It is so strange when you hear the Comrades of the Greens and the Greens themselves raving on that the Government should hit the rich to pay more taxes.....then when a levy is applied to those earning over $80,000 per year our comrades complain about it.....I mean what do they want?
After all, as Joe Hockey states, it is equivalent to the price of a cup of coffee per day....Do you really think they would miss that much for the sake of the nation.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...r-burden-of-levy/story-fn59nsif-1226905277100
It is so strange when you hear the Comrades of the Greens and the Greens themselves raving on that the Government should hit the rich to pay more taxes.....then when a levy is applied to those earning over $80,000 per year our comrades complain about it.....I mean what do they want?
After all, as Joe Hockey states, it is equivalent to the price of a cup of coffee per day....Do you really think they would miss that much for the sake of the nation.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...r-burden-of-levy/story-fn59nsif-1226905277100
I don't have a problem with increasing taxation on the rich, I do have a problem when it's done poorly. The deficit / deceit tax does not help resolve the long term budget issues.
I think we all know where the "policies" for saving the economy will be coming from.
I can just imagine the LNP acolytes humming chants in support of their beloved Lord Tonez as they sacrifice the nation's future in the name of Sur Plus
View attachment 57859
Labor is offering business leaders exclusive access to Opposition Leader Bill Shorten before the federal budget, but it comes at a high price – $3300 for a boardroom lunch.
The problem is, your obvious support of Labors poorly enacted tax reform, didn't result in your constant unending criticism.
Shame you can't apportion your venom evenly, or can't disquise your bias, one of the two.
You mean the tax reform like the LISC that would help over 2 million low income earners have more saved within super? You mean the tax reform like how cars are treated for FBT? You mean the FOFA brought in to try and clean up the financial advice industry.
Like I said poorly concieved, badly implemented and in the majority of cases not thought through.
The last thing low income earners need is money locked away in a system, that even in your words is fundamentaly flawed and unffordable. Maybe pay the money off their electricity bill, it would make more sense.
The car lease fiasco was another example of policy on the run worked out on the back of a napkin and introduced overnight through the newspapers. Appaling and whether right or wrong the implementation was KRudd kindy.
Well, can you point me to any current Govt economic policy that you think we should be supporting? Supposedly they had a plan going into the election, but I'm yet to see any coherency in what they're doing. Seems like gum wrapper policy to me.
Abbotts support of the rentier class prior to the election also means it will be just about impossible to make any meaningful reforms to wind back the $120B in tax expenditures that are bleeding the budget every year.
Unless your proposing to give low income earners extra cash in hand to compensate them for losing the LISC, then all the current Govt has done is to side with extremely wealth* people over a large number of the working poor.
* someone earning at least 100K tax free would be roughly in the top 5% of income earners, so if you're beating more than 95% of the population then I do consider you to be extremely wealthy.
Pay on party which supplies the Prime Minister following the next Federal election.
Coalition: $1.40
Labor: $2.75
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...snt-tough-these-four-budget-reforms-are-tough
Tony and Joe could have a quick read and see what some meaningful reform looks like
The main points
1. Cut super tax concessions
By changing the way superannuation is taxed, the Grattan Institute estimates the government could generate an extra $6 billion a year in income tax.
A recent Australia Institute report found that superannuation tax concessions will become the single largest area of government expenditure by 2016-17.
2. Cut or reduce negative gearing benefits
According to the Grattan Institute, stopping investors' ability to deduct losses they make on investment properties as a tax writeoff could save the government as much as $4bn a year in the short term and $2bn a year in the long term.
3. Axe or reduce the capital gains tax break
According to the Grattan Institute, cutting the 50 per cent tax break Australians receive off capital gains tax would contribute about $5bn per year to the budget. The institute's chief executive John Daley says that this rule "overwhelmingly benefits" the top 2 per cent of Australia's income earners.
4. Broaden GST, but lower income and corporate taxes
Broadening the base of the GST would give the government more room to move with lowering the corporate tax rate (which current sits at around 30 per cent of revenue) and cutting income tax. In return, the government would drive tax revenue by broadening the base and increasing the rate of the GST to encompass more products. The Grattan Institute estimates this will improve economic output by up to $25bn a year.
These are valid areas of review but politically require the argument to be made and a mandate sought. That's hopefully what the upcoming tax white paper will do.The main points.
Mr Costello wrote in his column that the superannuation surcharge was "one of the worst decisions" he made, and lamented that Labor reintroduced it following the Howard government’s defeat.
Yes. It needed to be decisive, hard and swift. This should have been a painful budget. Probably the only thing Keating and Howard ever agreed on was that you have to use up your political capital, it's not a savings plan. You then have 2.5 years to win back your support. Instead, the writing is on the wall that we will toss and turn through to the next election with no real changes.
These are valid areas of review but politically require the argument to be made and a mandate sought. That's hopefully what the upcoming tax white paper will do.
2. Cut or reduce negative gearing benefits
3. Axe or reduce the capital gains tax break
Those two sound like a fantastic way to destroy the middle class. It's these people that have to sacrifice obtaining things in order to invest.
Those two sound like a fantastic way to destroy the middle class. It's these people that have to sacrifice obtaining things in order to invest.
Upping the risk and lowering the reward. There's a point where investing becomes too much of a sacrifice and too risky for the middle class. No incentive to save has an end result in more poor people albeit with the latest iPhones.
Is it better to have more money circulating in the economy and a huge pension line-up when they retire or money going into investments with a large number of self-funded retirees???
Does it matter if the rich get richer if they bring a large number of middle class investors up with them as well???
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?