Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-

Remove this Banner Ad

The Stage Three tax cuts ... putting $9,000 per year into the pockets of the highest earners, while others can't afford groceries or school uniforms, or find a place to live. It's patently bad policy on its face.
Blaming the LNP for tax legislation happening when you're responsible for the budget before and after isn't going to cut it. They should have never promised it.
 
Last edited:
Blaming the ALP for tax legislation happening when you're responsible for the budget before and after isn't going to cut it. They should have never promised it.
I think you mean blaming the LNP (otherwise it doesn't quite make sense to me but maybe I am missing the point)

edit fixed now
 
Last edited:
The Stage Three tax cuts ... putting $9,000 per year into the pockets of the highest earners, while others can't afford groceries or school uniforms, or find a place to live. It's patently bad policy on its face.
Everyone benefits from the bracket adjustment from $40k earners onwards. $9000 relief for those paying tax on $200k just shows how much the govt have been ripping them off. Bracket creep imposts are even higher than the rise in interest rates. Has to be fixed.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Everyone benefits from the bracket adjustment from $40k earners onwards. $9000 relief for those paying tax on $200k just shows how much the govt have been ripping them off. Bracket creep imposts are even higher than the rise in interest rates. Has to be fixed.

Whilst bracket creep is sizeable the 4% rise in interest rates over the last 2 years is equivalent to $20,000 on a $500,000 mortgage which absolutely dwarfs that.
How many high earners would have a mortgage smaller than that? Particularly in Sydney and Melbourne.
 
Whilst bracket creep is sizeable the 4% rise in interest rates over the last 2 years is equivalent to $20,000 on a $500,000 mortgage which absolutely dwarfs that.
How many high earners would have a mortgage smaller than that? Particularly in Sydney and Melbourne.

Yep lets take out loans at rock bottom interest rates and pretend interest rates will never go up ever ever again, even though they've done it throughout history.
 
Yep lets take out loans at rock bottom interest rates and pretend interest rates will never go up ever ever again, even though they've done it throughout history.
Completely out of touch comment. What do you expect people to do given the housing cluster economic circumstances is completely out of their control? Live in tents?
 
Last edited:
Whilst bracket creep is sizeable the 4% rise in interest rates over the last 2 years is equivalent to $20,000 on a $500,000 mortgage which absolutely dwarfs that.
How many high earners would have a mortgage smaller than that? Particularly in Sydney and Melbourne.
Wrong, bracket creep is a significantly bigger impost than interest rate rises and people need to wake up to it. The double whammy of bracket creep and interest rate rises (hitting squarely on middle Australia) is why Australia had the sharpest drop in living standards of all OECD nations last year.

Households coughed up $18.5bn in extra mortgage interest payments in the September quarter compared with two years earlier, bringing the tally to $29.7bn, Judo Bank’s chief economist, Warren Hogan, said.
The increase in households’ income taxes dwarfed that transfer, rising by $25.8bn over the period to $90.9bn in the September quarter
.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...creep-australia-economy-interest-ratesuardian
 
Last edited:
So the unemployment level is starting to turn.
Interest rates doing its work on the working population.

We’ve transferred billions to private companies and banks, that we are responsible to pay back via massive money printing.
Banks record profits
Corporations record profits
Energy companies record profits.

Now we get rewarded with increasing interest rates, increasing basic needs like food and power bills and people losing their jobs.
 
From today's Propagandatiser:

20240118_191552.jpg

I'll tell you what's a 'disgrace': characterising people earning $200,000 as 'middle Australia' and making Stage Three sound like it really benefits people on $45,000. It's not a charitable tax relief for battlers. It's a massive free kick to people who are doing very well. Good on them, but they don't need the money. A person on (say) $60,000 gets **** all and a high earner gets $9,000.
 
From today's Propagandatiser:

View attachment 1888626

I'll tell you what's a 'disgrace': characterising people earning $200,000 as 'middle Australia' and making Stage Three sound like it really benefits people on $45,000. It's not a charitable tax relief for battlers. It's a massive free kick to people who are doing very well. Good on them, but they don't need the money. A person on (say) $60,000 gets * all and a high earner gets $9,000.

Pisses me off beyond words.
 
Wrong, bracket creep is a significantly bigger impost than interest rate rises and people need to wake up to it. The double whammy of bracket creep and interest rate rises (hitting squarely on middle Australia) is why Australia had the sharpest drop in living standards of all OECD nations last year.

Households coughed up $18.5bn in extra mortgage interest payments in the September quarter compared with two years earlier, bringing the tally to $29.7bn, Judo Bank’s chief economist, Warren Hogan, said.
The increase in households’ income taxes dwarfed that transfer, rising by $25.8bn over the period to $90.9bn in the September quarter
.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...creep-australia-economy-interest-ratesuardian

Hate to break it to you but you're not comparing apples with apples. This analysis is comparing all tax payers for which bracket creep is a big issue. The analysis is also looking at the delta in total taxes collected (which includes all tax paying Australians) vs those with a mortgage on a property (much lower population).
Once you're at the top bracket the bracket creep impact is significantly lower as every extra dollar is already at the top marginal rate hence why interest rate rises will impact high income earners, particularly those with big mortgages more than bracket creep.

