Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-

[Gralin]

People are idiots and don't stop to think that the alternative may be worse.

rusted ons aside
the so called swing voters

if they're happy with the current government vote that way if not vote opposition

a lot of people wont vote outside the majors and with the two party preferred at some point you have to put them in order of preference

its why you get pork barrelling in swing seats leading up to most elections

 

[faible]

anyone earning above the tax free threshold but the bottom end of that is like $50 a year

View attachment 2162697


It doesn't help people on welfare payments, it doesn't help people earning below the tax free threshold

it helps people earning more, by a larger margin than it helps people earning less

they made multiple change to multiple brackets so they absolutely could have adjusted how it worked

they didn't raise the tax free threshold either

as I said it wasn't good policy and for a lot of people their cost of living has gone up by way more than the $140 a month in their pocket

of course nobody is going to say they don't like having more money in their pocket but COL has eaten up all of that and more so for most people they are still worse off post that, not as badly as without it but it doesn't mean they will see it as much help

Again though, the nature of our tax system means changing the bottom end (e.g. the tax free threshold, the brackets, the percentages) is going to put more money (as an absolute figure) in the pockets of those who pay more tax. It's unavoidable.

If they raised the tax-free threshold (personally I'm in favour of dumping a heap of the deductions people can claim without any evidence and just increasing the tax-free threshold as a starting point to tidy up the tax system) it still means high income earners pay less tax. If they change the lowest tax bracket, it still means high income earners pay less tax.

The absolute amount saved, and the percentage amount saved, are also different things. So whilst a high income earner might save 'more' tax as a dollar figure, it might be the same or less as a percentage figure.

 

[AvantGardener]

Again though, the nature of our tax system means changing the bottom end (e.g. the tax free threshold, the brackets, the percentages) is going to put more money (as an absolute figure) in the pockets of those who pay more tax. It's unavoidable.

If they raised the tax-free threshold (personally I'm in favour of dumping a heap of the deductions people can claim without any evidence and just increasing the tax-free threshold as a starting point to tidy up the tax system) it still means high income earners pay less tax. If they change the lowest tax bracket, it still means high income earners pay less tax.

The absolute amount saved, and the percentage amount saved, are also different things. So whilst a high income earner might save 'more' tax as a dollar figure, it might be the same or less as a percentage figure.

Its not unavoidable you just need to change the top end too.

Raise the tax free threshold to $30K may save a $500K earner $2K tax. But if you raise the highest rate from 45% to 50% at the same time thats an extra $15K they end up paying.

There will be some people caught in the middle but the general gist is high income earner still pays more.

 

[Gralin]

Again though, the nature of our tax system means changing the bottom end (e.g. the tax free threshold, the brackets, the percentages) is going to put more money (as an absolute figure) in the pockets of those who pay more tax. It's unavoidable.

that's not true at all

we have brackets, you make changes to a bracket it doesn't change higher brackets, they changed every bracket

if they had only made change to the bottom 2 brackets then people above those brackets would not have gotten more back

If they raised the tax-free threshold (personally I'm in favour of dumping a heap of the deductions people can claim without any evidence and just increasing the tax-free threshold as a starting point to tidy up the tax system) it still means high income earners pay less tax. If they change the lowest tax bracket, it still means high income earners pay less tax.

yes but by the same amount as lower incomes

The absolute amount saved, and the percentage amount saved, are also different things. So whilst a high income earner might save 'more' tax as a dollar figure, it might be the same or less as a percentage figure.

at $20k you saved $54 if you earned $200k you saved $4529

the first one is 0.27% the second was 2.26%

so in real terms the higher earner gets a higher percentage back

someone on $80k gets back $1679 which is 2.1%

 

[faible]

Its not unavoidable you just need to change the top end too.

Raise the tax free threshold to $30K may save a $500K earner $2K tax. But if you raise the highest rate from 45% to 50% at the same time thats an extra $15K they end up paying.

There will be some people caught in the middle but the general gist is high income earner still pays more.

Sure, if you're wanting to make substantial changes to the tax system and revamp the top brackets then you can definitely do something like that. The Stage 3 tax cuts weren't that though, and the ALP adjustments to them were a good change that meant almost every tax-payer got something, unlike the LNP cuts which were solely aimed at one demographic only.

I'd also be looking at how to properly deal with the ultra-wealthy who don't necessarily derive the largest portion of their wealth increases from income but rather from things like share value.

We also don't (IMO) do a good job of extracting fair value for the Australian public from the finite natural resources mining companies make a killing on.

