Budget 2019

Logique · 3 April 2019

"Back in Black" turned out to be false advertising. More of a Goose surplus. Re-elect us and we'll reach a surplus sometime in the future. Pursuit of the bottom line at the expense of the very low income incl welfare recipients. It looks tricky and a little deceitful to me. And Labor will probably match the tax breaks.

Not a fan.

For example, enter different income levels into this online calculator, see how the tax break steps up the greater the income. On Newstart? You're getting nothing. An MP? You're getting $'000s:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-02/federal-budget-2019-income-tax-calculator/10959338

If Labor matches the tax cuts, I hope they'll do it in a fairer way:
- increase the tax free threshold, and
- give Newstart and pensioners a pay rise

sptrawler · 3 April 2019

Logique said:
For example, enter different income levels into this online calculator, see how the tax break steps up the greater the income. On Newstart? You're getting nothing. An MP? You're getting $'000s:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-02/federal-budget-2019-income-tax-calculator/10959338

It is called a progressive tax system, if you give a tax cut to the low level, all levels get it.
If some one is earning more, in the same bracket, of course they save more.
]The only other way is to give a tax free amount, outside of the tax system to a certain group of people, Rudd did it with cheques it sounds like this mob are going to do the same.
AS far as I know, you can't give a tax cut to a sector in a progressive system, without those who earn higher getting it. It is amazing how people can't get their head around it.
The only way to punish those who earn more, is to increase the tax on the higher bracket, them everyone screams about bracket creep.

Junior · 3 April 2019

The budget may have failed to address many important areas, but I am pleased they are proposing to move income tax brackets & rates in a meaningful way. Bracket creep really is crippling middle-income workers given the soaring cost of housing, energy etc. in this country.

Considering the case of high-income earners, they are usually supporting a low or zero-income partner, children, mortgage, school fees etc. so to give up half your salary to the Government, really is excessive in my view. Especially if you then consider that this family also pays GST, fuel excise, you are effectively giving well over half your gross income to the Government.

Shane Oliver outlines the issue here:

The Australian tax system is already highly progressive and is becoming more so with the top 10% of earners accounting for roughly 45% of income tax revenue, up from 36% two decades ago. Compared to other comparable countries the top marginal tax rate is both relatively high and kicks in at a relatively low multiple of average earnings. In fact only the top 20% of income earners pay more tax than they receive in government benefits. If this is not limited it risks dampening incentive and productivity.

Article here

Junior · 3 April 2019

sptrawler said:
It is called a progressive tax system, if you give a tax cut to the low level, all levels get it.
If some one is earning more, in the same bracket, of course they save more.
]The only other way is to give a tax free amount, outside of the tax system to a certain group of people, Rudd did it with cheques it sounds like this mob are going to do the same.
AS far as I know, you can't give a tax cut to a sector in a progressive system, without those who earn higher getting it. It is amazing how people can't get their head around it.
The only way to punish those who earn more, is to increase the tax on the higher bracket, them everyone screams about bracket creep.

I agree. The media squawks when higher income earners get a bigger tax break than lower income earners. IF YOU DON'T PAY MUCH TAX, YOU CAN'T GET A BIG TAX CUT! Middle/high income earners cop big tax hikes every single year, thanks to bracket creep. Cuts are needed periodically, to at least partially offset this.

Having said the above, Newstart is disgustingly low compared to other welfare payments, and should certainly be raised.

SirRumpole · 3 April 2019

Junior said:
Especially if you then consider that this family also pays GST, fuel excise,

And no one else does ?

sptrawler · 3 April 2019

Junior said:
I agree. The media squawks when higher income earners get a bigger tax break than lower income earners. IF YOU DON'T PAY MUCH TAX, YOU CAN'T GET A BIG TAX CUT! Middle/high income earners cop big tax hikes every single year, thanks to bracket creep. Cuts are needed periodically, to at least partially offset this.

Yes it would be much better, if the newspaper put up a calculator, that showed how much tax you pay.
But that wouldn't sit well with the left.

Junior said:
Having said the above, Newstart is disgustingly low compared to other welfare payments, and should certainly be raised.

Newstart is very low and makes it hard to manage, I know I have a son who has been on it for 20 years, and as I say to him go to the bush there are plenty of jobs there. His older brother has worked in the bush since finishing school and can get him a job, but he doesn't want to leave Perth and would rather live in a dos house with his mates.
Well you can feel sorry for him, I'm over it.

jbocker · 3 April 2019

For the boomer bashers. The teats are dry its time to cough up.
Were not spending and being taxed like we used to. Get on with it, earn your $ and pay the tax.
The best you can worry about is to Develop a generation of decent politicians that can get you over it.
The boomers are large now but time will sort that out.

sptrawler · 3 April 2019

jbocker said:
For the boomer bashers. The teats are dry its time to cough up.
Were not spending and being taxed like we used to. Get on with it, earn your $ and pay the tax.
The best you can worry about is to Develop a generation of decent politicians that can get you over it.
The boomers are large now but time will sort that out.

What they aren't realising is, the next generation after them is slacker still, so how they think their retirement will be funded is a mystery.
If they think "oh I have my super", well Bill has given them a heads up, it isn't their money and if the Government needs it they will take it.
He is already sorting out their inheritance.
Boy are this entitled lot in for a BIG shock. IMO

jbocker · 3 April 2019

PZ99 said:
Yeah - I remember the days when for every 2 hours I worked I gave 1 hour and a bit to the Govt. Skilled workers with high incomes tended to flee this country because of its punitive tax rates.
State taxes are the real killer these days IMV.