Overall I don't disagree that bracket creep is a major issue in taxation
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Let’s not knock bipartisanship shall we? It could be argued top bracket earners have had to wait longer for relief

I don’t understand why the opposition is trying to make mischief though. They are L A W law
 
The only slightly redeeming feature of Stage Three is that one day, $200,000 will be an average income. It'll take a while, but it's heading that way.

In 2004, average weekly ordinary time earnings was $24,622 annualised. Today it's $47,788 (it may seem low but that different from average total earnings for full-time employees).


So it's looking like average weekly earnings will be $200,000 in forty years' time ... great.
 
Let’s not knock bipartisanship shall we? It could be argued top bracket earners have had to wait longer for relief

I don’t understand why the opposition is trying to make mischief though. They are L A W law
Top bracket earners don’t have as much need for relief as low income earners, a restructure of the cuts would still give some relief just not the insanity of 9k a year.
 
The only slightly redeeming feature of Stage Three is that one day, $200,000 will be an average income. It'll take a while, but it's heading that way.

In 2004, average weekly ordinary time earnings was $24,622 annualised. Today it's $47,788 (it may seem low but that different from average total earnings for full-time employees).


So it's looking like average weekly earnings will be $200,000 in forty years' time ... great.
There really should be some sort of legislation baked in that income tax rates adjust roughly with inflation every 3 or so years. Of course Governments won't touch that because bracket creep gives them access to higher tax revenue for no negative political impact.

It's the same with private health insurance. $186,000 combined for a family isn't a great deal and you're forced to take out insurance at $300+ per month. 10-15 years ago that amount would've meant you lived a very comfortable life.

$200,000 certainly isn't a high income earner these days if you're a single income earner with a mortgage, especially if you have kids. You'd be comfortable but my no means living a life of luxury.
 
The only slightly redeeming feature of Stage Three is that one day, $200,000 will be an average income. It'll take a while, but it's heading that way.

In 2004, average weekly ordinary time earnings was $24,622 annualised. Today it's $47,788 (it may seem low but that different from average total earnings for full-time employees).


So it's looking like average weekly earnings will be $200,000 in forty years' time ... great.

I'm well above the average, but i can tell you my pay sure as hell hasn't doubled.
So i'm guessing in 10 years time i'll be earning the same amount as a cafe waiter.

I don't think it helps that we pay everyone the same money. People just take the easy jobs and leave the others. Then the government decide to bring in "skilled workers" from overseas, who are fine, then realise that they can get paid the same if they get an easy job.
 
There really should be some sort of legislation baked in that income tax rates adjust roughly with inflation every 3 or so years. Of course Governments won't touch that because bracket creep gives them access to higher tax revenue for no negative political impact.

It's the same with private health insurance. $186,000 combined for a family isn't a great deal and you're forced to take out insurance at $300+ per month. 10-15 years ago that amount would've meant you lived a very comfortable life.

$200,000 certainly isn't a high income earner these days if you're a single income earner with a mortgage, especially if you have kids. You'd be comfortable but my no means living a life of luxury.

Your wife leaves, you have to pay her heaps of money so you're strapped for cash , and BLAM , as a single you may well have to pay for medicare surcharge. $90 000 ish.
 
Top bracket earners don’t have as much need for relief as low income earners, a restructure of the cuts would still give some relief just not the insanity of 9k a year.

Its true , the people with the most need for more cash are people who are poor. We can't give them tax cuts because they don't pay anything.

So we wan't a society where its not possible to get off the poverty line?
How much is too much to take from someone?
It was common for "rock stars" to leave England ( ie address in switzerland which they visited a few times a year ) during the 60s and 70s, because they were over being screwed by the government.

Footy players for example can earn a bomb. But it might only be over 8 years, after which they may be pretty much living on their investments. How much shuld you take from them? How much is too much.
Relieving poverty is only part of the equation.

I think i'm probably more in favour of consumption taxes.
 
Its true , the people with the most need for more cash are people who are poor. We can't give them tax cuts because they don't pay anything.

So we wan't a society where its not possible to get off the poverty line?
How much is too much to take from someone?
It was common for "rock stars" to leave England ( ie address in switzerland which they visited a few times a year ) during the 60s and 70s, because they were over being screwed by the government.

Footy players for example can earn a bomb. But it might only be over 8 years, after which they may be pretty much living on their investments. How much shuld you take from them? How much is too much.
Relieving poverty is only part of the equation.

I think i'm probably more in favour of consumption taxes.
perhaps we direct subsidies and handouts towards those with low income and low wealth
instead of propping up investors.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top