 

[The Punter]

A little bit disingenuous to use the term "Stage 3 Tax Cuts" and criticise them in a vacuum without acknowledging Stage 1 and Stage 2.

 

[Gralin]

A little bit disingenuous to use the term "Stage 3 Tax Cuts" and criticise them in a vacuum without acknowledging Stage 1 and Stage 2.

nah

Sorry, but the old Stage 3 cuts were not fair even when you included Stages 1 and 2

The total tax package designed by the Morrison government was not fair because Stage 3 was so clearly directed to giving money to those on high incomes. The new changes improve the entire package.

australiainstitute.org.au

 

[faible]

that's not true at all

we have brackets, you make changes to a bracket it doesn't change higher brackets, they changed every bracket

if they had only made change to the bottom 2 brackets then people above those brackets would not have gotten more back

They adjusted the start and end points for the higher brackets (IMO this should be indexed to inflation anyway across all brackets) and changed the tax rate itself for lower brackets.

yes but by the same amount as lower incomes

Yes and no. If you're at the top end of a tax bracket you'll still get more back than someone at the bottom end of it.

at $20k you saved $54 if you earned $200k you saved $4529

the first one is 0.27% the second was 2.26%

so in real terms the higher earner gets a higher percentage back

someone on $80k gets back $1679 which is 2.1%

The higher income earner pays a higher proportion of their income in tax, so they'll receive more money back.

Someone earning $20k is paying how much tax?

They also adjusted the medicare levy threshold which did help low income earners.

No one is arguing they were perfect changes, but such a change doesn't exist. The change undoubtedly improved upon the LNP version, and put money back in the pockets of the majority of working Australians. So whilst imperfect, it was a positive change.

 

[Gralin]

lets not forget part of stage 1 was a temporary offset that has now expired yeah

 

[King Patty]

Labor adjustments were a lot bett er than what Liberal had planned for stage 3 cuts, but they still weren't perfect.
And Labor have changed the nature of superannuation as well, with taxing unearned revenue albeit that is only for the rich for now.

 

[The Punter]

nah

Sorry, but the old Stage 3 cuts were not fair even when you included Stages 1 and 2

The total tax package designed by the Morrison government was not fair because Stage 3 was so clearly directed to giving money to those on high incomes. The new changes improve the entire package.

australiainstitute.org.au

lets not forget part of stage 1 was a temporary offset that has now expired yeah

Far be it from me to be the first person on here to change your mind on anything, but it was a plan with stages, and these are the facts, and they are undisputed. You don't have to like it, but it was a plan. With. Stages.

 

[faible]

nah

Sorry, but the old Stage 3 cuts were not fair even when you included Stages 1 and 2

The total tax package designed by the Morrison government was not fair because Stage 3 was so clearly directed to giving money to those on high incomes. The new changes improve the entire package.

australiainstitute.org.au

That article isn't quite saying anything to contradict his comment.

Stage 3 in the LNP form was a shit deal for the vast majority of taxpayers, and Stage 1 and 2 very much didn't justify making those changes for high income earners given they'd already benefitted from Stage 1 and 2 as well.

The package as a whole did benefit most middle income earners, and yes, the temporary cut for low income earners was a bit of a sneaky LNP tactic to justify a permanent cut that only helped out high income earners. With that expiring there should also have been a reassessment of the tax-free threshold (IMO).

But as I said, whilst not perfect by any means, it was a clear improvement on the LNP's offering. Same as the Super changes on income earned on very high super balances.

 

[Gralin]

They adjusted the start and end points for the higher brackets (IMO this should be indexed to inflation anyway across all brackets) and changed the tax rate itself for lower brackets.

yes I know what they did

Yes and no. If you're at the top end of a tax bracket you'll still get more back than someone at the bottom end of it.

but if they dont change higher brackets then there is a limit to how much you get back that is capped at a much lower income

which is the point

The higher income earner pays a higher proportion of their income in tax, so they'll receive more money back.

theoretically
reality is above a certain income tax minimization means the majority don't
the brunt of the burden on the tax system is not the high earners, they tend to take more than their fair share back out

Someone earning $20k is paying how much tax?

not the point is it, you were suggesting in real terms as a % of income lower earners might be better off even if in raw dollar values they didn't look it

They also adjusted the medicare levy threshold which did help low income earners.

that was separate legislation

No one is arguing they were perfect changes, but such a change doesn't exist. The change undoubtedly improved upon the LNP version, and put money back in the pockets of the majority of working Australians. So whilst imperfect, it was a positive change.

