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
- 1144Voted 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.
- 445Don't vote labor and won't next time, breaking election promises is the wrong thing to do.
Comments
Don't be crazy 😂
Where's the option I'm a china national and cannot vote ?
Can I please buy an rtx2060 redressed as rtx9090ti :)
where’e the option for fck labor i’m voting green/independent
Maybe! :)
This was soooo obviously going to happen since the last election. If anyone was surprised by this, I'd be surprised.
Really? You think the entirety of Australia saw this coming?
Of course not - if you're paying no attention to politics you wouldn't have had a clue.
So a few hundred thousand, from the ~25 million population are on 180k, but 250k is 'middle class'
Seems legit…
you are so out of touch it's actually pathetic to think that 180k+ isn't a huge income.
@Willy Beamish: Maybe they meant disposable income from 180k salary?
People may commit more expenses as their income grow over time. What discretionary before becomes essential.
What flexible before becomes non-negotiable.Like i can take public transport to work during the day but not possible for night shifts, hence need a car plus associated cost. Or planning for one baby then a triplet came out. Cant send two back for refund like Amazon purchases
@Willy Beamish: It actually isn't huge, yes it's big but a 6 figure salary no longer has the spending power that it once had in the early 2000's.
Mortgages, tax and rent take a huge chunk out of it. To be as cushy as you were with $100k back in the day you'll need at least $180k now. Tax brackets haven't really moved whilst peoples wages have moved up tax brackets while inflation devalues your wage. I remember seeing a report that for wages to keep up with house prices from back in the day we'd need to be on 2.5 - 3x our current wages.
This is coming from someone who's sitting in the bracket.
you are so out of touch it's actually pathetic to think that 180k+ isn't a huge income.
It really isn't a huge income though. I think the issue with looking at "just the numbers" is that it ignores how people actually live, which is what ultimately really matters.
I think it's more useful to look at income archetypes. Realistically anything from ~$100K to ~$250K (or even slightly higher than that) is the same "upper middle class" archetype because their day-to-day lives are practically the same.
They all earn enough to not have to worry about the minutiae of day-to-day life - not struggling to put food on the table, no issues with paying the bills, never too short of money to put petrol in the car. They can afford most of the "nice to haves" that make life comfortable and happy - toys for their kids, enough to pursue some hobbies here or there, can pay for a gym membership or a local tennis club, a comfortable enough car.
It's just that the one on ~$250K has it all a little nicer than the one on ~$100K, it's a BMW instead of a Camry (not a Bugatti or a Ferrari), it's a slightly nicer house a little closer to the CBD (not a mansion in a blue ribbon suburb), it's an overseas holiday every 2 years instead of every few years (not having a yatch or private jet).
They also likely stress about the same things - losing their job, staying healthy, how to spend more time with loved ones…etc.
I'm not running a "boo hoo, look at me" sympathy drive - obviously people on ~$250K are not doing it tough, neither are people on ~$100K for that matter. However, it's worth remembering people on "slightly bigger" incomes are not the problem. The real problems are old-money elites who, through favourable treatment of inheritances and estates, have been able to perpetuate (and often increase) wealth inequality as "wealth-begets-wealth", who have the political power to be able to institutionalise their wealth, and whose wealth (and family connections) allow them to live a lifestyle and enjoy status that's not available to us peasant folk, even the ones who manage to earn a bit more.
@Willy Beamish: A single income home on about $180k is the same as what, 2 incomes at $75k when you factor in tax? Someone with a calculator handy can do the actual math. Plenty of homes have been forced to be 2 income. You wouldn't balk at a house with 2 earning $75k each.
@Willy Beamish: You are missing so much nuance.
What if the person is doing shitty, hazardous jobs, sacrifices by living away from home ie. FIFO. Or is actually working 2-3 jobs?
In other cases, while they are studying. They are amassing huge debt and earning peanuts for years on end. Relocating to metro inner suburban or city locations and paying huge professional insurances
Finally you’re looking at headline gross figures. Did you even work out net tax paid?
