating? Is that fair?

        • foursaken on 27/03/2025 - 12:41
          +2

          Please explain how this is "fair".

          • ajr5k on 27/03/2025 - 12:49
            -3

            @foursaken: Presumably you as the one working to earn that $1,000 has performed more/longer//harder work than Slick has for his $100.

            "Fair" would be a flat percentage, but that goes against the concept of a progressive tax system.
            The only way a flat tax is reasonable is if everyone earns a very similar amount.

            • bio on 27/03/2025 - 13:11
              +5

              @ajr5k:

              Presumably you as the one working to earn that $1,000 has performed more/longer//harder work than Slick has for his $100.

              Costs are not linear, that's why we have that notion of "disposable income". Fixed costs such as housing, food, healthcare, transportation are similar for every individual (ignoring ultra poor and ultra rich). When you subtract those costs, the remaining amount does not reflect the same proportion of work you've performed.

              Your assumption above was that the $1,000 worker worked 10x as hard as the $100 worker, but when you look at their disposable income, it might be $800 vs $5, which is a 160x difference. Tax brackets are (imperfectly) designed to tax based on disposable income.

              The only way a flat tax is reasonable is if everyone earns a very similar amount.

              I don't get your point. If everyone earned a very similar amount, then it wouldn't matter if taxes were flat or bracketed.

            • SlickMick on 27/03/2025 - 14:12
              -2

              @ajr5k: yeah I didn't say it's reasonable, and certainly not right (unless it's 0%), but when you want some people to compensate for others who don't contribute as much, I think "fair" is not even close to the correct word.

              • Crow K on 27/03/2025 - 17:06

                @SlickMick: The fire brigade isn't fair, they just put out fires regardless of how much tax has been paid by the person whose house is on fire.

                Cancer treatment isn't fair either, apparently if you haven't personally contributed exactly the amount of tax that your treatment would cost, you can still get treatment anyway.

                WHaTs GOinG oN????

                "Take out what you put in" tax arguments have no bearing on reality whatsoever, because that's not how any of this works. Using the word "fair" as a wrapper for the argument is missing the point (intentionally or not).

                • SlickMick on 28/03/2025 - 10:45
                  -1

                  @Crow K: Do you think I said that? How is a fire brigade and cancer treatment not fair? It treats everyone equally and doesn't tell some people they have to give something to someone else.

                  The question was asked what is fair. It's fair that people get what they work for. It's ethical that they provide for others, but isn't for someone down the tree to demand it.

                  • Crow K on 28/03/2025 - 11:03
                    -2

                    @SlickMick: Your paragraphs are the exact opposite of each other, which is my point. What happens if we ram them together?

                    "It isn't ethical for people who don't work to demand their fire brigade service be provided for by the taxes of people higher up the tree"

                    You don't understand how the tax system works, and you had a bad take about the "ethics" of a system designed to distribute services uniformly

                    • SlickMick on 28/03/2025 - 11:07
                      -1

                      @Crow K: I've just trying to work with your poor analogies

                      • Crow K on 28/03/2025 - 11:15
                        -2

                        @SlickMick: No, you tried to work with a dogshit take that got negged into oblivion.

                        I then explained to you why it was wrong via a couple of analogies explaining why it's stupid to expect a tax system to be treated like a savings account.

                        Your inability to grasp that now isn't a poor reflection on me. If you want to stay ignorant, you don't need my permission.

          • SlickMick on 27/03/2025 - 13:58

            @foursaken: impartial, non-discriminatory, get-what-you-work-for….

        • SlickMick on 28/03/2025 - 10:41
          -1

          Distinguish between fairness and ethics neggers

      • tenpercent on 29/03/2025 - 16:27

        You're ignoring the tax free threshold.

    • The Wololo Wombat on 26/03/2025 - 14:08
      +18

      Comments like this, in a democracy, make be nervous…

    • interlocal on 26/03/2025 - 15:41
      +1

      16% flat tax would create huge deficit.
      Total individuals tax collections were $331.5 billion in 2023–24
      National Wages and salaries paid by employers ~95 billion/mo in 2023/24
      So, flat tax should be 331.5/(95*12) = 29% to collect same amount of taxes.

      Don't you think we are better off as a society when low earners paying less than that?

    • SlickMick on 27/03/2025 - 09:47

      I agree, but the rate should be 0%. Australia has plenty of ways to make money without bleeding workers.

      • bio on 27/03/2025 - 12:44
        +1

        Income tax is paid by everyone, not only workers. I agree the brackets should be higher (especially after the inflation rates of the last few years), but making it 0% means that someone who owns a hugely profitable company can pay profits in the form of salary and pay no tax at all.