they polished a turd

but it was policy they voted for in opposition as well, they voted for the original shit policy

someone on $80k being $1800 a year better off from the tax cuts is with inflation still worse off than a year ago

this is the issue

that policy change didn't even keep up with inflation

a negative is still a negative

sure we are going backwards more slowly from this change but the end result is still going backwards

and that is the real issue

nobody is actually better off from that policy, they are just less worse off than without it

incremental change that doesn't even keep your head above water isn't something to give big points to a government for

 

[Gralin]

Far be it from me to be the first person on here to change your mind on anything, but it was a plan with stages, and these are the facts, and they are undisputed. You don't have to like it, but it was a plan. With. Stages.

yeah but the whole you have to look at it as a whole
no we don't

labor didn't legislate stage 1 and 2

 

[faible]

not the point is it, you were suggesting in real terms as a % of income lower earners might be better off even if in raw dollar values they didn't look it

If it was unclear, I meant as a percentage of tax paid.

nobody is actually better off from that policy, they are just less worse off than without it

Inflation would push middle income earners up a tax bracket where they'd receive a higher benefit?

Seems to me a lot like you're arguing an imperfect solution is imperfect, so nothing should have been done?

 

[Gralin]

That article isn't quite saying anything to contradict his comment.

i mean his talking point is the one that article is refuting I think
nobody is disputing that the first two stages existed

but they don't make either version of stage 3 any better

they were already legislated

Stage 3 in the LNP form was a shit deal for the vast majority of taxpayers, and Stage 1 and 2 very much didn't justify making those changes for high income earners given they'd already benefitted from Stage 1 and 2 as well.

The package as a whole did benefit most middle income earners, and yes, the temporary cut for low income earners was a bit of a sneaky LNP tactic to justify a permanent cut that only helped out high income earners. With that expiring there should also have been a reassessment of the tax-free threshold (IMO).

brackets absolutely should have been looked at properly

But as I said, whilst not perfect by any means, it was a clear improvement on the LNP's offering. Same as the Super changes on income earned on very high super balances.

again I addressed this above

less shit but still shit

its real lesser of two evils stuff

people want a win for something that is still overall bad just because its less bad than it was

like the bare is so ****ing low to begin with that saying you raised it slightly really shouldn't be classed as a win

they didn't improve it enough is my point

you're saying we should be happy we got anything and I'm saying we should be pushing for better

 

[faible]

i mean his talking point is the one that article is refuting I think
nobody is disputing that the first two stages existed

but they don't make either version of stage 3 any better

they were already legislated

brackets absolutely should have been looked at properly


again I addressed this above

less shit but still shit

its real lesser of two evils stuff

people want a win for something that is still overall bad just because its less bad than it was

like the bare is so ****ing low to begin with that saying you raised it slightly really shouldn't be classed as a win

they didn't improve it enough is my point

you're saying we should be happy we got anything and I'm saying we should be pushing for better

To clarify, your version of bad is 'most taxpayers get extra money in their pocket'?

It's fine to argue that it should have been different, or gone further, but fundamentally they represented a positive change for most taxpayers.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

wow!

What an awful awful policy.

 

[MarcMaverick]

What an awful awful policy.

One which the Aussie will welcome with glee, because we're stupid.

You want Australia to turn into the new North Korea/China/Hermit Kingdom, well here you are. Well Done!

Drongos.

Unless you vote in the likes of Ancic,Rennick or Hanson, there goes your freedom and free speech. And I hate saying that.

 

[Gralin]

To clarify, your version of bad is 'most taxpayers get extra money in their pocket'?

It's fine to argue that it should have been different, or gone further, but fundamentally they represented a positive change for most taxpayers.

my definition of bad is the majority of the budget spend on this change going to the people who need it least

the billions that go on the high income earners tax cuts could have been much better spent on increasing welfare payments for example

its like how we spend more on negative gearing than we do on public housing

or how the feds put more into private schools than they do into the public system

they could have raised all welfare payments to the poverty line but instead they gave $9k to people earning over $200k

so yes to me that is bad

 

[JackOutback]

I love these little lists because they sound good on paper



do we actually have cheaper childcare or did the government subsidise center profits?


hows that working out for people?

and a bunch of other meds got more expensive and or removed from pbs


how does that work in real terms, who can access it, does it help

most announcements like this 90% of people are not eligible for and the kind of people who you think would be eligible largely are not



meaning?


cool and how much have fees gone up by and how much HELP debt do people have?


