Opinion AUSTRALIAN Politics: Adelaide Board Discussion Part 5

[Maddogmetro]

According to the 2022 Census, there were ~1 million people who reported having an income > $150K. That's 1 in 25, or the top 4% of the population.
Source: https://www.news.com.au/finance/mon...p/news-story/6858ca3f2579ca2ec36e6212847f30da

On that basis, it's fair to say that anyone earning $150K+ is hardly your "average Australian", and is less in need of a tax cut than those earning considerably less.

I get this side of the the argument. But at the same time, it is the high earners that do all the heavy lifting in paying tax. Tax cuts necessarily should benefit those who pay the most tax.

For example, under what is being circulated as the likely changes, people earning $45,000 per year (currently paying $6,000 in tax) – get an extra $800 compared to the original plan, and $900 odd in total. That is a 15% reduction in total tax paid.

Yet those on $200,000 (currently paying $63,000 in tax, more than 10 times the amount compared to the other person) - get $4,500 less than the original plan, and $4,500 in total. That's only a 7% reduction in total tax paid.

This isn't as simple as people make it out to be.

 

[Vader]

I get this side of the the argument. But at the same time, it is the high earners that do all the heavy lifting in paying tax. Tax cuts necessarily should benefit those who pay the most tax.

Absolutely not, to the bolded bit. Those who have the greatest capacity to pay should always be expected to contribute the most.

For example, under what is being circulated as the likely changes, people earning $45,000 per year (currently paying $6,000 in tax) – get an extra $800 compared to the original plan, and $900 odd in total. That is a 15% reduction in total tax paid.

Yet those on $200,000 (currently paying $63,000 in tax, more than 10 times the amount compared to the other person) - get $4,500 less than the original plan, and $4,500 in total. That's only a 7% reduction in total tax paid.

Those on $200K shouldn't be getting any cuts at all.

Those who are earning $45K are struggling because they don't have enough money to survive. Those on $200K are struggling because they are inept at handling the excessive amounts of money they already have. Only one of these needs government assistance, and it's not the uber rich.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Yeah I get it but it isn't an unusual thing anymore, people get married, get divorced and then meet a new partner who has kids. Back in the day the Brady Bunch was seen as something unusual, now it's the norm. My original point being though is that on that sort of cash, you'd believe the worlds your oyster but add 4 kids in the mix and you'll struggle to consolidate debts if you have some and plenty of folk do.

Obviously, I'd criticise peoples financial decisions too, you're probably like me, brought up with the thinking "replace when broken, not because something new is there" and saving is easy but that's not everyone and in my experience, it's a lot the other way.

Wtf? That shit is not the norm at all. I don't know a single person in the situation you described.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Absolutely not, to the bolded bit. Those who have the greatest capacity to pay should always be expected to contribute the most.

Those on $200K shouldn't be getting any cuts at all.

Those who are earning $45K are struggling because they don't have enough money to survive. Those on $200K are struggling because they are inept at handling the excessive amounts of money they already have. Only one of these needs government assistance, and it's not the uber rich.

 

[Maddogmetro]

Absolutely not, to the bolded bit. Those who have the greatest capacity to pay should always be expected to contribute the most.

Those on $200K shouldn't be getting any cuts at all.

Those who are earning $45K are struggling because they don't have enough money to survive. Those on $200K are struggling because they are inept at handling the excessive amounts of money they already have. Only one of these needs government assistance, and it's not the uber rich.

I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I do not agree that the answer is 'squeeze tax money from people who already pay the most'. You seem to be demonising people on $200k (who are not, by any means, 'uber rich'), and judging them as people who cannot handle their money - but you are unwilling to make any assessment on the choices of some of the people who are on $45,000. Shitting on those earning $200k is dumb, particularly given they do so much of the heavy lifting in tax revenue.

The fact is, Australia has ridiculously high tax rates, which kick in way too early. The top bracket hasn't changed in 15 years - the equivalent of around $260,000 today.