        • SlickMick on 27/03/2025 - 14:08

          we are so used to giving away our money. Why should a company have to pay tax any more than an individual? We are taxed repeatedly on the same income: income tax then what's left if I spend it: GST, if I invest it: dividends are taxed and so are capital gains.

          We have an abundance of natural resources that could finance a country for an eternity.

          • bio on 27/03/2025 - 15:40

            @SlickMick: Sure, I agree the tax system needs a revision, but a blanket 0% would make income inequality even worse. Maybe with UBI we might have a chance.

            • SlickMick on 27/03/2025 - 17:33

              @bio: I don't think income equality is a good idea. People should get what they work for, and there should be no barrier to that.
              Providing for those who can't provide for themselves is another matter, but an enforced robin hood solution isn't ideal imo.

              • bio on 27/03/2025 - 17:43
                +1

                @SlickMick: I'm not talking about the inequality between, say, an experienced tradie vs his apprentice. My point was people making millions while not working a thousand times as hard. They shouldn't pay 0% tax. Taxation a percentage of millions is not a barrier for getting rich.

                • SlickMick on 27/03/2025 - 19:43

                  @bio: Same diff. Is this tall poppy syndrome or what, that people who earn heaps should have to share?

                  I don't begrudge anybody earning whatever they can, and I don't believe anyone has the right to tell them they must be charitable, or pick up the slack, or play robin hood, or however you want to put it.

                  • tenpercent on 27/03/2025 - 20:38

                    @SlickMick: SlickMick is right. That's even ignoring the HUGE mineral wealth this country possesses and gives away for fractions of a cent on the dollar to big corporations. Saudi Aramco is the right model to copy. The government should have an equity stake in all mineral projects.

                    Even ignoring all that mineral wealth though, the government could simply take over the creation of money and expand the money supply as required (which contrary to opinion of those who can't think outside the box they were born in does not mean ad infinitum) without issuing debt. Abolish income tax at the same time. So although the money supply would increase (note: the overall money supply in Australia is approximately 95% created out of thin air by commercial banks when they issue loans/mortgages), that would be more than offset by the amount of money people would get to keep (since they would no longer pay income tax).

                  • jrowls on 28/03/2025 - 00:24
                    -1

                    @SlickMick: yes, people who earn heaps should have to share. that's part of living in a society. from each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs and so on.

                    when i'm getting ripped off at woolies and a short old lady wants something from the top shelf, i reach up and get it for her. that's basically what tax does on a societal level.

                    • SlickMick on 28/03/2025 - 10:19
                      -1

                      @jrowls: No, you getting a high item for a short person cost you nothing. A better analogy is since you earn more than the person sleeping on the street, you should open your wallet.
                      When you're expected to play robin hood it isn't such a great idea, hey?

                      It's easy to put demands on those higher up the pecking order. The entitlement attitude sickens me.

                      • jrowls on 28/03/2025 - 10:30
                        +1

                        @SlickMick: How is it not a fitting analogy? It doesn’t cost me nothing, it costs effort to reach. It’s not much obviously but it’s somewhere on the spectrum of putting in effort to help other people.

                        What if it was mowing the lawn of an elderly neighbour who can’t do it themselves any more and can’t afford to pay someone. That takes more effort and time, might even cost money in fuel and oil.

                        For the record, I’d be very happy to see my tax money going to helping the person sleeping on the street. That’s a great idea in my books.

                        • SlickMick on 28/03/2025 - 10:53
                          -1

                          @jrowls: Sure, so we should give high income earners the option of contributing more in taxes or community service - but it's still optional, right? No-one forced you to reach.

                          You can certainly contribute more. When I was young and niave I didn't claim deductions because I wanted to reduce my contribution. You could do that. But you could be more effective giving directly, you don't need a government to do the giving for you.

                          But that isn't what you're really saying is it. You want to do things that won't cost you anything, like tell someone else to provide for the person in the street.

                • tenpercent on 27/03/2025 - 20:25
                  +1

                  @bio:

                  making millions while not working a thousand times as hard

                  Work smarter not harder.

    • morse on 27/03/2025 - 14:36
      +2

      I had this exact thought as an 10year old and I struggle to understand when my mother explained. My thinking has matured since.

  • Gdsamp on 26/03/2025 - 11:09
    +1

    besides tax cuts which they are trying to ram thru today
    It's all contingent on Labor being returned to govt so who really knows

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 26/03/2025 - 11:13
      -4

      It is almost unheard of in Australia for a 1st term government to lose power? i cant remember it ever happening in my life time

      I just googled polls this came up 1st

      https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/9847-federal-voting-inten…

      Which seem to suggest the ALP should stay in power? (perhaps with a reduced majority)

      • Gdsamp on 26/03/2025 - 11:18
        +17

        bruh there has been a 'once in a century' event like every month for the last 5 years

      • klaw81 on 26/03/2025 - 11:26
        +7

        Until recently a few polls were suggesting that the Coalition had a decent chance of winning the next election. That seems to have died down, but there's still a real possibility of ALP minority government.

