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
Spoken like a true moron
Thanks Dax for the insight into a typical Labor voter.
The evolution of the LNP as the party of the working Australian is well underway!
This is why I never vote labour because I know they are backed by idiotic voters like this person.
It was the correct thing to do given economic circumstances have changed since they were introduced. It now provides a tax break for all Australians which is a good thing.
Expect the Opposition to hyperventilate about it for the next year as though the sky was falling down. They have run out of ideas and are poorly led, so they think this strategy may gain them some votes.
No. The "correct" thing to do would be to have an automatic progression of all brackets, based on CPI to factor for bracket-creep (ala Canada, Denmark, Sweden). But our pollies on both sides would rather play political point-scoring than do anything that's of real value.
Wish I could a refund for my career investment .. what a waste of my life …
a) $70K for my 1 Bachelor degree and 2 Masters degrees = $70,000
b) 8 years of full-time study time at circa 2,000 hrs per year = 16,000 hrs x $25/hr = $400,000
c) 300 hrs per year of unpaid overtime over 25 years, so 7,500 hrs x $25/hr = $187,500
Total career investment = $657,500
Uni is a scam. I fell for it too and I am sorry you did as well.
This is more influence from the previous generation. "You have to go to uni to get a job!" - No, should have got a skill during those 6 years and capitalised on it. We now have people with degrees on 40k a year.
Wow this is horrifying! Mercifully a bullet I dodged!
What do you do now with all that study? If you earn 200k+ then it is worth it
yea, earn about that .. but it's too late .. takes 20 years to get that, so …
(a) then it's get taxed so much and
(b) with all that study, I missed the boat on house prices (compared to be a tradie at 17 yrs old).And that Tradie will be driving around in his new Amarok/Ranger while his Mrs is driving around in the new range river, all subsidised by the tax payer.
Absolutely agree with you.
I am an immigrant in my early thirties. I came to Australia, the greatest country in the world as a kid and lived at the Salvation Army until my parents were able to find work to live in a small apartment.
I worked hard through public schooling and public university to become a surgical trainee earning >250k. I studied at university for 7 years and have been a doctor in the public healthcare system for 8 years. For this, I work >130 hours per fortnight and do 36 hours shifts. I am paying off a mortgage and have a modest house in a desirable area. Despite this, I don't feel "wealthy" compared to boomers who through pure chance were able to purchase multiple properties for next to nothing, invest in blue chip mining companies. Income taxation is government sanctioned theft from the hardest working segment of the population. We need to be taxing wealth, not income.
Why would anyone want to pay more tax to the government?
Jebaited by albo
If you earn between $135 and $190k.
You just earnt a 7% tax increase under Albo
That's less than 10% of Australians. So, good on Albo for thinking about 90% of Australians.
In this thread: People who don't understand how progressive tax brackets work.
I like the cash bracket haha
I think a more accurate and honest way to put it is:
You just earnt a tax cut but not as big as you were expecting
A million tax payers don't get as big of a cut 14 million get a bigger tax cut, sounds like a good pan to meIt’s also not true because those on $135k to about $150k will receive a larger tax cut from the new plan due to changes to the tax free threshold and other lower tax rates.
Can we get a I voted labor but I don't wanna vote either, vote for third party.
And yes I know not voting either might be somewhat careless but we need more influence outside these parties. We usually have PMs that are complete idiots, and treasurers that have joined that group too.
I feel the same way as well .
I think in the next election , we are going to see more people vote for independents. Labour was willing to take an axe to the stage three tax cuts but not talk about negative gearing and other boomer friendly tax policies is ridiculous.
Can make changes to negative gearing but you'll need support within government to do it. So strategically you'll have to make deals left, right and center without them knowing what they're agreeing too. Eliminating negative gearing just seems an impossibility - maybe a war, recession, mass riot or revolution will change that. I'd just reduce negative gearing to 2 extra properties at most per person/couple with property valuation caps of say 1.5-2m combined.
There are also a stack of policies you could introduce that would also benefit society, these might include:
- further tax brackets for wealthier people (some wealthier people have actually supported this)
- minmum tax payments for eof - basically wealthy people, eg 6x figure earners and millionaires are required to pay a fixed unclaimable, unrebatable tax - also apply to businesses, different structures and ways of doing things so it'd be workable.
- the gov should stop bailing out private sector business, and instead grow government organisations to replace or compete with private sector. Eg public housing
- politicians are not allowed conflict of interests when being involved in legislation - they simply have no vote! Or say! Eg. So say we all.. Lol so if negative gearing changes were made no politicians with investment properties can vote on changes, in other word be voting against or no, cause we know they all do.
I'd love to know what percentage of people earn over 180k when you DONT factor in deductions such as negative gearing.
As someone over 180k, I'd love to see them abolish negative gearing (and not some bullshit grandfathering clause so all the pollies can keep their current investment properties). Make it fair, 2 year time limit and its gone.
Sweeten the deal by lowering tax for everyone
@dmcneice: For me the issue with negative gearing is that it's a tax break that doesn't seem to have any clear purpose. Tax breaks like that should be in the context of some broader economic / social goal, and geared towards that goal. So we have a housing crisis in this country because we've allowed population growth via immigration to vastly exceed the rate of growth in housing. So if you're going to have a tax break for investing in housing, it should have to be investing in increasing the capacity of housing, not just buying any old property and sitting on it for 20+ years.
Tax breaks should be for new builds that increase housing capacity ie building on previously vacant land, or demolishing existing housing and building a larger amount of housing on the same land. Perhaps instead of negative gearing there should be some kind of GST rebate or other tax break on the actual construction costs of new builds that increase capacity? Or only allow negative gearing on those newly built properties and only for, say, the first 5 years after construction. After that if you want to keep getting the negative gearing tax break you'll need to sell that property and buy / build another new one.
I have no idea how workable any of this would be, but I guess my basic point is that tax breaks in general should be geared towards fixing broader problems other than just letting some people pay less tax because people don't like paying tax.
@dmcneice: Very few like you are in a dinghy. Rich people love negative gearing.
Lowering tax for everyone.. Hmm if you do put more brackets in with higher percentages for larger incomes.
They took negative gearing to the election before last and lost because of it.
The australian people have shown they will not vot ein a government who threatens negative gearing.I think Labor do want to make changes to it and reduce it but wont touch it for a while now.
Better to be in Government compromising on some of your policies than not be in government at all.
Let's start an OzB Political Party and bring real choice to the voting public! Our motto can be "do what's right, not what will keep us in office"
Doing what's right doesn't work in politics. Being a back stabbing mthfker and crawling over your opponents and party friends is the status quo.
We also might have too many rich people on Ozbargin
Been looking at the shambles that is the whirlpool discussion on this and it just leaves me staggered that some people on the top tax bracket are genuinely arguing that they need the original tax cut to make ends meet.
How can people be simultaneously smart enough to earn income that high but unable to budget.
Yeah when I told my friend (who is a GP) about this, what the f1ck?! and then I asked him if $4K off his tax bill is really going to help, compared to what his tax bill is going to be? Good point he says …
People get onto the hedonic treadmill and soon become accustomed to their new level of income. Someone on $200k/pa can feel poor if they desire a $2M home in Sydney.
“Hedonic treadmill”… is that original? I love it!
For those surprised by the number of people saying they are happy with these changes (67% at the time of this post), according to the ABS only about 5% of the population make $180k or more, so the majority are benefitting from these changes. So it should come as no surprise that majority of these poll participants are happy with these changes.
The majority of tax payers already benefited from stage 1 and 2.
I dont agree that politicians should be able to change election promises.
And now the majority are benefiting from stage 3. What's the problem?
It would be nice if politicians actually kept their promises but we know that never happens whatever side they are from.
Are you even looking at the results of this poll?
In theory, Ozbrs should be overweight in the lower income brackets
This is confirmed by the blowout ratio of “Voted Labor, still voting Labor” + “Voted LNP, still voting LNP”
To determine the net effect of this Tax policy change, we disregard the 1st and 4th poll votes focus on the 2nd and 3rd option. It’s a net loss since the folks that benefit from these changes the most were already Labor voters.
Don’t be fooled stage 3 was supposed to be 30% from $45k up to $200k.
