Who deserves a tax cut? Sqotty's people working hard in difficult jobs on $200k or more.

[Crankyhawk]

Whats the gap between your income and what you claim as a rich persons income?

$700000k/ year. Ie million dollar a year incomes.

On the stage 3 cuts (which I see the political reasons why labor is doing * all to stop them) would it be politically acceptable to wind them back slightly - in that the only change is reducing the 32.5% bracket to 30%, leave the 120-180k band intact at 37%? This would mean that the tax cut benefit tops out at $120k, and the amount would be 2.5c x 75000 = $1875/ year

(as opposed to current plan of a $9k cut to all earning over $180k)

This would give those earning up to $120k the same tax relief as under the original plan, and this would cover most full time wage earners/ frontline workers in most industries (and still give something to higher earners as well, just not the obscene amount the current plan does)

 

[Magruder]

$700000k/ year. Ie million dollar a year incomes.

On the stage 3 cuts (which I see the political reasons why labor is doing * all to stop them) would it be politically acceptable to wind them back slightly - in that the only change is reducing the 32.5% bracket to 30%, leave the 120-180k band intact at 37%? This would mean that the tax cut benefit tops out at $120k, and the amount would be 2.5c x 75000 = $1875/ year

(as opposed to current plan of a $9k cut to all earning over $180k)

This would give those earning up to $120k the same tax relief as under the original plan, and this would cover most full time wage earners/ frontline workers in most industries (and still give something to higher earners as well, just not the obscene amount the current plan does)

why not simply increase the tax free threshold ?

at say $30k the benefit is roughly the same $2k ish but benefits nearly everyone.

 

[Crankyhawk]

why not simply increase the tax free threshold ?

at say $30k the benefit is roughly the same $2k ish but benefits nearly everyone.

how high would the threshold need to go for that to work
(and I think stage 1 was aimed for low income workers - though somewhere I'm recalling that stage 1 was also "temporary")

 

[Saint]

how high would the threshold need to go for that to work
(and I think stage 1 was aimed for low income workers - though somewhere I'm recalling that stage 1 was also "temporary")

Yeah, that was the LNP trap. They took away the poor people's tax cuts so they could afford the cuts for the rich people.

Those tax cuts are still a year away.

The stupidest thing about the tax cuts is more that they've predicted in 3 years that something would be needed and not interfere with the plans at the time.

Surely, if the tax cuts are needed, then do them then. If they might be needed in the future, then let the Government of the day decide.

They're happening before the next election and the LNP will get the credit. It was stupid of the ALP to support something which was likely to happen under the own Government.

Instead, the LNP will get benefit for the cuts, while ALP will have to balance the budget and take the blame for wherever loses out.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Yeah, that was the LNP trap. They took away the poor people's tax cuts so they could afford the cuts for the rich people.

Those tax cuts are still a year away.

The stupidest thing about the tax cuts is more that they've predicted in 3 years that something would be needed and not interfere with the plans at the time.

Surely, if the tax cuts are needed, then do them then. If they might be needed in the future, then let the Government of the day decide.

They're happening before the next election and the LNP will get the credit. It was stupid of the ALP to support something which was likely to happen under the own Government.

Instead, the LNP will get benefit for the cuts, while ALP will have to balance the budget and take the blame for wherever loses out.

or just pull the cuts and wear the "howling of broken promise" which I think can be easily countered by "budgetary need" or the alternative after the Voice referendum (hopefully) passes then snap election to get mandate to dump stage 3 (maybe with one of the alternate models eg Magruder or my suggestions to water it down/ spread the benefit to where it will actually drie the economy rather than lining high income earners pockets - of which I am one, so am arguing against self interest here)

 

[Saint]

or just pull the cuts and wear the "howling of broken promise" which I think can be easily countered by "budgetary need" or the alternative after the Voice referendum (hopefully) passes then snap election to get mandate to dump stage 3 (maybe with one of the alternate models eg Magruder or my suggestions to water it down/ spread the benefit to where it will actually drie the economy rather than lining high income earners pockets - of which I am one, so am arguing against self interest here)

If they lose the Voice referendum, they won't have the political capital to do that.

I still think making changes to corporate tax rates is more important than adjusting the Stage 3 tax cuts. Salaried workers over $150k are middle managers and technical people without much sway. It's the companies and shareholders making the big profits who created this cycle of inflation and where re-balancing needs to occur.

 

[Crankyhawk]

If they lose the Voice referendum, they won't have the political capital to do that.

I still think making changes to corporate tax rates is more important than adjusting the Stage 3 tax cuts. Salaried workers over $150k are middle managers and technical people without much sway. It's the companies and shareholders making the big profits who created this cycle of inflation and where re-balancing needs to occur.

yes, important to address corporate rates; but lets not make problems (in budgetary terms) worse by giving something that people aren't used to. Far easier to not give it than to give it and take away later.

 

[Magruder]

or just pull the cuts and wear the "howling of broken promise" which I think can be easily countered by "budgetary need" or the alternative after the Voice referendum (hopefully) passes then snap election to get mandate to dump stage 3 (maybe with one of the alternate models eg Magruder or my suggestions to water it down/ spread the benefit to where it will actually drie the economy rather than lining high income earners pockets - of which I am one, so am arguing against self interest here)

Ironically the cornerstone of LNP/Tory/GOP approach to politics...convince those who would benefit from increased social wage to vote for "austerity" etc

 

[Not Important]

anyone know whether the rumour scummo is contemplating a move overseas cos jobs are scarce in au has anything to it?

 

[sataris]

I've mentioned it in other threads, People earning more than $200,000 paying more tax isn't goingto fill the coffers of the treasury when AIG, Rio Tinto, Exxon et al are all paying $0 tax.

Perfect deflection away from the real issues with the tax code.

 

[Blue Arrow]

Lightweight Albo still thinks it a great idea

 

[Rob R]

Would seem to be a winner to keep the 37% to 30% reduction for 120 - 180k and kill the top end part of the change(top margin remains ineffect at 180k rather than 200k) - I think this would save 4-5 billion a year to go into health, education, defence, debt etc

Main priority though needs to be to go after the corporations (especially), trusts, fake charities etc.

Sent from my SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Rob R]

Just received a robocall survey- a few questions but key point seemed to be testing changing the stage 3 cuts or implementing a 1% levy on people earning 120k and a 2% levy on people earning 180k.

Sent from my SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Crankyhawk]

Would seem to be a winner to keep the 37% to 30% reduction for 120 - 180k and kill the top end part of the change(top margin remains ineffect at 180k rather than 200k) - I think this would save 4-5 billion a year to go into health, education, defence, debt etc

Main priority though needs to be to go after the corporations (especially), trusts, fake charities etc.

Sent from my SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Rather direct the cuts more to lower incomes - leave the 37c level but drop the 32.5 to 30c as planned and do something at lower end (slight rise in tax free threshold)