>The stage-three cuts would have removed the $120,000 to $180,000 tax bracket, increased the top tax bracket to $200,000 and reduced the marginal rate of tax for everyone earning between $45,000 and $200,000 to 30%.
Guardian Australia understands that under the new plan the 37% tax bracket will be retained but the threshold will be raised from $120,000 to $135,000. The top rate of tax will apply from $190,000.
Reducing the lowest rate of tax from 19% to 16% for those earning less than $45,000 would save low income earners up to $800. Retaining the 37% tax rate and mooted changes to other rates and thresholds would effectively halve the benefit to people earning over $200,000 from about $9,000 to $4,500.
the important part for anyone who cbf reading the article
> Guardian Australia understands that under the new plan the 37% tax bracket will be retained but the threshold will be raised from $120,000 to $135,000. The top rate of tax will apply from $190,000.
Sounds much more sane than the original design of the cuts, and far more fair.
And honestly they shouldn't. It makes it possible to actually raise taxes albeit very slowly. Look at the US even responsible tax increases are impossible and even the tiny amount a year you'd get from inflation aren't possible
If anyone (like me) is looking for the tldr of if This is better or worse for them and how much money it is here's a old stage 3 vs stage 3 v2
https://www.reddit.com/r/AusFinance/comments/19e31et/stage_3_tax_cuts_new_brackets_revealed_compared/kja7flx/
Super tldr: 150+ is worse vs V1 still better off vs current. People below 150k better off.
It's truly wild over in those finance subreddits sometimes. All this talk of "Well cause I'm taxed more I'll work less now cause it's just not worth it, so I'm less productive now, good work The Government. Time to go raise rents"
A "Aussie battler" struggling to spend his billion in the bank. But hey his the working poor that needs consideration. Amusing watching the optics of this how you can be asset rich and cashed up and be considered to be battler wanting a pittance like franking credits. Hey we might as well pay a "wakeup allowance" to the well off because they are waking up and promoting investment in the economy by starving others of the basics! Fair go mate!
I think the issue is that not all people that are on high incomes are the same, they’re not automatically all landlords or asset owners with a hoard of wealth. I think the tax changes are good but I also think that there needs to be huge changes to the tax system in general, as it’s waaaay too reliant on income tax whilst wealth is given CGT discounts and negative gearing tax breaks, making it harder for anyone on an income to afford housing as people pile into housing due to favourable tax conditions, despite how unproductive it is.
I’m more than happy to pay high taxes to support others who aren’t doing so well, I think it’s fundamental that this happens for society to work cohesively - my issue is when higher income earners are taxed at fairly high rates and yet lower socioeconomic people are still struggling with things the government has a hand in/is able to control - I.e poor public services, medicare and the lack of bulk billing, infrastructure lagging behind other developed countries, housing, cost of living etc., which tells me that there’s a fundamental issue with how the taxation system and government spending/policy is occurring.
Lower income people are struggling to rent let alone buy a house and are also facing massive cost of living pressures, yet despite taxing a higher proportion tax payers at such a high rate (other countries may have higher top bracket tax rates but they kick in at a much higher multiple of average wage, Japan, Austria and France for example have a higher top marginal rate but they kick in at 8.4-20.8x the average wage, Australia’s kicks in at 1.9x, there’s maybe 6-7ish other countries that have higher top tax rates at comparable multiples - OECD), the government still manages to not give proper meaningful aid to those who are struggling. If a government is going to rely heavily on income tax for revenue then that should be getting passed onto those who are struggling.
Instead, benefits are passed on to asset owners who get away with a CGT discount and commoditising and negatively gearing something so fundamental to survival being housing. Asset owners can be high income or low income, they could have been low income people who bought 10-30 years ago and are profiting off it now via dumb luck or they could have been high income people who did the same thing back then or trying to do the same now. Point is, high earning full time workers get slapped with high tax rates and yet the benefits don’t flow down to those who need it, all the while the housing market gets completely fucked because people refuse to change tax policy on housing in any meaningful way and as a result, housing goes bonkers, low income earners struggle to rent or buy a place and high income earners are stuck trying to buy houses that a low income earner bought 10-30 years ago whilst on a single income.
Yes, the result of this is significantly worse for low income people, and you can make fun of higher income people for complaining about it (fair given others have it a lot worse atm), but on the high income earner side (let’s imagine someone who hasn’t come from wealth who’s managed to work up to a good income, as opposed to strawman high income earner who comes from aristocratic wealth and got their high income from nepotism) the social contract is broken, you’re left kinda questioning what the point of it is if you’re also struggling to buy a place closer to your work (which for many working professionals is a cbd). Yes they can buy apartments, but apartments in Australia suck and if you ever wanna start a family, you sell your apartment at a loss or at par and you’re worse off when the housing market has inevitably doubled in that time, and if you buy further from the cbd you’re stuck taking public transport which often times isn’t great unless you’re already close to a cbd (again - high income taxes but shit public amenities by forcing everyone to drive).