We, as a society, should be looking at ways to reform tax which is beneficial and encourages growth. Addressing this bracket creep is absolutely necessary. Changes to address this are long overdue.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Crikey. I agree with Mad Dog.

Now I’m off to have a shower, a really long shower.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

Crikey. I agree with Mad Dog.

Now I’m off to have a shower, a really long shower.

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

 

[Vader]

I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I do not agree that the answer is 'squeeze tax money from people who already pay the most'. You seem to be demonising people on $200k (who are not, by any means, 'uber rich'), and judging them as people who cannot handle their money - but you are unwilling to make any assessment on the choices of some of the people who are on $45,000. Shitting on those earning $200k is dumb, particularly given they do so much of the heavy lifting in tax revenue.

We're not "squeezing more money" out of anyone - we're simply not giving them tax cuts that they were previously expecting. This is very different from taxing them more.

Someone earning $150K is in the top 4%, and the numbers earning $200K+ would be even smaller. If being in the top 3-4% isn't sufficient to be called "uber rich"...

The fact is, Australia has ridiculously high tax rates, which kick in way too early. The top bracket hasn't changed in 15 years - the equivalent of around $260,000 today.

Failure to index the tax brackets, resulting in bracket creep, is another argument entirely. We'd probably find agreement, if that were actually relevant to the topic of discussion.

We, as a society, should be looking at ways to reform tax which is beneficial and encourages growth. Addressing this bracket creep is absolutely necessary. Changes to address this are long overdue.

Well yeah... and removing negative gearing would be a good place to start. Unfortunately, making major changes to the taxation system is beyond the political will of either side (left or right).

I agree 100% that the taxation system needs to be fundamentally reformed. But given that's not happening, and given the cost of living crisis, the primary aim of any tax cuts has to be providing relief to those in greatest need - and those earning $200K+ are behind at least 96% of the population in the "greatest need" stakes.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Both tweets, spot on

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I get this side of the the argument. But at the same time, it is the high earners that do all the heavy lifting in paying tax. Tax cuts necessarily should benefit those who pay the most tax.

For example, under what is being circulated as the likely changes, people earning $45,000 per year (currently paying $6,000 in tax) – get an extra $800 compared to the original plan, and $900 odd in total. That is a 15% reduction in total tax paid.

Yet those on $200,000 (currently paying $63,000 in tax, more than 10 times the amount compared to the other person) - get $4,500 less than the original plan, and $4,500 in total. That's only a 7% reduction in total tax paid.

This isn't as simple as people make it out to be.

It's the equality vs equity dilemma. I can't say I know what the answer is either but the prior plan completely left out the poorest people from the tax cuts altogether. That's just taking the piss. You shouldn't need to be a fire breathing marxist to see a problem with that.

 

[spenze]

Wtf? That s**t is not the norm at all. I don't know a single person in the situation you described.

Know plenty, when my wife was teaching at a private school, over half her students were families on second marriages

 

[BRL121]

Failure to index the tax brackets, resulting in bracket creep, is another argument entirely. We'd probably find agreement, if that were actually relevant to the topic of discussion.

What? It's central to the discussion! Whether you like the solution, or not, the stage-three changes were attempting to allow for bracket creep. As discussed elsewhere, true indexation will never happen because of politics.

 

[BRL121]

It's the equality vs equity dilemma. I can't say I know what the answer is either but the prior plan completely left out the poorest people from the tax cuts altogether. That's just taking the piss. You shouldn't need to be a fire breathing marxist to see a problem with that.

This argument ignores that stage1 and 2 changes applied to those people. Stage 3 was intended to take care of inflation for the rest.
The actual difficulty is the great delay before implementation of stage 3, resulting in the poorest needing another inflation adjustment.
I guess that Albo's changes recognise that. However, the same can be said for those at higher levels, who have yet to see any adjustment and probably also need a second one!