and they've done what again

the health systems nationally are absolutely screwed

people are paying more out of pocket than ever to get medical care


cool i have noticed zero improvement in my working conditions and I am far from alone in this

headlines are great, announcements are great

but outcomes are all that really matter


doesnt impact most voters

two budgets where they have left people behind to get a surplus

honestly the only people that crow about this are people that are well off or stupid

in a cost of living and housing crisis the government saved billions that could have been spent on supporting people

yeah such a win


that they never should have implemented

they're still bad just less bad, its not a win


they've not done anything
in fact Services Australia has gotten worse under labor
government services are failing but hey we got a surplus or two yeah

cant get your baby on your medicare card for 6+ months and have massive out of pocket medical expenses etc


if you are arguing they haven't slashed government services then I can only assume you a) don't use any b) don't know anyone who does and c) don't read anything at all about the issues

but the very bottom line is the real issue

the fact is that more people are worse off now than they were 4 years ago

your list means nothing to these people

all that matters is they are worse off

and who was in power while they were worse off

all your list does is piss those people off thats it

and then you will blame them for not voting for who you want, when who you want hasn't done jack shit to be worth voting for

we vote governments out in this country, Labor are well on their way to being voted out


because for the majority of people life is not better, the majority of policy labor has announced has been ineffective or bad or both

its all about headlines with no substance, no real change, tinkering around the edges to be seen to do something

great but when most voters dont see the benefit they call bullshit on your policy


thats the thing you aren't getting

I'm not talking about me, I'm talking about what has happened everywhere and is going to happen here next year

the incumbent is going to be punished by the voters for how those voters lives are going and labor has done nothing to change that

people saying how can you vote for Dutton he's worse are missing the point entirely of how the majority will vote and why

And you did exactly what I said you would, run line by line and complain about aspects of everything. You said they did nothing, I showed they did something, you say it's not enough or something else happened that minimises it (apparently fee free TAFE course isn't good policy because HELP went up?) or it benefits everyone but you don't like the way they got there (stage 3 tax cuts). They are objectively better than the government that came before, now it's up to them to communicate that and if they can't they are in trouble, but let's not pretend the Morrison years were the same or better.

Fight for the change you want, vote Greens, but arguing Labor and Liberal are no different is reductive and leads to more Liberal governments that are objectively worse for people you claim to be wanting to help.

 

[Gralin]

And you did exactly what I said you would, run line by line and complain about aspects of everything. You said they did nothing, I showed they did something, you say it's not enough or something else happened that minimises it (apparently fee free TAFE course isn't good policy because HELP went up?) or it benefits everyone but you don't like the way they got there (stage 3 tax cuts). They are objectively better than the government that came before, now it's up to them to communicate that and if they can't they are in trouble, but let's not pretend the Morrison years were the same or better.

Fight for the change you want, vote Greens, but arguing Labor and Liberal are no different is reductive and leads to more Liberal governments that are objectively worse for people you claim to be wanting to help.

and you need to understand that people largely don't care about policy that doesn't impact them personally and that for a lot of people there is no material difference between the two majors who vote together on something like 80% of issues in reality

 

[faible]

my definition of bad is the majority of the budget spend on this change going to the people who need it least

the billions that go on the high income earners tax cuts could have been much better spent on increasing welfare payments for example

its like how we spend more on negative gearing than we do on public housing

or how the feds put more into private schools than they do into the public system

they could have raised all welfare payments to the poverty line but instead they gave $9k to people earning over $200k

so yes to me that is bad

And these are all fair and reasonable gripes. Stage 3 had already been legislated though, the LNP form were coming in to affect and the ALP adjusted them. So are you arguing they should have completely dumped them (if that's even possible)?

It was ~ $4.5k from memory too, $9k was the LNP figure.

 

[faible]

and you need to understand that people largely don't care about policy that doesn't impact them personally and that for a lot of people there is no material difference between the two majors who vote together on something like 80% of issues in reality

Unless you're a low income earner paying no tax, you got a tax cut under ALP's Stage 3. That's a pretty clear differentiator from the LNP version, and very much a material difference.

Plus, thanks to our wonderful preferencing system, you can vote for as many independents as you like before ranking the two majors last and second last in the order you dislike the least.

 

[Gralin]

Unless you're a low income earner paying no tax, you got a tax cut under ALP's Stage 3. That's a pretty clear differentiator from the LNP person, and very much a material difference.

which again I don't believe will be a vote winner

it was such a small amount compared to the increases in the cost of everything and labor let the low and middle income tax offsets expire in the middle of a cost of living crisis as well

when Labor are crowing about budget surpluses while people are doing it tough the message people are likely to take out of that is you could have helped us but didn't

right or wrong the last 3 years will fall at the feet of the current government when people vote

stage 3 isn't going to save them from that