Labor Tax Policy, where is it?

[Awesomandy]

Well, the polls have it that Libs are on a comeback, but Labor is going to unveil its tax policy at 2:15pm today. It's going to be very interesting, but under the Libs tax policy, I would be around $10k better off each year. Let's see who is going to buy my vote.

 

[algis]

Just a quick observation on Howards proposed fire sale tax cuts:

It will dampen the effectiveness of negative gearing and reduce the motivation for investment that makes use of this.

 

[nioka]

Nioka, I don't think you can reasonably say the only reason John Howard is still there is the fear of a flood of Asian boat people. On the whole people have relegated that to the category "oh well, another stunt, but that was then". .)

It may have been just another stunt but I doubt that he would have won that election without the boat people scare at that time. I did vote for him then, not because of the stunt but because I still believed in him at that time. A belief I can not, and do not, hold now.

Get rid of Howard, Costello and Abbot and I probably will go back to the coalition.( assuming I live that long.)

 

[Rafa]

here it is... well, the overview anyway...

Kevin Rudd has announced major tax refunds for parents, offering up to 50 percent rebates for school expenses.

Labor will overhaul the tax system creating three rates of 15, 30 and 40 per cent by 2016 and will create an education fund by not paying the Coalition's tax cuts for the rich.

Labor will create a $2.3 billion education tax refund to help working families educating their children, Labor leader Kevin Rudd said today.

The education fund will be delivered by not paying the tax cuts for those earning over $180,000, outlined by John Howard and Peter Costello.

The announcement follows the Coalition's unveiling of $34 billion of tax cuts on Monday after announcing a $60 billion boost to the budget because of strong economic conditions.

Labor will create a $2.3 billion education tax refund to help working families educating their children, Mr Rudd said today.

"Labor will introduce a 50 per cent education tax refund for working families for their investment in their kids' education,'' Mr Rudd said.

"We believe this is important.''

The announcement follows the Coalition's unveiling of $34 billion of tax cuts on Monday after announcing a $60 billion boost to the budget because of strong economic conditions.

Ahead of the leaders’ debate on Sunday night, Mr Rudd had been under pressure to prove his economic credentials with more detailed proposals than Labor has laid out, in the lead up to the November 24 election.

The Coalition has outlined a $34 billion tax package after reporting a $60 billion surge in the budget position on Monday.

The Labor leader and his Treasury spokesman, Wayne Swan, have said they want to get the balance right between services and tax cuts.

They have declared they will not match all of John Howard’s spending promises ''dollar for dollar’’.

Any tax and welfare system must boost participation, increase simplicity, focus on working families, provide an incentive for those who want to work more, and increase international competitiveness, Labor has said.

FEDERAL Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has announced what he calls Labor's long-term plan for tax.

Under Labor, tax rates would be 15 per cent, 30 per cent and 40 per cent.

Sky News said that according to its calculations, Labor's tax cuts would come in at $31 billion, compared to the Coalition's $34bn.

Mr Rudd said Labor's tax policy would be submitted to Treasury in appropriate, reasonable time.

Mr Rudd outlined a $2.3 billion plan to give tax breaks to families for education costs, as the first plank of a three-pronged tax reform plan under a Labor government.

"Labor will introduce a 50 per cent education tax refund for working families for their investment in their kids' education," he said.

Mr Rudd said parents of primary school students would be able to claim up to $750 of their outlay on education when they filed a tax return.

Parents of secondary school students would be able to claim up to $1500.

"The eligibility for this would extend to all those kids in Australia whose parents currently receive family tax benefit A and that's more than two million Australian kids," he said.

"And I'm advised about two-thirds of the nation's kids in total."

Parents would be eligible to claim tax rebates on equipment and resources purchased for educational purposes, Mr Rudd said.

"If mum and dad are spending money on buying a laptop, spending money on buying a home computer, spending money on...purchasing internet connection, education software printers and books those expenditures (they) will be eligible to claim the 50 per cent education tax refund that we are putting forward,'' Mr Rudd said.

Mr Rudd said the initiative coincides with Labor's national broadband plan.

"We need to equip our young people with the skills necessary to participate in the digital economy of the 21st century.''

 

[--B--]

so do the pro-rudd people here also consider the tax cuts he proposes are bribes?

or is it only when evil johnny does it?

 

[Yezzy]

My experience is that voters 18 - 25 tend to vote for whoever is already in power since they have no experience with the alternatives.
...

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/10/13/1191696241329.html[/URL]

so do the pro-rudd people here also consider the tax cuts he proposes are bribes?
...

Anyone who doesn't is a fool, simple.



Tax cuts, oops policy, is a non-issue for me. It's just short sighted vote buying while essential services go without.