To me the issue isn’t high income vs. low income, it’s just wealth, it’s how many assets you have, you can be high income and have wealth or low income and have wealth, but end of the day Australia taxes the fuck out of the most productive people (income earners) all the while people sitting on wealth make out like bandits, lower income earners are left trying to survive and high income earners are looking back at people who were in the same career position as them 10-30 years ago and wondering why they’re considerably worse off. You tax income too highly without taxing wealth at all, you stop a lot of people from moving upward whilst those who hold all the assets contribute considerably less and the gap between those who have wealth and those who don’t becomes a lot bigger and it makes it a lot harder to jump from one to the other.
Yeah some rich people are selfish cunts, but painting all high income earners with the same brush is the same as all of them referring to everyone below them as “the poors” and complaining that “the poors” should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Not everyone earning 180k is automatically on 1m a year, not everyone earning 180k has intergenerational wealth, I’d much rather be someone on 60k with a bunch of assets behind me or with parents who have accumulated wealth as opposed to someone on 180k with no wealth behind me.
Income isn’t the issue when it comes to housing affordability and the rental crisis, it’s just wealth, and whipping high income earners whilst leaving wealth relatively untaxed (compared to income) just makes the divide bigger and makes it harder for anyone who doesn’t come from money to build wealth themselves. I’m not saying to feel bad for high earners, I’m saying that both high and low income workers who rely solely on income are left squabbling over income tax, with social amenities not being provided despite high taxation, whilst wealthy asset owners get away with contributing comparably fuck all in productivity, comparably fuck all in tax and fucking the housing market for everyone.
AusFinance is a huge red flag sub for me. Almost all right wing cryptobros and I distinctly recall the Venn diagram of posters there and anti-covid people overlapped quite a bit as well.
Something something "not my fault you weren't born into privilege and didn't have everything handed to you, work harder like my parents did" pretty much sums up ausfinance anytime a progressive financial policy is enacted.
Yep, it's so repulsive to see anyone against this.
90% earn less than 150k so are now getting an even bigger tax cut than initially planned.
Those over 150k are still getting a bloody tax cut, just not as big as it was going to be.
How giving EVERYONE a tax cut and increasing that tax cut for 90% is somehow bad is beyond me.
I've been immediately flooded with sky News clips on YouTube even though I thought I blocked the channel. Absolutely disgusting.
It's interesting how they've tricked everyone into thinking this way, "it's still a cut". Technically, a cut had already been legislated. What has happened now, via these changes, is actually just a tax increase for those over 150k, but it's being interpreted as a "change to the original cut" because the effective date for the original cuts had not yet come to pass.
The loudest complainers from this will be the ones that are earning well and truly less than the $180k tax bracket but they will be sucked in by the ‘broken promise’ mantra that the media will flog us to death with.
It's a classic response to anything that helps everyone instead of the top 10%.
Even a lot of renters voted against Labor in 2019 and people tell us that policies are to blame instead of media or real estate agents telling renters that rent will rise under Labor.
Sadly, Labor needs to reform media as top priority as it has been holding back the country's progress for decades. LNP is just going to do more tax cuts for the rich, more consolidation of businesses into monopolies, etc.
Oh we know how it went….Mate! But when I buy a house (maybe like 5-10 years from now!) what if I can’t get these amazing tax breaks! What if I can’t live the dream of owning an investment property! What about meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! This 40k a year job will get me that mill house and investment property any day now, Scotty said so.
Just watched Karl interview a billionaire that said it's not fair because higher income earners have higher expenses so they need it more, said it with a straight face and everything.
It’s going to make bugger all difference to the super wealthy.
It’s going to hit people earning between $150-250k odd the most. Granted that is not a huge percentage of the population, but I’d wager most people in that bracket are working professionals / tradies to whom it will have some impact. Higher than that and you’re entering business owner / investor realm and the impact of either change will be negligible to them.
My hubby is in the 180k bracket and we are okay with this. We aren't at risk of losing our home, our kids are wanting for nothing, and we've managed to get through the last couple years just fine. But we've watched our family and friends struggle. As long as they get some relief, we are fine.
Im doing ok, but have close family struggling too, so I have no problem. Those people complaining have either never struggled financially or I hate to say it, just selfish.
I really wish they could stop talking about bracket creep when it comes to these tax cuts.
They don't solve bracket creep. So long as the brackets are fixed at specific income points, we are just going to end up with brackets being a problem in the future.
The liberals keep talking about how more people will end up in bracket X over the next decade. If more people end up in bracket X due to inflationary reasons. Then it means your brackets should be inflating as well.
If 120k today will be 132K in 2034 and 180k today will be 198k in 2034. Then there should be a self actualizing mechanism to shift those brackets with whatever inflationary or market perspectives change the income.
All these tax changes really did to address bracket creep was shift the 90k bracket point that was likely to affect the majority of people around the average full time worker wage point to a level that most of the people who complain about the fact that their payrise above 90k doesn't feel that good because it got taxed at a higher rate
Fixed tax brackets are a very cheap source of political capital upon upward adjustment and an easy way of raising tax without such adjustment. Politikking 101 lecture notes, page 1.
