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
he changed his mind and took it to the 98 election
So let me get this right - Labor is tweaking a policy they didn't introduce that will benefit more Australians in a tough economic climate (which Labor is also not responsible for) and they're no longer a good option? This is why democracy doesn't work 🙄
Feel free to pay more tax. Such charitable individuals like yourself deserve an award!! Me? I just dont want to pay over 100K in taxes each year. And yeah, Labor can go back into Opposition!
You won't, (and in fact no one is going to be paying more) - you are still going to benefit from the tax cuts, except now it's not just about you and the people at your salary level.
@whatgift: At the end its reducing a legislated benefit to me to benefit someone else. So rather than paying less tax in FY25, ill be paying more than if Labor had stuck to a promise. The psychology which you are buying into is that a reduced benefit is still a benefit so hopefully at the next election, people would be more inclined to forgive and forget. Not me mate.
I am sick of all this arguing around bracket creep. Can we finally get a good campaign going around adjusting the tax brackets for inflation so politicians have one less scapegoat when adjusting taxes?
Laybour
LLLaaYYbbbOOOUUrrr
The current tax system imposes a heavy burden, especially considering the outdated tax brackets. These brackets were set during a period when real wages were substantially higher. Over time, inflation has eroded the value of these wages, yet the tax brackets have remained unchanged, failing to reflect this change. This particularly impacts those in the higher tax brackets, who are disproportionately affected. A reasonable solution would be to adjust the tax brackets to reflect income levels and economic realities. For example, setting the highest tax bracket to commence at incomes over $300k could be more equitable. This threshold would acknowledge the significant number of individuals now earning above this level, ensuring a fairer tax distribution.
What do you mean? Report says 4% of tax payers earns $200k and above. So now you saying $300k That would mean maybe 1% of tax payers. LOL.
Stage 3 tax returns will cost us like 380 billion or somewhere there in next 10 years.
To cut so much just to benefit mostly 4% of the tax payers is just crazy.
What labor doing today is the RIGHT THING to do.
Bracket creep means they never should of had that money to begin with and people paying those taxes are being over taxed about 18k pa ….
Tax bands should be indexed to wage growth each year
Tax bands should be indexed to wage growth each year
they should be index to CPI
Well the new labor tax proposal solve huge problem with bracket creep.. Except for the top 4% but they still get some nice tax cut.
Agree that brackets should be indexed, but taking the brackets from the time when the new thresholds were implemented where they were purposefully designed to be far above where the government actually wanted them. If brackets were to be indexed they wouldn't be indexed to 2008 adjusted values.
So libs reckon the winning strategy is to roll back tax cuts for middle income earners so top tax bracket can have more. Blimey, no wonder libs got slaughtered last election and around the country. Why would middle income voters vote for a loss of tax cuts?
I say this as someone who just tips into the top tax bracket and annoyed with this change by Albo
Yup political suicide for Lib next election. Do they even think before they talk?? Now it will be used to scare monger voters .and majority of the voters are not the 4% for the upcoming election.
The libs have been digging their heels in for the rich, racist and old people. Its definitely a strategy to gain votes but I don't think its a winning strategy.
They must think since it works in the USA for their brain-dead population, who cant read or write above a 6yr old level that it will work work here??
(54% is the number if your wondering)
@MrThing: The biggest problem for the lib voters is that Australia is a multi cultural place with high immigration who will rarely vote for the libs where you won't find that happens in a place like Texas where immigrants would rather go elsewhere.
@samfisher5986: Libs are similar to Republican being they are generally older and more conservative than Labor (or democratic) voters
If it helps, they have rolled back what they originally announced fricken LMAO
I reckon Anthony did the right thing. Question is, are we going to continue to waste taxpayer money on frivolous things
Donkey Vote, Sick of these governments claiming human rights and freedom of speech but support and fund genocides. (profanity) the Australian government. I'm prepared to leave this hypocritical country. Not to mention all the people that live here are so arrogant, so self centered and so depressed. /rantover
Yes, go and use your Australian dollars in a poor country and then claim how good that poor country is because your Australian dollars can buy you a massage every day.
No ill go build another country that deserves it
Typical backflip by Labor. Can't trust em as far as you can throw em. How dare they.
As opposed to every political party ever 😂
The people are screaming out and they listened, the changes benefit 94% of Aussies. Are we supposed to hate them for doing what we the people ask?
Typical? You mean like the "ironclad guarantee" backflip by Tony Abbott, the submarine backflip by Scott Morrisson and the "No GST ever" backflip by John Howard, this Stage 3 "backflip" by Albo is something I can get behind.