$180k = $52k per year in taxesNot paying their fair share ammiright?
@Willy Beamish: Well that's what David Littleproud thinks…….
…..idiot.According to that article about 4% of the population earn that much.
$180K is a MASSIVE income for MOST people
Anyone earning over 180k is wealthy. The Average income is 90,800, but the median income is 54,890. So half of the nation earns less than 54k.
@capslock: Those rich people (now) had middle-class parents,
so they just repeat what their parents told them.A lot of rich people think they are middle class for some reason.
I can empathise with this to some degree - middle class refers to a lifestyle as opposed to a level of wealth, and the cost of that lifestyle has markedly increased over the past few decades.
Think about the stereotypical definitions of a middle class family - drives a Toyota Camry, great, they're 4x more expensive today than what they were a generation ago, lives in a 3BR brick veneer house in the outer metro suburbs, great they're 5x more expensive today than they were a generation ago…etc.
I would say that I grew up in a middle class family - I did mostly middle class things - e.g. going to the local school, playing video games on weekends, a family holiday every few years, getting a few toys for Christmas every year, going to the movies once every few months…etc. Today, my family income is over twice as much as my parents' family income back in the day and my family and I live practically the same sort of lifestyle.
@p1 ama: Agree, income is a minor factor in determining your lifestyle these days. You can have a high income, but if you didn't buy a home 20 years ago it can be eaten up by a mortgage for a very average 3bdrm house.
@p1 ama: A new Camry Hybrid is around $40k, so you're saying they used to be only $10k a generation ago? Hardly.
@thesilverstarman: Whats education level for bottom half? Can we compare wealth along with education level?
@vr4indian: Right? F me dead for studying hard at school and uni, getting a masters so I could improve my circumstances and get ahead. Even terms like 'get ahead' are being shunned as some faux pas. Tall poppy syndrome is on turbocharge.
@GlenWavOzBargainer: It's great you managed to get ahead through education, but let's not pretend 1) that's available/accessible to everyone and 2) that makes it any less true that 180k is an unusually high income in Australia.
Personally, I've done the same as you, even going so far as to get my PhD to improve my family's circumstances, but I'm still not on this level of income while I "pay my dues" in a field of increasingly casualised work. If I do get there, and that's above a typical salary for senior people in my field, I'd be happy for those struggling to receive a tax cut (never mind that it is one that I would also experience a small financial benefit from).
@xavster: I don't think field makes a huge difference here, unless you're looking to take the PhD and run to the private sector for a highly in-demand field. My research is in digital culture and I'd like to stay in academia and not-for-profits or, potentially, the APS.
For the time being, that means one-year contracts and working casual bits and pieces. To land anything long-term in academia, there's also a huge amount of unpaid work involved to build a track record (which is hard to do around needing money to live). I'm currently on one part-time and three casual jobs, but my record last year was six casual at the same time.
@thesilverstarman: High earning does not equal wealthy at all.
I'll probably get downvoted to hell for this, but targeting wealth would transpire as a wealth or inheritance tax, NOT changes to income tax cuts. Wealth is assets, passive income, and the means to production. NOT salary!
Being a salaried employee earning 180k vs 90k is still trading your time for money, and is still by all definitions including the Marxist ones, in the same class bucket of people (albeit living more comfortably). Insinuating otherwise is inciting class warfare where there is no class difference.
People on 180k pay the most tax today. People on 10+m of inherited assets pay 0. Companies with $100+M revenue flowing in from shell company X incorporated in god knows where is paying close to 0. Out of all the levers to pull to create equality, you have to wonder why the government chose to turn salaried chumps against each other
@yoogz: I'm with you. The way I like to think about it is this way:
When people say "your in the top 5%" what that REALLY means I am in the top 5% of income tax contributors in the country. I pay more income tax than 95% of the population.
Now when people say "your in the top 5%", they imply that you are wealthy, which is not the same AT ALL.
I have a slightly below average house in a cheaper suburb, with a massive mortage, kids go to public school, and have a $3000 20 year old suburu.