Now anyone from $135k+ is worse off at 37% then 45%
It’s not just $180-200k earners screwed by Albo
Now anyone from $135k+ is worse off at 37% then 45%
That's not how tax brackets work. Why is this so hard for some people?
I'll be worse off but still better than I am with the current tax rates. Happy to take a bit of a hit for the greater good.
Same here. I'll still be getting a decent tax cut, just not as much I was getting before these changes. But, frankly, as nice as it would be, I don't really need that money - I'm getting by ok already. In the current economic climate there are a lot of people worse off than me who actually do need that money. Even now I'm still going to be better off to the tune of several thousand dollars a year than I currently am, I'd have to be some kind of sociopath to complain about not getting more! More! MORE! instead of sending some tax cuts where they'll benefit the most people.
Taxing the upper middle class to subsidise lower middle class
And leaving middle class ppl to fight / debate among themselves
The truly wealthy people probably dont care, as they are likely capital rich and income poor
Good move by the way - securing 10m votes at the expense of ~1m, and its not obvious that the 1m would be better off voting for the opposition anywayIs it though? These cuts are like preaching to choir who are already their voting base.
I think alot of LNP voters voted Labor because Scummo was so unlikable and also took Albo at his word thinking it was fiscally a safe choice.
I’d argue it’s his votes to lose, rather than gain with this gambit.
Time will tell
A taxable income that was $131,501 or higher was within the top 10% of earners in Australia last year. About 5% of taxpayers had incomes above $180,000. Someone who earned more than $253,066 was in the top 1%.
Considering bracket creep. It’s closer to 10% of the income earning voter base not 5% that everyone throws around that’s actually negative impacted
It's 10% now, 12% next year, and the number would keep growing.
What if i think changing the tax cuts was the right thing to do but it's still not enough to make up for the lack of action to correct the housing crisis so im not voting Labour because of that?
So the moral of the post is….. vote for tik fokkers and instagrubs instead?
Or YouTubers that love interacting with dead bodies in Japan and calling it content?
More people will be better off with these changes, they do impact me negatively but I am and will be fine anyway.
If that’s the case, then wouldn’t universal income be the solution?
Sure, happy to have that discussion. We will need to have it sooner of later anyway.
I’m guessing you earn well below 250k
UI or basic income should be progressive meaning start making for eg 90k$/y its reduced to 80% and 100k$/y 60% etc until it vanishes to 0. And in this example say u get 25k$/y indexed to politicians pay haha. Rich people shouldn't be entitled to it either and a minimum age limit imposed. Eg 19=> cause if you living at home, and schooling you don't technically need it
It wouldn’t be universal then
So it's up to 1106 votes to blindly vote for you know who.
Can someone tell me if newly added accounts can vote on polls?
Seems odd that this topic was created on the 24/01 and by the 30/01 it has slowly crept over the 1100 mark??
Now that the dust has settled and the LNP has conceded, I’m going to go so far as to say this single policy change alone justifies Labor’s entire term.
They’ve done quite a fair bit in such a short term already, but hypothetically if they did nothing else but this, it would be “enough”. It’s no longer difficult to explain to the average, uneducated joe that “Labor and LNP are not the same.” And if they have doubts, they need only look at their tax return.
It's not about election promises - it's actually just very bad policy.
Instead of getting rid of negative gearing which is a horrible incentive - almost mandating speculating on property, ALP wants to tax high-value professional workers, and removed reform for bracket creep.
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2024/02/bracket-creep-slowl…
Many workers affected can simply pack up and go elsewhere, there's more countries than ever offering much lower taxes for foreigners, including many in Europe. Australia is already a very boring and expensive country to live, it really can't afford to push high-earners out.
Taxes have negligible effects on migration of rich people.
The people on >190k are hardly rich, they are just highly skilled workers, and believe me I know many of my colleagues including myself that are making plans to move.
Australia has historically had a lot of brain drain, but I think it's actually been good in the last 6-8 years, but then this doesn't help.
Don't let the door…..
People on >190k are hardly rich.
Yep, I’m gonna stop reading riiiiight there.
No one on $180k has waterfront mansions and exotic cars.