Changes nothing for who I will vote for, didn't vote labor or lnp and still wont, but I think the original planned cuts were garbage and made to benefit the rich - as most things the Liberals do are. Labor didn't want these "stage 3" tax cuts remember.
The lower and middle class are who need to be getting tax breaks, not the wealthy. Most of the wealthy people don't pay tax anyway.
Someone earning $200k is not wealthy (and is basically middle-class) and is paying a sh1t ton of tax already
So if someone is only earning 100k what are they? In poverty?
No
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.
Disagree that $180k income is wealthy - comfortably well off and financially secure but not wealthy, but party on with whatever you want to believe
@R4: 5% of the population earns over 180k. So they earn more than the other 95% of the population. That definitely makes them wealthy in comparison.
People who earn over 180k usually work full time so isn't fair to compare that number to the median of all taxpayers.
The median for full time workers is closer to 90k
@2842: I live in a regional town. 90k would be considered to be a very high wage. I know people earning half that.
@thesilverstarman: If you don't mind me asking, what would be the average cost of a house in your area these days? And what's the average land size?
I'm genuinely interested in the differences in incomes and costs across Australia.
@SimpleLeverage: Median property prices over the last year range from $611,250 for houses to $400,000 for units. No idea of land size, but 83.9% are separate dwellings. The average wage is 51,317pa. These are all current figures. The city is Ballarat, Vic. It's a major regional city. My wife earns 45,450 pa. She is university-educated and works in healthcare.
I understand that the cost of living is higher in Sydney for example, but nobody is forced to live there. If people are struggling on 180k pa then its not tax cuts that they should be worried about, but lifestyle.@thesilverstarman: Unfortunately I don't have much by way of numbers, but it would not be surprising that in an area where wages are higher that cost of living would be higher. It is possible that someone on 180k pa in Sydney may actually have a more impoverished lifestyle after paying taxes and mortgage even though they earn more.
I agree that nobody is forced to live in a high cost area. However, the solution may not be that simple. For instance, if people with 180k pa jobs found a way to restructure their roles to be remote and moved to regional areas, it could have a material knock-on impact to the economic balance currently in place in regional cities.
Here we go again 200k is not wealthy. Those on 80K will have to eat dirt…
Fact is fact 200k represent only 4% of population. so its income higher than 96%..Here we go again - where did I say that 'Those on 80K will have to eat dirt'? That's right, I didn't - that notion is in your head only I'm afraid.
A person earning $200k is obviously going to have a more comfortable and secure lifestyle than someone earning $80k but that doesn't make them wealthy. Also, someone earning $80k could have millions in assets but just chooses to break their balls working hard - the way house prices have risen over the last few decades makes this entirely feasible. Unfortunately for the country, Albanese and Chalmers' given their socialist, class-warfare nature see relatively high earning people as wealthy - and the enemy.
@R4: salary does not equate to working hard…
just an eg. you could be on 200k mgr in the big corporations… You saying you work harder than a factory worker with long shifts?on 200k or more you are wealthier than the rest of the 94% simple as that.
LOL has nothing to do with socialist or class warfare.. You want to be like asian countries or U.S.. your choice.
I suspect many would prefer to pay more tax then ended up like asia or U.S.So far majority of western countries with high std of living and care are those with high taxes for higher income earner.
I don't know why Labor have backflipped so hard on Stage 3 after Albo said what seemed to be dozens of times that they're not going to backflip on Stage 3. Maybe it's because the IMF said a few days ago "You have to hike the rate and cut government spending, you guys are a bunch of clowns" (last part added for effect) and clearly they can see in the polls people aren't happy. I do think the original Stage 3 changes would drive inequality even further which would make things a lot worse in this country, so the change is good.
But the fact that Labor have backflipped on not just that but also mass migration (they said they didn't support the LNP's mass migration policies when they were in opposition) just goes to show how much of a mess they've become. They no longer govern based on their ideologies, they try to make everyone happy and by doing so get nothing done. Not as bad as the LNP but still plain weak and sad.
People and independents were screaming out for change and they listened.
Funnily enough, no one complains about Mr. Retiree, who owns $1.9M worth of CBA shares in his Self Managed Super Fund. Every year, Mr Boomer makes $70k tax free worth of dividends from his investment. Not only he gets this tax free income, but he also gets a $30k refund for income taxes CBA paid in the past. Mr. Retiree walks out with $100k tax free every year.. and we workers fight with each other over tax brackets. .
Very true but the boomers will start passing this wealth on over the next 15 years, give or take
The way they are spending money with cruises and international travel I think it could be all going overseas…
Mr. Retiree is saving the Government $28,514 p.a. (plus concessions) by being self funded and not receiving the Age Pension.
He would still be self funded if he paid his fair share of taxes.