I can tell you now, that is not what the top 5% of australians have.
@yoogz: Pretty much what I was trying to say.
This article puts it in perspective
https://www.smh.com.au/money/investing/how-much-money-do-you…I can tell you that most( young) families making $ 180k plus ( but less than $250k ) are not worth $8.25 million . They drive 8-10 year old cars, with half incomes taken out by tax , another quarter or so by childcare/ schooling and that is before mortgages and living expenses are factored in, my comment in the below thread sums it up .
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/807444Labour brought in tax cuts to get more votes , it was a dispassionate numbers game for them , despite all that BS about cost of living relief . Libs are owned by the above 1% who are their true masters, they dont care about the young family above, or anyone else. Both just want class warfare for their own ends , the true rich are those above, not everyone earning $180k by working 65 hours /week.
Finally the rich dont pay themselves salaries, the plebs are the ones who are on PAYG , most rich will have incomes chanelled from multiple trusts and businesses with most living expenses paid through the business . Even the average plumber with two utes will be paying themselves $45k/year as salary, when the business is making $300k plus in pure profit plus cashies .
Would be better with increased GST and taxing wealth on disposal plus more taxes on profits as per my last two paragraphs above for that reason.
@yoogz: Well said. They really didn’t need to do this. It’s incredibly stupid to create such a divide.
There’s so much tall poppy bashing based on ignorance and jealousy in this country.
Fundamentally, I hate our progressive tax system and wish it were much flatter.
It forces tax avoidance schemes: ie. negative gearing
And disincentivises high achievers. Absolutely awful for innovation and development for the nation.
Granted LNPers weren’t going to vote Labor anyway. This just drives a massive wedge for me. I voted Labor last time. But this is a kick in the guts for paying hundreds of thousands in taxes over the years
@yoogz: Yep, income tax is inherently evil. It's penalizing people who produce to the benefit of the capital owners.
Glad to see you upvoted, a lot of people can't fathom life without us commoner's enormous tax burden as anything but selfishness that would crumble society - most don't understand just how heavily they are taxed, and have never heard of ideas like "wealth tax".
@thesilverstarman: Where are your stats from? Is that including apprentices and kids working at Maccas after school, pro-rated as if they were full time?
I don't know why this was downvoted so much! I for one am in that range they've posted about. PAYG employee well into the top margina tax bracket. No family wealth or generational wealth. Taxed to the absolute eyeballs, zero incentives from the government, and lots to pay for 2 kids in childcare, private health, private school fees, mortgages etc etc. The 180k bracket should have been indexed properly since 2008!
Agree. Increasing GST means you hit consumption. So those who are wealthy but have low taxable incomes will foot more of the tax burden. Yes you affect low income as well but the GST revenue will be far greater than increasing income tax so you need to give back some of that increased GST revenue to offset those at the low incomes (via rebates or by reducing income tax). By increasing GST and reducing income tax, you incentive people to work harder to earn more, to spend less and save more, and you capture those that have wealth (because they spend more) and those that tax avoid (because they are still spending). It also collects tax from immigrants using offshore wealth to spend in Australia. Oh and hey, spending less also reduces inflation.
Of course it's never that simple but this general principle of increasing GST and reducing income tax makes more sense. Except of course you lose more votes increasing GST than targeting the small percentage of high income earners….
lol oh well, i did expect the downvotes, like it or not, the fact is that up to $250k is the new upper middle class ,actually the middle middle class m, especially in the eastern capital cities . $250k is what $120k was 10 years ago, accounting for inflation. Real wages have not increased by as much , whose fault is that? answer is that the real elites , i find it surprising that everyone does not get that someone on $250k is not rich and the elite, it is the below.
https://www.smh.com.au/money/investing/how-much-money-do-you…
If you are on $70k , and in a position to say, I will have inherited wealth coming my way in the future , and can afford to slack off, and want a cruisy 9-5 job at max and then become an outraged kevboard warrior when someone says the above, then you sir are the problem . Thats why i find surprising that people only cherry picked the income part, and casually skipped over taxing assets including the family home on disposal , increasing GST plus the corporate taxes part . OHHH NOOOO, you know that will affect me, cant have that.Say 30% up to $100 million, then 40% up to $1billion and 50% above that .Could fund NDIS , and whatever else .