 

[Vader]

This argument ignores that stage1 and 2 changes applied to those people. Stage 3 was intended to take care of inflation for the rest.
The actual difficulty is the great delay before implementation of stage 3, resulting in the poorest needing another inflation adjustment.
I guess that Albo's changes recognise that. However, the same can be said for those at higher levels, who have yet to see any adjustment and probably also need a second one!

They will still get some benefit from the changed cuts... just nowhere near as many $$$ back as they were expecting.

 

[Bearded Clam]

Both tweets, spot on

With each and every ignorant post, chock full of poorly educated nonsense, you put up here it becomes clearer and clearer who the attention seeker is..

 

[ADL9798]

Backflipping aside and I'm sure Albanese will get whacked for this by people at the upper end of the income spectrum (who probably weren't going to vote for him anyway!), this looks like a much more sensible proposal in the context of inflationary and cost of living pressures which have emerged since this proposal was initially drafted.

Is there a good argument that people on >$200k a year needed a $9,000 tax cut, and that a $4,500 cut isn't sufficient?

 

[Mr_Moogle]

This argument ignores that stage1 and 2 changes applied to those people. Stage 3 was intended to take care of inflation for the rest.
The actual difficulty is the great delay before implementation of stage 3, resulting in the poorest needing another inflation adjustment.
I guess that Albo's changes recognise that. However, the same can be said for those at higher levels, who have yet to see any adjustment and probably also need a second one!

I know. As you say though. A lot of time has passed and a lot has changed in the economy since then.

Was just reading back over the stage 1 cuts to refresh my memory and it's kind of laughable how pathetic they were. Seemed okay at the time though.

 

[Bearded Clam]

Now that I know how you feel about him, I’ll post him a lot more.

Better get used to him, me and millions more who think the same way.

A quick google search shows Matt Walsh has;

• about 2.5m twitter followers
• about 2.8m youtube followers

And
- around 2m instagram followers..

Now it is almost definite that most of his followers would probably follow him on all three of these platforms..

But we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say they are maybe 5 million people in total following Matt on all three of the platforms.

Looking at the US and Australia and ignoring the entire rest of the world for a moment..

There are 334 million people in the US and 25 million in Australia..

So Matt has 5 million followers out of a two populations of nearly 360 million people!.. modern populations that are well connected to the internet and social media..

Not sure he, and his opinions, are as popular as you’d like to think..

He’s just another ignorant loudmouth utilising social media platforms and getting morons to click on his pages which generates him coin.

 

[ADL9798]

Absolutely not, to the bolded bit. Those who have the greatest capacity to pay should always be expected to contribute the most.

Those on $200K shouldn't be getting any cuts at all.

Those who are earning $45K are struggling because they don't have enough money to survive. Those on $200K are struggling because they are inept at handling the excessive amounts of money they already have. Only one of these needs government assistance, and it's not the uber rich.

Agreed.

I'm a firm believer that there's a level of income we all need to be comfortable, and that above this, the marginal benefit of every additional dollar of disposable income you earn starts to diminish.

The $50,000th dollar you earn puts a roof over your head and keeps the lights on. The $500,000th dollar gets you a speedboat in the garage and a holiday home in Queensland.

That is why progressive taxation systems make sense to me.

 

[PeterSalt]

The interesting part about this conversation over taxation is that I think the real problem lies in the cost of housing (whether rent or mortgage), energy, food and fuel costs

You could probably throw in education and child care

And it's hard to see what the government is doing to tackle any of these with long term vision

 

[Bearded Clam]

^^This part stood out most in your half-a-page rant (can’t you be more succinct for a change?)

I’ve noticed you commies have switched from “Haha, nobody listens to right wing culture warriors, they have no audience!”

to

“Their massive audience is being conned! You’re all stupid for noticing it!”

You sound nervous. What next? I can’t wait to see it.

PS: People whose bank accounts I want to get even bigger.

1. Matt Walsh
2. Elon Musk
3. Donald Trump
4. Tucker Carlson
5. Every single normal person who agrees with them
6. Every single other public figure you hate

Sorry..