He paid tax on the income into his super, he is only working within the rules. And maybe through some luck he put all his super into CBA and make a 75% gain over the previous 5 years he took the risk and got the gains.
Besides this example is not the majority, the avg super balance for a 60-64 male is 322k
These stupid wild examples media and politicians use to justify their agenda are always fringe cases.
@tomfool: He is working within the rules 100%. But the rules are the problem… Super Fund concessions are a scandal.
A young worker also already paid tax on his income, but if he buys shares with that income he will be taxed again on this new income when he receives dividends. He will also get a benefit of franking credits to reduce his tax payable, but will he will taxed by his marginal tax rates.
This is not a stupid wild example and it costs billions to the tax payers.
https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/why-retirees-have-to-pay-…
So with some example numbers from the Australian, the expected changes would result in the following (pinched from whirlpool and assuming accuracy)
Salary/Previous 'Stage 3'/New 'Stage 3' /Better/Worse Change
$45,000 $0 $804 $804
$60,000 $375 $1,179 $804
$80,000 $875 $1,679 $804
$100,000 $1,375 $2,179 $804
$120,000 $1,875 $2,679 $804
$135,000 $2,925 $3,729 $804
$140,000 $3,275 $3,729 $454
$150,000 $3,975 $3,729 -$246
$180,000 $6,075 $3,729 -$2,346
$190,000 $7,575 $4,529 -$3,046
$200,000 $9,075 $4,529 -$4,546So,
$140k and under you're going to be ~$804 better off with the new 'revisions'
Above $150k you're going to be still getting a tax benefit, but its going to be ~40-50% less than previously 'legislated'Poor reshuffle imo and the re-introduction of the 37% tax bracket for $135k-$190k, meaning they have lost part of the 'simplification' of tax thresholds and tax rates, meaning they will unlikely to be re-addressed anytime soon.
But most voters live in the <150k bracket, so its unlikely to do anything but have a net positive/neutral voter benefitMost people live in the <150k bracket, over $156k is top 4% of income earners.
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.
Why no one point to our disastrous energy policies for the inflation malaise that's happening in our country?
Cuz we have no energy to bother pointing out the issue!
The whole tax system is wrong, the moment you talk about "household incomes". Taxation is done based on an individual's income and not on a households. A family consisting of a single income earner will be worse off than a family on dual incomes that make the same total amount before tax (eg. single income on $140K will pay more tax then dual income of $70K each). If they want to fix the taxation system, start with fixing that.
You can't fix that without creating an entire fake economy of couples in taxation relationships
They use household incomes when working out family tax benefits, so there is a mechanism already for them to base it on a household income rather than an individual income.
A good start I think.
People earning over $180,000 don’t need tax cuts as they are well off already.
Don’t give that dumb talk about how they can’t afford stuff on $180,000 a year
If they can’t, how does the rest survive on far lower wages?
It’s time that we do something about the wealthy elite
The people paying the taxes arent the "wealthy elite", the wealthy elite dodge income tax. This is a stab at working professionals.
Wealthy working professionals
Well off is not wealthy - very different things.
What should 'we' do about the 'wealthy elite'?
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.
The people voting you down have never known what not being wealthy looks like and likely dont ever get to experience it. Understandable.
Why bother having aspirations in this country as a professional? Young or old.
Exactly. I'm sure that there's some big earning CFMEU, ETU members, stevadores etc not very happy today with this. These are the folk that our socialist clown government are supposed to represent.
You think Labor is a socialist government?
Basing your aspirations of an income tax bracket is fundamental
Your take home pay on a $200k salary is still significantly higher than your take home pay on a $100k salary. So even if you pay more taxes you still have more money in your pocket
Sure, but the guy earning 135k (not 200k) can now look forward to 37% tax for everything going forwards from CPI to simply bank interest for the next 15? 20? years.
Go to a country with the same standard of living as Australia, with lower taxes.
Heck, try to even name another country with the same or higher quality of living, that has the same or lower taxes.
If you can name one, move there.
For those in the top bracket, the difference in original Stage 3 cuts and what the ALP has proposed now is less than $5,000 p.a..
If you're changing your aspirations based on a <$5,000 p.a. tax differential, I can't take you as a serious person.
That's like 10% of their tax - seems like a fair bit to me?
A young person with 160k income earns 9.3k after tax per month. The average mortgage repayment on an average house in Sydney is 9k per month so yeah, aspirations change - Not to mention income has little to do with wealth, there are plenty of low income boomers with more lifetime wealth then a high income of this generation will ever accumulate.
Not to mention income has little to do with wealth, there are plenty of low income boomers with more lifetime wealth then a high income of this generation will ever accumulate.