Pretty sure we only need a few % wealth tax rate across the board and the tax department would be swimming in cash, and everyday people would barely be paying tax at all.
@ssfps: Are there any examples of countries that successfully utilise wealth tax to replace income tax?
Until they release more detail it's only a guess of what they are doing, but at this stage it does not look like they will be reduced, only reallocated. From what we can tell the proposed 200k bracket will be brought back down to 180k but otherwise every income level under 180k will be receiving equal or more tax cuts than initially slated.
Aged like fine milk
Yep 'only' people earning 0-150k will be better off.
Is that about 80% or something of Australians?
Right, it just seems like a sensible improvement to me. Not sure what everyone is wetting their pants about.
It's not sensible, you just don't understand how little tax the true rich aren't paying. If the system were fair, income wouldn't be taxed at all, accrued wealth would, and people on $300k could pay almost no tax and the coffers would still be overflowing.
If that seems odd, consider that a bunch of ceos made a meme out of paying themselves $1 p/a a decade or so ago.
Tax the wealthy more and more
How much wealth is wealthy in your books?
Anyone earning more than me
^^^This is the right answer
We are on a combined household of 180+ and I would consider us wealthy. We don't have to worry about random bills, have a mortgage and can consider sending our kids to private school.
You have exactly 1x child?
Maybe you don't spend much on the other stuff
Congratulations you'll be better off under the changes proposed.
is 180 really enough for private school?
@fredblogs: $180k household would be a struggle for private school. That's $140k after tax. Take away mortgage payments, living expenses… Doesn't leave much for $30k p.a. private school fees per kid.
@Eeples: They'll pay $43k (including medicare levy) for 2 income earners at $90k each.
https://moneysmart.gov.au/work-and-tax/income-tax-calculator…
@mandelbrot: Then your sense of reality is skewed and/or your money management skills are awful.
People earning six figures & still moaning about their income are about the only thing that would convince me to support making the progressive tax system more aggressive.
@mandelbrot: Its also about your liabilities and expectations.
If you have a $5m mortgage - then you need a $1m income.
If you have multiple kids in expensive private schools - you need a $1m income.
If you think it is essential to have overseas holidays every year - then you need a substantial income.
Interesting. Our household income is significantly more than that and I don't consider us to be wealthy. Financially comfortable with few money worries but we're not wealthy.
Just goes to show that we all have different opinions of this. Unfortunately, Albanese and Chalmers basically agree with you with this broken promise.
@R4: They might live regionally with 100k mortgage, compared to someone in Melbourne/Sydney, who purchased a harry average house for ~900k, at 80% LVR, the mortgage would be $720k @ 6.5% = $47k/yr in interest. (not including principal repayments)
That would wipe the smile of the 180k/yr income pretty fast!
@R4: That just means you're spending more and getting more value out your expenditure even though you don't see it
Where do you live? Prior to having a child our house hold income was similar and I wouldn't say we were wealthy, sure we werent struggling to make ends meet but live in the burbs, modest house that needs some work, both drive 15-20 year old cars and I wouldn't even dream of sending a kid to private school nor would I have considered myself wealthy.
@Nebargains: Bayside suburbs Brisbane, reasonable amount of mortgage paid off, own 4 vehicles, one credit card, local private schools for prep are in the region of 5-10k p.a.
Combined 180k is definitely not "wealthy".
@MrFunSocks: Anyone earning over 180k is wealthy. The Average income is 90,800, but the median income is 54,890. So half of the nation earns less than 54k.
@thesilverstarman: 180k income for an individual is wealthy. 180k income combined for a couple isn’t.