        It's very rare for federal governments to only serve a single term but it's not impossible - and globally, a lot of incumbents have been "punished" for post-Covid inflation and increased cost of living .

      • foursaken on 26/03/2025 - 14:06

        Good article on the subject: https://theconversation.com/governments-usually-win-a-second…

      • SlickMick on 27/03/2025 - 09:59
        -1

        I just checked.
        1914 was the only time LNP were not re-elected.
        ALP lost after 1 term in 1913, 1917, 1931. I concede that we do usually give them a 2nd chance: 1946, 1974, 2010.

        Labour had a good run in the 80s into the 90s. That's it.

        LNP usually keep getting re-elected. I guess until we forget, and let Labour back in.

  • foursaken on 26/03/2025 - 11:15
    +12

    1) Tax cut is fine although the language is always puzzling. "…for individuals in this bracket." Which is everyone who pays income tax. Also, can be start to load the higher brackets please - they need to pay more tax.
    2) Healthcare, good, but needs more work, and mayyyte have we taken our time doing anything about this.

    And that's it, the rest is a non-event.

    Before all the morons pile in and go on about a deficit (and because no one here can seem to google):
    In the past 50 years, the budget has been in deficit two-thirds of the time.
    The 2022-23 budget delivered a surplus of $22.1 billion, the first in 15 years.
    This was followed by another surplus of $15.8 billion in 2023-24.

    So get stuffed with your LNP economic managers surplus crap.

      • foursaken on 26/03/2025 - 13:43
        +1

        ….
        ….People earning less than the lower limit of the bracket they are changing do not pay income tax, which goes some way to explain my "Which is everyone who pays income tax" comment.
        …

    • Gdsamp on 26/03/2025 - 13:52

      In the past 50 years, the budget has been in deficit two-thirds of the time.

      what a waste of time it is then to try and keep federal budget in surplus
      Australia still exists, stock market near all time highs, economy hasn't imploded completely, we have roads and hospitals

  • djesr on 26/03/2025 - 11:34
    +14

    Maybe I'm wrong, but why would anyone want the "Housing" and "energy relief" their trying to give.
    You cant fix the housing issue by pumping in more money into the market, all that's going to do is increase the housing prices. It's simple demand and supply. You can't reduce the price without fixing the supply when the demand stays the same. Id rather he gov give tax exemption on timber and hardware used for residential housing. To make building cheaper. More jobs for builders and increase in supply.

    Don't get me started on the energy relief, putting tax payer money straight into the energy companies pockets. Subsidies batteries and solar

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 26/03/2025 - 11:46
      +12

      We need the Singapore model for housing.

      Non-owner-occupied residential properties

      Rental properties or homes not occupied by the owner are subjected to higher tax rates. The rates are as follows:

      First SGD 30,000 ($22,530):12%
      Next SGD 15,000 ($11,265): 20%
      Next SGD 15,000 ($11,265): 28%
      Above SGD 60,000 ($45,060): 36%

      Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD)
      Entities and living trusts: Entities that include corporations, associations, and individuals transferring residential property into a living trust will now be subject to an ABSD of 65%.
      Foreign buyers: The Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty for foreigners in Singapore will increase to 60%, which applies to a substantial luxury residential market segment.
      Singapore Permanent Residents (PRs): Singapore PRs purchasing their first residential property will be subject to a 5% ABSD. A 30% property tax in Singapore is required for those purchasing a second residential property, and 35% ABSD is imposed on those purchasing a third residential property.
      Singapore citizens: ABSD property tax in Singapore is not applicable when purchasing their first residential property. However, an ABSD of 20% must be considered for those considering a second home. A third and subsequent property purchase attracts a rate of 30%.

      • gromit on 27/03/2025 - 19:30

        its not as good as it first appears. those rates are based on the rental income not the value of the land in Singapore. So for instance a home pulling in $50,000 rent per annum is only going to be liable for roughly $10k in tax, this would do bugger all to address the problem. Also note Singapore also charge the OWNER occupied properties tax as well so you would also be paying roughly $2k even if you live in the house.

        Regardless Singapore is a horrible place to model it on, housing is horrendously expensive there and they have extremely limited space

        • DashCam AKA Rolts on 27/03/2025 - 20:30

          those rates are based on the rental income not the value of the land in Singapore

          Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) is not income/rental based, and appears to be imposed at sale/purchase of the property.