 

[Rafa]

so do the pro-rudd people here also consider the tax cuts he proposes are bribes?

or is it only when evil johnny does it?

everything promised by anyone in the context of an election is a bribe.
the key is to have a good policy behind the bribe...


the policy i wanted to see, from both parties (given that we are going to get tax cuts regardless of the whether we want them or not)... is
a. simplification of the tax system
b. removal for too many thresholds...

so far, from what i can see, we have one less threshold with rudd... i.e. only 15, 30 and 40... Would like to see that reduced further... but this is a good start.


But, we have an extra set of deductions introduced... via childrens education expenses, which to me only further complicates the tax system...


Does anyone have any research on how much its costs us for all the deductions that we claim???


PS: personally, i claim a stack load of deductions, so having more deductions is a good thing... i am trying to look at this wholistically tho...

 

[--B--]

everything promised by anyone in the context of an election is a bribe.
the key is to have a good policy behind the bribe...

absolutely however its interesting to see people relax their previously 'disgusted' views on Howards 'bribery' now that Kev is following suit.

the policy i wanted to see, from both parties (given that we are going to get tax cuts regardless of the whether we want them or not)... is
a. simplification of the tax system
b. removal for too many thresholds...

so far, from what i can see, we have one less threshold with rudd... i.e. only 15, 30 and 40... Would like to see that reduced further... but this is a good start.

well provided they remain in office until 2016 i suppose it is a good "start"

But, we have an extra set of deductions introduced... via childrens education expenses, which to me only further complicates the tax system...

yep. its another bribe to families. vote buying by Kevin and nothing more.

oh and its interesting to see Kev has deferred the tax cuts to the evil rich people too.... that should keep the howard-haters happy...

 

[The Mint Man]

arminius,
You will be pleased to know that I did read the whole thing, although I did think it was too long: I didnt ask for the life story but thanks anyway. Also dont get too angry, just remind yourself that this is a forum and your bound to have different views to everyone else.

You pointed out a hell of a lot of things that you think the government should/could be doing but Im not even sure Labor has said they would do any of them.... theres probably a reason for that.

Cheers

 

[The Mint Man]

Just a couple of things straight off,
The 15, 30, 40% tax rates will only come in 2016. If Labor is around by then. I think the Libs are well on their way to getting there anyway. I thought the Liberals had already set targets?

Also, in regards to this $2.3 billion education tax refund. I think we need to be told much more about this....... Get this! For starters, I heard wayne swan say that it dosnt even include excursions (which are a part of education) nor does it cover the cost of School uniforms or shoes

Cheers

 

[mark70920]

Everyone needs to take a step back , have a good look at the policies and then compare the two.
A lot of people will take the whats in it for me point of view and vote accordly ,others will look at the benefit to the community as a whole , that may sway their vote and others will still vote the same way no matter what.

Personally tax cuts won't sway my vote one way or the other , John Howard lost me with workchoices.

 

[son of baglimit]

potential hole in the tax refund for education costs.

is it a deduction ? if so, in the real world it will be of NO BENEFIT to low income families, those who need it most, as so many pay little or no tax anyway.
is it a tax offset ? if so, refundable or non refundable ? the difference is...........if it is non refundable, again it will be of little or no benefit to low income families, as it will only refund any tax they pay, and once that tax is exhausted, it has nowhere to go.
e.g. the child care tax refund/offset - while ok for one or more parents with separate incomes over $50k, for anyone below that they often missed out - hence its transfer from a tax offset to a centrelink payment for 07 onwards. it severely discriminated against single mothers trying to get off welfare and work. from the 07 payment onwards its fixed.
the education tax offset has to be 'refundable', so ALL AUSTRALIANS can take advantage of it, not just middle income & higher earners.

 

[Julia]

Joe,
Would it be possible to add a poll to this thread asking members to vote for their preference:

(a) the tax cuts offered by both parties

(b) the same dollar value spent on infrastructure, health, education etc instead.

Didn't want to start yet another thread but would be interested to see the results.

With thanks

Julia

 

[Awesomandy]

I'm very disappointed. All Labor has done is follow the Libs tax cuts, but shift some of the money from the rich to lower/middle class families. And then, it doesn't really matter what the plan is for 201X. There is going to be another election in 2010, so I'm sure they'll have new policies by then.

There are so many things they could've done with the money, e.g. better health, education. But no, they went for the "me-too" politics, which, I have to say, is one of the factors why Beazley never made it.

Oppositions are supposed to come up with different/better plans than the current government. If you can't do that, then why the hell would anyone bother voting you in just to have pretty much the same policies?

 

[Aussiejeff]

I tend to agree. Labor will have to work hard in the remaining five weeks to promote their differences in other key areas such as health and education.

Though I think their main weapon going in to the final week of the campaign should be to somehow convince swinging voters that Rudd is a better choice for PM than Costello, since a vote for yesterday's man (John Howard) is a certain vote for Costello. (That shouldn't be TOO hard!).

In fact, I would probably vote Liberal myself if the Libs could put forward less arrogant alternatives than the incumbents Downer, Abbot, Ruddock and Costello.... there have got to be better choices than that lot for another term!