@MrFunSocks: We are currently a family on a single income of about $250k and definitely not wealthy. Feels unfair to be taxed as an individual at $250k salary compared to two people making a combined $250k, or even combined $180k. Having 2 young kids in daycare, multiple mortgage payments, then school fees once they move into prep…. Not wealthy at all. Would feel comfortable with two salaries at $250K, but not wealthy either, just less financial stress.
a family on a single income of about $250k
2 young kids in daycare
multiple mortgage payments,
then school fees once they move into prepNot wealthy at all
while not 'wealthy' you sure aren't struggling, and you're actively choosing to pay for daycare despite being single income, have multiple mortgages despite only needing one, and then pay for private school.
Next you'll say the insurance on your holiday home is getting a bit high, and the service costs on the Porche are getting a bit out of hand ;)
@SBOB: Feels like a struggle! Would be under even more pressure if we were renting! But at 250k, it hardly feels worthwhile to make more money at the top marginal tax rate. More time traveling or away from family, more stress…with about 51% reward in actual money in the pocket.
Health reasons limit the other adult in the family from doing much work. Kids end up being in daycare to take some of the pressure off. We don't have any family in the country nor any interitances etc. There is no backup plan. I go broke or fail, this family is homeless and on the streets. Hell can't even have a night out without hiring a paid nanny or having a friend look after kids, and most friends have young kids of their own too. However they mostly have grandparents or family nearby to help.
Minimal help from the government when it comes to daycare in terms of child care subsidy. Mortgages - well, this is where I've chosen to invest mostly. There aren't too many ways to productively minimise taxable income for PAYG employees. Even negative gearing is taking a big hit on cashflow each month to eventually try and realise a profit once the capital value appreciates. Even then you are still hit with stamp duty and capital gains tax if you sell. Alternatively, one could leverage…if you can sustain the borrowing capacity. As for private school, there are cheaper Catholic ones near us which are pretty affordable and a better product overall compared to the local primary school catchment we are in. Still cheaper than day care!
@thesilverstarman: Only 5% of Australians earn more than $180,000 per year. $200,000 a year makes you the top end of town. That about 67% of OzBargainers. Like the ALP, they are centre right economically and centre left in terms of social policy.
@Eeples: Because that’s what the person I responded to said - they called themselves wealthy on $180k combined.
Maybe catholic school? But no way elite private schools with your situation.
The Australian government defines it as follows:
Wealth (net worth)
Household wealth (or net worth) is the value of all the assets owned by a household less the value of all its liabilities.Assets include:
non-financial assets, such as dwellings and their contents, land, and vehicles
own incorporated and unincorporated businesses
other financial assets such as bank accounts, shares, superannuation accounts, and the outstanding value of loans made to other households or businesses
Liabilities are primarily the value of loans outstanding including:mortgages
investment loans
credit card debt
borrowings from other households
other personal and study loansWe want a definition of wealthy not wealth.
Minimize / abolish income taxes, introduce wealth taxes.
Penalize hoarding.
How do you tax wealth? It's hard and prone to loopholes.
What easier to be taxed are the means to create and grow wealth that is limited either naturally or artificially:
Land, natural resources, licenses and IPs,
Its not hard, its near impossible.
Taxing inheritance is probably a good start.
@Banj0: That only impacts the middle class, the wealthy have all their assets tied up in trusts and as such would not get hit by the tax.
@tomfool: trusts have to distribute income ( even from asset sales) at end of year to beneficiaries , they might be able to minimise it by distributing some income to the 3 kids, but there will still be tax at disposal as distributions will be made to beneficiaries at personal tax rates , this is a wrong notion that taxation at disposal is not possible . Appetite to bring it in is another matter , when its easier to score cheap political points as in this recent "Tax cuts to help with cost of living across the board".
first you need to understand what wealth is as opposed to a high income. Some people have large incomes but live pay cheque to pay cheque, others have investments generating passive / active income streams….which is wealthy?
Same way Singapore does it.
Wouldn't waiting for actual announced details or changes make the survey more useful?