In the midst of all that, do I recall, the govt introduced you could only claim the tax free threshold from ONE job. The rest was taxed at the max rate despite your total weekly earnings.

fiftyeight · 3 April 2019

jbocker said:
For the boomer bashers. The teats are dry its time to cough up.
Were not spending and being taxed like we used to. Get on with it, earn your $ and pay the tax.
The best you can worry about is to Develop a generation of decent politicians that can get you over it.
The boomers are large now but time will sort that out.

Would love to, but I am to busy paying off my HECS bill and HUGE mortgage to worry about politics

Junior · 3 April 2019

SirRumpole said:
And no one else does ?

Of course, everyone does.

My point is that for a family, with one high income-earner, their effective tax rate as a percentage, is very, very high at present and my argument is they are already doing more than enough to support the our society. Particularly if they are also paying for private health cover, private school, and receiving minimal/no subsidy for childcare....therefore easing the burden on the system for everybody else.

Labor/Bill keeps talking about taxing the 'top end of town', well the top end of town already pay the vast, vast majority of tax in this country. And trying to hit salary earners with higher tax rates will do more harm than good.

sptrawler · 3 April 2019

fiftyeight said:
Would love to, but I am to busy paying off my HECS bill and HUGE mortgage to worry about politics

Give it 20 years, then you will be the hated one, that had it so good and own a house.

sptrawler · 3 April 2019

Junior said:
Of course, everyone does.

My point is that for a family, with one high income-earner, their effective tax rate as a percentage, is very, very high at present and my argument is they are already doing more than enough to support the our society. Particularly if they are also paying for private health cover, private school, and receiving minimal/no subsidy for childcare....therefore easing the burden on the system for everybody else.

Labor/Bill keeps talking about taxing the 'top end of town', well the top end of town already pay the vast, vast majority of tax in this country. And trying to hit salary earners with higher tax rates will do more harm than good.

Someone has to pay for the welfare, $165b is a lot of money and those who earn it will have to pay it. You can't have it both ways, you can't increase newstart and give more to low income workers, without taxing higher incomes.
Less than $50k pay no effective tax, to increase that to $60k, the tax on those above that will have to go up proportionately.
Your the accountant.

jbocker · 3 April 2019

fiftyeight said:
Would love to, but I am to busy paying off my HECS bill and HUGE mortgage to worry about politics

We didn't worry about politics either and look what we ended up with.
A quick email occasionally and tell them what you want. Polly's see A letter written and equate that to a large number that have the same opinion that wont write. Get in their ear tell them what behaviour you expect. I would ask for stability if you have been elected, shuffle your leader when in opposition.
Lets hope your HECS and mortgages don't get to 17% interest rates.

HelloU · 3 April 2019

Knobby22 said:
........

Increasing the min from 4700 to 18000 did not translate to tax cuts because taxes were increased at higher levels.

......

Off topic and historical .....and abbreviated for ease of understanding .....

back in 2012 when the tax-free threshold was increased form $6K to $18K they also got rid of one of the tax offsets .... what this means is that prior to 2012 peeps did not really pay any tax up to about $17K any way due to this previous offset and the $6K starting figure was really a bullrubbish figure.

rnr · 3 April 2019

jbocker said:
In the midst of all that, do I recall, the govt introduced you could only claim the tax free threshold from ONE job. The rest was taxed at the max rate despite your total weekly earnings.

Let's face it, a (yearly) tax free threshold is just that, a yearly tax free threshold.
As such it is only fair that you make that claim from the employer where you earn most of your income.
It will all shake out when you lodge your tax return for the year.

Junior · 3 April 2019

sptrawler said:
Someone has to pay for the welfare, $165b is a lot of money and those who earn it will have to pay it. You can't have it both ways, you can't increase newstart and give more to low income workers, without taxing higher incomes.
Less than $50k pay no effective tax, to increase that to $60k, the tax on those above that will have to go up proportionately.
Your the accountant.

I'm saying high income earners are due for some relief, and do not deserve to be demonised by politicians.

sptrawler · 3 April 2019

Junior said:
I'm saying high income earners are due for some relief, and do not deserve to be demonised by politicians.

Everyone else is saying, give more to welfare and low income and take it off the 50% that pay the tax already..

Smurf1976 · 3 April 2019

sptrawler said:
Everyone else is saying, give more to welfare and low income and take it off the 50% that pay the tax already..

My preference is to do everything that can reasonably be done such that people don't end up on welfare in the first place.

That doesn't mean "bashing" the unemployed and so on. It means encouraging savings and investment, pursuing every opportunity for new businesses and thus employment, and so on.

Prevention is better than pain killers.

sptrawler · 3 April 2019

Smurf1976 said:
My preference is to do everything that can reasonably be done such that people don't end up on welfare in the first place.
Prevention is better than pain killers.

There are a lot of unfilled jobs outside the Cities, there should be some means, of facilitating Australians filling them.

Budget 2019

Logique

Investor

sptrawler

Junior

Junior

SirRumpole

sptrawler

jbocker

sptrawler

jbocker

fiftyeight

Junior

sptrawler

sptrawler

jbocker

HelloU

rnr

Junior

sptrawler

Smurf1976

sptrawler

Similar threads

Budget 2019

Investor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency