Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-

[Gralin]

Yeah agreed an income of $180k plus means you should be doing well unless you have made some seriously bad financial decisions Perception is everything though, whilst only a few, there are some here that think that salary affords extreme luxury, it doesn't. Just to add, at least in Vic, a good public school carries a good reputation which then leads to vastly increased housing prices both ownership and rental due to zoning which then prices out middle to lower income families.

Perception as you say is everything.
It's why people on good money compared to the average often still feel like they're struggling.

There's no doubt that someone on $180k with a mortgage is doing worse in real terms than they were 2 years ago, it's more a question of what their worse looks like.

People don't tend to look beyond their own circumstances so you end up with a bunch of people on decent money talking to each other about how much worse life is now than it was before and they'll see this change as a loss instead of a smaller gain.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Yep. If you want lots of public spending, don't vote for the Coalition.

I can't believe a leopard ate that man's face.

 

[DaRick]

Be interesting to see how long the outrage (that feels somewhat confected) lasts.

The Dunkley by election is a test of the decision

Also a test of anti-Dutton sentiment down in VIC.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Except that with bracket creep, this will affect people earning $150K. Which is around 1.5 million people that will be affected.

I don't know whether you are thick or just nasty.

Any way you cut and dice it, the lower-middle classes still do not do as well out of this as their more affluent counterparts.

Are you just a bastard or is there a learning gap with you?

 

[Carringbush2010]

That's your best analogy?

The bottom line here is the tax cuts went to not one but TWO federal elections and Labor supported it. Until now.

It's the third broken promise in less than 24 months after the infamous lower cost of living commitment during the election campaign (hilarious) and the $275 cut to power prices (stop it, my sides are splitting!).

One term government.

Doesn't seem this is the popular view.

 

[Bloods86]

Sigh.

Newsflash - the ALP are the party in power NOW and are the mob making all the mistakes and breaking all the promises NOW. Their decisions and their decisions alone are affecting Australian taxpayers NOW.

Anything that the coalition did or didn't do is not relevant to the conversation.

All your deflection tactics, pea and thimble tricks and Jedi mind tricks are just pointless.

Except you make observations about the current government, that you would never apply to the alternative, despite advocating for them to take back power. Either a lack of credibility means something or it doesn't.

If you were actually genuine, at best you'd call the broken promises a nil-all draw, and have to argue the tax changes on merit.

Instead, since you prefer the superficial sloganeering and political games, it's the easy way out to moan about broken promises.

Jedi mind tricks = pointing out unproven assumptions, ideological bias I guess. Good to know you can't handle it.

 

[Caesar]

I don't mind paying taxes as long as it personally benefits me.

I didn’t say me specifically.

One of the benefits I mentioned was public schools and childcare - I don’t have children. I will never benefit from those things personally. But I could access them if I needed them, which is the definition of a social safety net and the whole point of paying tax.

My problem is not high tax or low tax. It’s a poorly diversified tax system that is too heavily skewed to a small group of taxpayers, resulting in them getting very poor value for their tax dollar (which is both inequitable and bad for the economy)

Go and look at my previous posts about how we compare to the OECD if you still don’t understand.

 

[Donakebab]

No it doesn't. It is exactly to the point. Having a family member with terminal condition is not something that uniquely affects high income earners.

Yeah but he works hard and poor people don't.

 

[Caesar]

Then don't vote for parties that love to gut public services

I would be happy to vote for a party who expanded public services if they did it by correcting the balance in the tax base (rather than simply asking the same taxpayers who already pay too much to pay more)

 

[Caesar]

Yeah but he works hard and poor people don't.

 

[Carringbush2010]

https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/peta-credlin/peta-credlin-points-out-massive-problems-for-labor-amid-stage-three-tax-cut-changes/video/c7ef4bfa0d9ae6d0b0bca9f9900f30e0

Sky News host Peta Credlin explains the “two massive problems” for Labor following the confirmation the government is set to break its pledge to keep the stage three tax cuts as legislated.

"First, there's the broken promise – and governments shouldn't make promises they never intended to keep, especially when they're also pledging to restore integrity in government; so this broken promise looks like hypocrisy, as well as a breach of faith.

"Second, there's the roll-back of one of the few genuine economic reforms of the past decade, the Morrison government's change to a flatter tax system, one that incentivises people who want to work hard and get ahead."

Ms Credlin said, further, the government could – with its surprise surplus – have made the tax cuts for lower-income earners bigger without breaking its promise to those on higher incomes.

“But because they're doing it anyway, this looks like a measure of class war envy – so much for another one of the PM's pre-election commitments that he said he'd matured on from his days when he was an ‘I hate Tories’ undergraduate lefty.

“As well, most of the losers from this change will be in the Teal seats, who now have a reason to feel ripped off by the Albanese government."



She is absolutely smack bang on the money.

It's like the Voice debacle revisited - Airbus Albo's inability to read the room on these issues is staggering.

One term government.

Firstly.

The 'two massive' problems are one re worded as two. Broken promise. In short hyperbole.

Secondly.

Seeing the overwhelming majority of the electorate is far better than if the promise had not been broken, then the majority couldn't GAF about a 'broken promise'

Thirdly.

cretin is desperately clinging looking to turn into a 'class war' when the bulk of the classes are hi fivin each other coz they're all gonna be better off.

So yeah, her and all the lnp desperado's are goin the opposing for the sake of opposing route coz that's all they got. Jan and Joe public are just laughing at all of em.