          Individuals transferring residential property into a living trust will now be subject to an ABSD of 65%.
          Foreign buyers: The Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty for foreigners in Singapore will increase to 60%, which applies to a substantial luxury residential market segment.
          Singapore Permanent Residents (PRs): Singapore PRs purchasing their first residential property will be subject to a 5% ABSD. A 30% property tax in Singapore is required for those purchasing a second residential property, and 35% ABSD is imposed on those purchasing a third residential property.
          Singapore citizens: ABSD property tax in Singapore is not applicable when purchasing their first residential property. However, an ABSD of 20% must be considered for those considering a second home. A third and subsequent property purchase attracts a rate of 30%.

        • Antikythera on 28/03/2025 - 18:13

          Regardless Singapore is a horrible place to model it on, housing is horrendously expensive there and they have extremely limited space

          ummm…. Australian housing is horrendously expensive and our cities have extremely limited space

          • gromit on 28/03/2025 - 18:21

            @Antikythera:

            ummm…. Australian housing is horrendously expensive and we have extremely limited space

            ROFL

            Singapore is ~720 square kilometres with 6 million people.
            Sydney is ~12,000 square kilometres with 5.4 million people

            Singapore makes Sydney prices look cheap. price to income ratio in sydney is around 12, singapore is 24. Rent is about 35% higher, buying a property is over 60% more expensive. Note I am only doing the absolute most favourable comparison as if you compare it with the rest of Australia it is even more massive difference.

    • klaw81 on 26/03/2025 - 12:15
      +7

      but why would anyone want the "Housing" and "energy relief" their trying to give

      Mostly because it's better than what the Coalition is offering. It might be underwhelming, but it's not nothing.

      You cant fix the housing issue by pumping in more money into the market

      My understanding is they're not doing that. They're actually investing in building supply, albeit into a very constrained market.

      Every single builder is already busy building as fast as materials can be supplied - that's a major part of the housing supply problem.

      Don't get me started on the energy relief, putting tax payer money straight into the energy companies pockets

      That's not really true. People were always going to spend at least that much money on electricity. This just means their first few months are free. Personally, I still haven't spend the last lot.

      Subsidies batteries and solar

      The federal government is already putting money into solar through STCs and it's been highly successful.

      Batteries are a bit more tricky, but I would expect to see them being encouraged via state funding rather than federal since they're more of a state issue.

      • Trying2SaveABuck on 26/03/2025 - 12:18
        +4

        Mostly because it's better than what the Coalition is offering. It might be underwhelming, but it's not nothing.

        factually speaking the LNP has not announced their budget yet that will happen tomorrow night

    • wetsandwich on 26/03/2025 - 14:22
      +3

      "Don't get me started on the energy relief, putting tax payer money straight into the energy companies pockets"

      You're completely correct, but somehow people are exactly that dumb that they actually believe this isn't raising electricity prices by exactly that $ amount.

      Taking my money and giving only some of it back to Origin Energy is NOT a cost of living saving for anyone except the unemployed!!

      • greatlamp on 28/03/2025 - 07:50
        +1

        Energy prices are heavily regulated. So no, the suppliers aren't increasing prices in response, any price rise would have occurred regardless.

        It is still a waste of money. These policies mainly achieve artificially decreasing CPI figures for 1 quarter

        LNP have similar past policies with cutting fuel excise temporarily. The main difference is whether you give more of the benefit to households - which helps the poorer households significantly, or businesses/asset owners.

    • SlickMick on 27/03/2025 - 10:10
      +2

      I can't believe the idiotic things they come up with to supposedly fix housing, never addressing either supply nor demand.

      I saw a great interview re energy rebates. Apparently we were promised cheaper electricity, but it hasn't been delivered hence rebates instead "tada, lower energy bills - we delivered". Self-funded cheaper energy - brilliant.

  • DashCam AKA Rolts on 26/03/2025 - 11:38
    +28

    I'm still waiting for some pollies to have the guts to start taxing exported resources at a level comparable to Norway, to get a decent sovereign wealth fund balance.

    Secondly, exported resources should have frequent reviews of prices being paid, with government intervention if the owners, i.e. the Australian tax payer, is not getting a fair return.

    Thirdly, start insisting a percentage of the resources being exported be processed at least minimally. e.g. iron ore, say initially 2% be exported as pig iron, and later as a % as processed steel. The % and degree of processing could rise on a prescribed basis within contracts or at contract renewal

    • Baysew on 26/03/2025 - 12:07
      +13

      I'm still waiting for some pollies to have the guts to start taxing exported resources

      Kevin Rudd got gutted when he tried.

      • ThithLord on 26/03/2025 - 12:33
        +3

        Basically, Labor are told they need to fall on sword harder for a populace that hate them anyway. Defies logic, doesn't it?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join