I agree with you about this, but I cannot imagine a single person who would actually change their aspirations over < $5,000 p.a., like just think about it for a second - "you know, I was planning on becoming an investment banker, but you know what, I have to pay $5,000 more tax per year now, I'm just going to do something else instead".
Do you really think there are people who think like this?
@p1 ama: In isolation no, with everything considered, yeah very possible - it happens all the time. There's a huge amount of young people moving out of Sydney to somewhere like the Goldcoast, Brisbane or Melbourne for more reasonable income to expense ratios and less usually responsibility, it's in the headlines all the time.
In isolation no, with everything considered, yeah very possible
In other words, not over a $5,000 tax differential.
Obviously people's motivations change, it's not necessarily even all financial, sometimes people enjoy the weather, more time with their family, the lifestyle, getting out of the traffic…etc.
Aspirations? You have been sold the great lie.
Look at the USA. They don't have proper living wages and health care, because they might be rich one day. In reality, hardly any of them ever will be. The rich stay richer.
Now its the argument of the Libs. Don't worry about today, worry about what might be in the future.
Albanese is just providing more evidence (not that it's needed) to demonstrate himself as the scumbag that we all know he is.
Yep. Scratch off the surface and you'll find that Albanese, Chalmers, Burke, Shorten etc are dyed in the wool, old school, Australia-hating socialists who have never done a productive day's work in their lives. Their whole careers have been on the taxpayer funded gravy train.
Their whole careers have been on the taxpayer funded gravy train
As opposed to the alternate LNP front bench of hard working ex tradies?
I don't think there's any ex-tradies in federal parliament on any side?
Correct me if I'm wrong.
who have never done a productive day's work in their lives.
Their whole careers have been on the taxpayer funded gravy train.
These statements apply to virtually every PM and prominent Australian politician of the last 20 years.
Stop with this divisive, partisan bullsh*t. They're all the same.
All politics is divisive and partisan - this stage 3 backflip is divisive and partisan.
I'm a hard right-wing conservative libertarian - that's divisive and partisan when you think about it. But there it is.
@R4: No, you're just full of it.
You're a "libertarian" but you deny the free expression and competition of ideas you don't agree with while simultaneously defending anyone from your tribal affiliation who commits the exact same wrongdoings as the other side because "muh party line".
This entire thread is a gallery of cognitive dissonance/mental gymnastics and perfectly summarises why Western voters will always be beholden to corrupt, self-serving politicians because they fail to realise there are only two real sides to politics: us and them, and if you're not sure which side you belong to, you're definitely "us".
Good luck with your broken ideology, I'm sure it'll all work out if you just keep voting, paying taxes and doing the exact same things that have been done in Australian politics for the past 40 years. Degenerate gamblers share a similar mentality and even they get lucky once in a while.
@Gnostikos: Awww diddums.
Feel better now that you've gotten all of that off your chest?
Please point to the post where I denied 'the free expression and competition of ideas you don't agree'. As a libertarian, I believe in genuine free speech (something that those on the left don't). If you have different views to me, party on with them - the more the merrier. I don't impose my views on others and don't want others to impose their views onto me - the great big melting pot of democracy.
I believe in genuine free speech (something that those on the left don't).
Your fake left-right paradigm is about as real as fiat currency. The like-minded morons on the "other side" of the political spectrum preach your mantra pretty much ad verbatim while also simultaneously not practicing what they preach.
Meanwhile, the wolves at the top debate over which sheep will be on the dinner table today.
If you have different views to me, party on with them - the more the merrier.
The truth isn't a "view". It's the unchanging, immutable constant that is there to be realised by those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
But you evidently prefer your juvenile distractions of playing dress-ups, charades and cheerleading.
I don't impose my views on others and don't want others to impose their views onto me - the great big melting pot of democracy.
Ah yes, "democracy". A word that stopped being relevant in political discourse sometime in the early 20th century.
A 1950s mindset trying to tackle the 21st century reality is like rolling a turd in glitter. It's still stinks.
Let me guess, you also believe in "muh Judeo-Christian values" despite the obvious contradiction in that term as well as the fact that it's been corrupted beyond all recognition? Your joints must be sprained to hell from all of those mental gymnastics you need to perform to co-exist with your hypocritical, contradictory views.
@R4: Lol.
I'm a hard right-wing conservative libertarianI'm hot air and empty words.Next time, trying typing at least two sentences to explain why you hold your "superior" political views otherwise expect for people to ridicule you.
Every single time a so-called "right-wing"/"left-wing" person is pressed on the "why" part, they behave identical to each other, i.e. like a bunch of irrational children.
John Howard in 1995: “No, there's no way that a GST will ever be part of our policy." "Never ever"
He the proceeded to introduce the regressive tax and serve for 11 years