AJ

 

[greggy]

I'm very disappointed. All Labor has done is follow the Libs tax cuts, but shift some of the money from the rich to lower/middle class families. And then, it doesn't really matter what the plan is for 201X. There is going to be another election in 2010, so I'm sure they'll have new policies by then.

There are so many things they could've done with the money, e.g. better health, education. But no, they went for the "me-too" politics, which, I have to say, is one of the factors why Beazley never made it.

Oppositions are supposed to come up with different/better plans than the current government. If you can't do that, then why the hell would anyone bother voting you in just to have pretty much the same policies?

There's little difference between Labor and Liberal at the federal level. Both parties are now conservative. Rudd says that the Howard Government is out of touch, yet most of Labor's own policies are very similar. One of the best examples of this is the release of its tax policy. IMO the perception is that they may well have waited for the release of the Liberals own tax plan and then copied the best parts of it.
I personally would prefer greater spending on health and education. Australia is doing very well economically, yet there is room for improvement on health and education. Rudd seems hellbent on playing the "small target" game during this election campaign. It worked for Howard in 1996, but back then Keating was very unpopular. Howard is not as unpopular, but I sense that the "Its Time" theme may well end up being the most important factor on polling day.

 

[Buster]

G'Day Julia, Nokia,

Nioka, I don't think you can reasonably say the only reason John Howard is still there is the fear of a flood of Asian boat people. On the whole people have relegated that to the category "oh well, another stunt, but that was then".

I'm not entirely sure what is meant by 'stunt', but I certainly don't remember it that way.. I seem to remember for a while there seeing another boat load on thier way every time we looked at the horizon, but then perhaps being a little 'closer' to the action I may have a different perception..

I think the actions of the government at that time were VERY effective, don't see to many of them now..If anything the policy may have been TO effective as it seems 'people have relegated that to the category "oh well, another stunt"..

It often amuses me when I read through threads and blogs on this topic, and the endless 'Howard is a lying toad, so I'm not voting for him..' I can say that on the points that I have personally been involved he has pretty much given a straight account, and the small variances in the story are probably that the 'messanger' hasn't quite got it right..

BUT, at the end of the day, no matter who fills the position, there is a great deal of scrutiny with every journolist hanging off every word in order to trip them up, every voter looking for a reason to howl 'unfair' and every minority group looking for a reason to whine and demand more money/relief/compensation.. I doubt there'd be too many people that could keep it all together such as Johnny has..

I certainly wouldn't want the job of trying to keep all the people happy, all the time.. and maintaining economic stability etc etc..

Regards,

Buster

 

[Julia]

Buster, your points are well made. But don't forget the politicians choose their roles. Yes, we are tough on them when it comes to elections, but so we should be. They need to be accountable.

Back to tax cuts versus services: an item on the news this morning that the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane is cutting 40 beds and (I think) 17 waiting lists purely because of lack of funds. This "40 beds" represents the lives of many more than 40 people, given the rapid turnover in hospitals these days. Shouldn't funding be increased so this doesn't happen rather than giving tax cuts for new plasma TV's etc? And yes, I know the hospitals are largely funded by the States, but the Federal component of the funding has not grown in line with that of the States.

 

[Buster]

G'Day Julia,

Yes, we are tough on them when it comes to elections, but so we should be. They need to be accountable.

Not a problem with being accountable, I just think that many peaople these days have unreasonable expectations.. after all, he puts his pants on every morning just like me, one leg at a time..(He may even pull his skirt up, just like you, but I'm sure he does that in the privacy of his own home.. seems it's all the rage with the pollies in the UK at the moment.. )

Back to tax cuts versus services: an item on the news this morning that the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane is cutting 40 beds and (I think) 17 waiting lists purely because of lack of funds. This "40 beds" represents the lives of many more than 40 people, given the rapid turnover in hospitals these days. Shouldn't funding be increased so this doesn't happen rather than giving tax cuts for new plasma TV's etc? And yes, I know the hospitals are largely funded by the States, but the Federal component of the funding has not grown in line with that of the States.

This goes back to my previous remark about 'wanting more', and probably your comment about 'stunts'.. perhaps I'm the ulimate cynic but it seems to me that whenever the elections rear thier head, be it local/state/federal there is ALWAYS a hospital closing wards/beds/departments.. They 'sniff' the opportunity to make a political statement of thier own.. as the saying goes 'The sqeaky wheel gets the oil...'

Personally, I would be more than happy to forego the $20 a week tax cut (or whatever it works out to be) and put it into the public areana/infrastrucure IF it was to be spent wisely.. Unfortunately I think that most of the public sectors are so inefficient that the $34Bn would simply be squandered and have no real effect on the average joe.. I'm sure there would be numerous consultants (hope you're not a consultant..) that would benefit though..

Regards,

Buster

 

[Julia]

Ah Buster, so cynical!
You are probably right on all counts.