- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,760
- Reactions
- 24,739
I don't expect things to be fixed in a day, but I do expect to have a feel for a coherent strategy by now, and there doesn't seem to be one.
lets look at the CoA. Loaded with economic dries and ignores the politics of the changes that need to be made. Little in the it that can help the Government educate (for want of a better word) the public on why the changes are desirable.
Worse, the Government set the terms of the CoA so narrowly and explicitly ignored:
* The GST
* $120B+ of tax expenditures.
If I'm going to pay for an audit that I plan to use to help get my finances in shape, I'm not going to hobble the audit by setting up major areas of my finances as off limits. That's what this Government has done. It's not economically rational.
As for super, we can no longer afford the current system. Something fairer where everyone gets the same tax expenditures each year is probably the best way forward. At least that would be a progressive system rather than the massively regressive system we currently have, but the Abbott Govt has already sided with the 16000 super fund members earning over 100K tax free each year over the couple of million members who were to benefit from the LISC. The Abbott Government purposefully told the CoA to ignore this issue. To me if a system is costing around $60B a year then it's ripe for some massive savings.
Throw in an ex banker heading the financial services review I don't expect any changes, especially when you read about the scandals now coming out regarding financial planers at the CBA under his time as CEO. Funny how that kind of corruption is ignored, but the merest whiff of union corruption gets anyone on the right into a near rabid frenzy. Damning that ASIC ignored it, damning that Labor allowed them to as well.
Just pile it up on the credit card and let the next Government work out how to pay for it all.......Comrades of the Greenies don't know any other way.
With the latest media tweak at a threshold of $100k for 1% on top of the marginal rate and 2% above $180k, the numbers are as follows,Some numbers on the deficit tax that make more sense even if the levy itself still doesn't.
With Medicare (2%) included, the effective income tax rates from $80k to $180k are 40% and 49% above $180k.
The combined effects of the 0.5% Medicare levy increase and deficit tax would from the above be as follows,
Income Extra tax (0.5% Medicare levy increase + deficit tax)
$50,000 $250
$80,000 $400
$100,000 $700 ($500 + $200)
$150,000 $1450 ($750 + $700)
$180,000 $1900 ($900 + $1000)
$200,000 $2400 ($1000 + $1400)
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...ver-new-debt-tax/story-fni0fit3-1226900288574
It is more likely to come in at $100,000, rising to a 2 per cent increase on the top marginal rate of taxation that cuts in at $180,000.
The current thinking remains that it will be in place for four years.
An interesting snapshot of income tax in Australia.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ly-ones-who-pay/story-fnmbxr2t-1226903973995#
And the old schoolboys don't know much else but hysterical rhetoric when it comes to our debt/deficit in comparison with the rest of the world.
An interesting snapshot of income tax in Australia.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ly-ones-who-pay/story-fnmbxr2t-1226903973995#
I wonder if that graph includes tax expenditures. Those on the higher incomes get the lions share of super tax expenditures, along with the halving of the GST rate. Then we have wonderful discretionary trusts that help shelter the assets of the rich too.
Very interesting Dr Zacchary.An interesting snapshot of income tax in Australia.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ly-ones-who-pay/story-fnmbxr2t-1226903973995#
Very interesting Dr Zacchary.
Just 2.3% of workers earn + $180,000/ann. Big revenue raiser any additional tax on them! (eg deficit tax)
Also why work more hours, when earnings of $37,001+ brings such a massive jump in taxation, i.e.
Earnings up to $37,000 = 3.7% tax
Earnings $37,001+ = 32.8% tax
The only thing it does do is show how badly the previous government has performed. Going from no debt to $300billion in six years.
There's the folly in being so reliant on income and corporate taxation.
The faster this Government realises taxing hard work is counter productive the better.
After hearing of the deficit levy I've decided to take up my company's offer to purchase up to 2 weeks extra leave. After tax it's like getting 2 for the price of 1
+1. I'm reminded of the people who decline any suggestion that they had the option of saving for their own retirement. They offer that they could not possibly be expected to do so because "compulsory super has only been in place for less than half their working lives".It seems to me the have nots?? here have a thought that high income earners ( and I am talking 180k-1000k ) have access to tax minimisation strategies that are available to the mega rich.
I can almost assure you there there are not many people in those income brackets who pay less ?% tax than people below the maximum marginal rate.
They still pay truckloads more than the average Joe, who is in fact subsidised often by those who have worked longer hours / sacrificed certain areas of their life to achieve such incomes.
But then again, the world owes certain people a living, and unfortunately those that work the smartest / hardest are often not the beneficiaries of any "generosity" of those who like to enjoy themselves.
MW
PS Yes, I do think that a small percentage of the community expects handouts, not handups.
What's really terrible is Labor are still spending it.........when will it ever end, why wont Labor stop spending our money?
I agree. It will never end. The Gonski Education reforms and the NDIS were cunningly designed to wedge the Coalition and to bleed the economy of billions far into the foreseeable future. Both are hugely inefficient and wasteful like all Labor projects, and the truth is we can't afford them.
+1. I'm reminded of the people who decline any suggestion that they had the option of saving for their own retirement. They offer that they could not possibly be expected to do so because "compulsory super has only been in place for less than half their working lives".
If there's any logic in that I can't see it. What was to stop them saving for their own retirement anyway?
It doesn't take any sort of mathematical wizard to realise that a government pension (even if it were to still exist when they reach the age of eligibility) is hardly enough for a comfortable retirement.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?