The 'broken promise' is good policy change, absolutely smack bang on the money.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

Sigh.

Newsflash - the ALP are the party in power NOW and are the mob making all the mistakes and breaking all the promises NOW. Their decisions and their decisions alone are affecting Australian taxpayers NOW.

Anything that the coalition did or didn't do is not relevant to the conversation.

All your deflection tactics, pea and thimble tricks and Jedi mind tricks are just pointless.

Newsflash... the media pressure politicians into making promises. Promises they know will be difficult to maintain if circumstances change. The moment a politician tries to equivocate, they are immediately accused of being weak, or tricky. So of course, every politician tries to prove they are strong and committed, and then crosses their fingers and hopes it all works out.

Of course, once they are in power, and circumstances do change... they're left with a dilemma. Change tack, and risk getting hammered, or stick to their guns even if it has become completely stupid.

Stop and think about it for a moment...

In no other situation would we criticise someone for changing their position if/when circumstances changed. And yet, that's exactly what we do with politicians. It's sport for the media. They are desperately trying to make people angry so they can generate clicks. Rather than actually talk about the merits of the decision.

And pundits like you will fall for it every time. Be upfront. You don't care about a broken promise. You just want your money.

 

[peetoo]

I didn’t say me specifically.

One of the benefits I mentioned was public schools and childcare - I don’t have children. I will never benefit from those things personally. But I could access them if I needed them, which is the definition of a social safety net and the whole point of paying tax.

My problem is not high tax or low tax. It’s a poorly diversified tax system that is too heavily skewed to a small group of taxpayers, resulting in them getting very poor value for their tax dollar (which is both inequitable and bad for the economy)

Go and look at my previous posts about how we compare to the OECD if you still don’t understand.

The one where income tax is rebranded as ‘social security contributions’?

 

[Gavin Excell]

Firstly.

The 'two massive' problems are one re worded as two. Broken promise. In short hyperbole.

Secondly.

Seeing the overwhelming majority of the electorate is far better than if the promise had not been broken, then the majority couldn't GAF about a 'broken promise'

Thirdly.

cretin is desperately clinging looking to turn into a 'class war' when the bulk of the classes are hi fivin each other coz they're all gonna be better off.

So yeah, her and all the lnp desperado's are goin the opposing for the sake of opposing route coz that's all they got. Jan and Joe public are just laughing at all of em.

The 'broken promise' is good policy change, absolutely smack bang on the money.

Not sure why anyone feels the need to respond to Credlin.

She's a Liberal Party shrill

 

[peetoo]

Broken promises since 2007 coalition have taken energy security/carbon mitigation policy to each election and either reneged or undermined others for attempting it.

Far far worse repeated broken promises there

 

[Caesar]

No it doesn't. It is exactly to the point. Having a family member with terminal condition is not something that uniquely affects high income earners.

the point is that you are taxing the higher income earner to a level normally seen in a society with a much better social safety net

if the person on $100K was being taxed like a Scandinavian then I am sure they would feel equally aggrieved at the level of support they had access to for their partner

I am just asking for better consistency across the bands, and better diversity in the tax base - which I think is both equitable and economically sensible

 

[Gralin]

the point is that you are taxing the higher income earner to a level normally seen in a society with a much better social safety net

if the person on $100K was being taxed like a Scandinavian then I am sure they would feel equally aggrieved at the level of support they had access to for their partner

I am just asking for a level of income tax consistency and better diversity in the tax base - which I think is both equitable and economically sensible

Why not ask for the improvement to social services instead?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Not sure why anyone feels the need to respond to Credlin.

She's a Liberal Party shrill

Didn't even know she still existed, my point stands though.

 

[Caesar]

Why not ask for the improvement to social services instead?

Because the origin of this discussion was the equitable distribution of legislated tax cuts

Improving social services without increasing my tax bill is something I’d also be receptive to, but it would take more fundamental reform to the tax system - see previous posts on diversification of the tax base

 

[faible]

Because the origin of this discussion was the equitable distribution of legislated tax cuts

Improving social services without increasing my tax bill is something I’d also be receptive to, but it would take more fundamental reform to the tax system - see previous posts on diversification of the tax base

What’s equitable though? A tax cut for only a small portion of the population or one for almost the entire working
population?

 

[Gralin]

Because the origin of this discussion was the equitable distribution of legislated tax cuts

Improving social services without increasing my tax bill is something I’d also be receptive to, but it would take more fundamental reform to the tax system - see previous posts on diversification of the tax base

Yes I'm aware you're argument boils down to get it somewhere else

Mostly its that.

Everything else is largely window dressing for that because you don't like the changes to stage 3 which still involve you getting taxed less, just not as much less as you want

 

[Gralin]

What’s equitable though? A tax cut for only a small portion of the population or one for almost the entire working
population?

I think we know the answer to this one

 

[Caesar]

What’s equitable though? A tax cut for only a small portion of the population or one for almost the entire working
population?

that’s a very deceptive framing of the package that was passed

 

[faible]

that’s a very deceptive framing of the package that was passed

Is it?

You’re still getting a tax cut, you’re still better off than you were.

There’s a significant cost of living issue going on, and whilst I appreciate that people on higher incomes can still be impacted by this, it’s much better than the position lower income earners are in.

 

[DaRick]

Didn't even know she still existed, my point stands though.

Lucky boy.