But “normal people” actually dont agree with them.

Poorly educated, ignorant and gullible losers are the only ones that agree with them..
mostly because these people have realised that if they pander to the nasty prejudices of people like you they can very quickly have you eating out of their hands.

You are part of a noisy minority who are used by these scumbags and con artists for their own means and ends..

Maybe one day you’ll get around to growing up and thinking for yourself and realise just how much you embarrassed yourself by being so easily led by populists..

Its sad really.

 

[Vader]

A quick google search shows Matt Walsh has;

• about 2.5m twitter followers
• about 2.8m youtube followers

And
- around 2m instagram followers..

Now it is almost definite that most of his followers would probably follow him on all three of these platforms..

But we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say they are maybe 5 million people in total following Matt on all three of the platforms.

Looking at the US and Australia and ignoring the entire rest of the world for a moment..

There are 334 million people in the US and 25 million in Australia..

So Matt has 5 million followers out of a two populations of nearly 360 million people!.. modern populations that are well connected to the internet and social media..

Not sure he, and his opinions, are as popular as you’d like to think..

He’s just another ignorant loudmouth utilising social media platforms and getting morons to click on his pages which generates him coin.

I wouldn't make the argument that there are only 5m of 360m who agree with him. My guess is at least 280m of those 360m have never even heard of him, including me. Of those, I'm sure some would agree with him, if they knew what he was saying. Others would disagree.

Personally, if someone has "followers" on twitter, youtube & instagram, then they're not a person I'd be interested in in the first place - regardless of what they have to say. Famous on social media = oxygen thief, as far as I'm concerned, regardless of the views expressed by said individual.

** As previously noted, I have no idea who Matt Walsh is, or what his views are - and I don't care to know.

 

[Bearded Clam]

The interesting part about this conversation over taxation is that I think the real problem lies in the cost of housing (whether rent or mortgage), energy, food and fuel costs

You could probably throw in education and child care

And it's hard to see what the government is doing to tackle any of these with long term vision

Didnt they just make changes to child care making it a hell of a lot more affordable even to those earning up to $530,000 a year?.. up from those on around $360,000 a year..

https://www.education.gov.au/child-care-subsidy-campaign

And education, primary and secondary schooling is the responsibilty of state governments not Albo and his federal gov..

 

[Bearded Clam]

Agreed.

I'm a firm believer that there's a level of income we all need to be comfortable, and that above this, the marginal benefit of every additional dollar of disposable income you earn starts to diminish.

The $50,000th dollar you earn puts a roof over your head and keeps the lights on. The $500,000th dollar gets you a speedboat in the garage and a holiday home in Queensland.

That is why progressive taxation systems make sense to me.

Does $50,000 even get you a roof over your head these days?..

There are families up here on two incomes earning well over $100k a year combined.. who are living in tent cities that have sprouted up in parklands around south east qld..

One of my mates who earns over $100k a year, is single and has no dependants (his son is in his mid 20’s now days and lives in another state) has had to move back in with his parents mid last year!.. he’s still there.

51 years old.. back living at his mum and dads!..

There are just no rentals. And those that become available have hundreds of applicants.

 

[PeterSalt]

Does $50,000 even get you a roof over your head these days?..

There are families up here on two incomes earning well over $100k a year combined.. who are living in tent cities that have sprouted up in parklands around south east qld..

One of my mates who earns over $100k a year, is single and has no dependants (his son is in his mid 20’s now days and lives in another state) has had to move back in with his parents mid last year!.. he’s still there.

51 years old.. back living at his mum and dads!..

There are just no rentals. And those that become available have hundreds of applicants.

It'd be interesting to know how many properties in the major cities are only available for short term rental (AirBNB), compared with say 10 years ago?

The other interesting 1 is property owned by overseas investors. The chinese for example have completely different view / strategy to property investment and are quite happy to buy a property and leave it vacant.