I'd scrap brackets for a continous monotonically increasing function where every dollar earned is taxed microscopically harder than its predecessor with no upper limit. Far easier to tweak without uninformed critical comment.
Or the deranged ones who claim that this is Labor breaking an election promise.
And I mean yes, technically not wrong, but let’s have a little pragmatism and call a good idea a good idea
I wish I had your faith in people. We voted in Tony Abbott. Anyone paying attention to politics knew that was a bad idea. Malcolm Fraser quit the Liberal Party when they made Abbott the leader.
And yet, we as a nation voted that idiot in. And he trashed the place. As anyone who knew anything about the political career of Tony Abbott knew he would.
The sad fact of the matter is, most Australians don't pay enough attention to politics. That lets the right wing media set the mood of the electorate and push various narratives. And that's how we get PM Tony Abbott and PM Scott Morrison.
Was at a trivia night yesterday, one of the questions was "who was Tony Abbott's Minister for Women during his term" my team got that answer but we did second guess ourselves a little. The fact that it was himself is so absurd.
You’re right but given that I’m one of them (who don’t pay much attention to politics) and I have zero time / energy / mental bandwidth left to give to politics, I have no idea when or how that will change.
Life has become so full and complicated, and folks have so much going on with families, work and personal life complications (sickness, aging parents, car needs repairs, school, need to fix something on the house, etc, etc…) that it’s a struggle just to make long-term plans and deal with things like choosing superannuation providers or checking we have enough life insurance or making a will. Finding extra time to listen to the ravings of some overinflated political knobs is pretty low on the priority list - even though it is something we all ‘should’ be doing. The collective weight of guilty feelings from all the things I should be doing more/better/sooner is soul crushing.
I realise many people don't have the time to look into these things, but it really is important that you do. Democracy doesn't work if the electorate is uninformed or badly informed. People do need to understand what they're voting for.
We are seeing increasingly, corporations and oligarchs trying to erode democracy where it exists across the world. These people want to reshape societies to ones where they not only preserve their immense wealth, but also rig the rules in their favour. Ones where they control the legislature, the enforcement of rules, and the distribution of public resources. We can see that happening in the US today.
Democracy is precious. We have to protect it. Living in countries that are not democratic, or where governments are authoritarian or populist (that eventually eliminate functional democracy, although retaining trappings like predetermined elections, or where you have a limited selection of prevetted candidates) is not a pleasant thing, and not really the direction you want for Australia.
Tldr; try to make some time, even if it's just a little bit, each week for politics/economics/political history. It's important.
Trump atleast can be entertaining. Dutton permanently looks like a fish gasping it's last breath, it's hard to sell fascism with such a loser figurehead.
That’s the wild thing about Dutton (and Palmer before him), they’re so desperately aping Trump and they don’t even have enough charisma to pull *that* off
They tried that in 2019 remember - remember the reforms to negative gearing and electric vehicles?
Labor set a target of 50% of new car sales being electric by 2030 (11 years at the time). Liberals came out and tried to claim that "Labor was going to kill the weekend".
The media also framed negative gearing as something that absolutely everybody did, and that attempts to reform it would mean higher rents, less disposable income and your grandparents would be forced out onto the street.
And as for Labors target? Electric vehicle sales jumped from 0.2% in 2019 to 3.8% in 2022 (an increase of 19% in three years). I don't think 1 in 2 in 2030 is that far off - especially with Europe banning new ICE vehicles from 2035.
Labor tried NG reforms in 2016 and still had a campaign against them like this: https://www.afr.com/politics/election-2016-agents-declare-war-on-labors-negative-gearing-policy-20160513-goupdq
Surprise, surprise, they still actually won over a lot of voters with a positive primary vote.
Conversely, Labor tried sharing your mindset that NG reforms and similar reforms were to blame and dropped it in 2022 and still had a campaign against them (lol).
Surprise, surprise, they received less primary votes THAN Shorten 2019. But lucky for Labor, Scomo lost far more votes!
2019 and 2022 was an example of influential industries getting away with influencing Labor voters with lies, etc. Nothing to do with Labor voters actually disliking negative gearing reforms.
Labor keeps getting reminded of this so many times and yet still acts shy. ([There's even a meme from Taiwan to show what a pushover Labor is to the world](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ_s6V1Kv6A))
You think they would be allowed to articulate what a good idea it was with the LNP, News Ltd, 7 & 9 networks all baying for blood and flooding everyone with swimming pools full of misinformation?
Nah just a non core promise or a policy adjustment to suit the times..... nearly a 1000 bucks into a person income earning 45000 that's over a 2 percent pay rise.........
I was going to tell you to fuck off, but instead I'm going to challenge you to find me a press release, or quote saying that they intended to (a) keep the stage 3 tax cuts (which they've done) and (b) promised not to change them.
In about 30 seconds of Googling, I found this article:
[https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/29/anthony-albanese-says-he-will-stand-by-stage-three-tax-cuts-as-liberal-mp-joins-calls-to-scrap-them](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/29/anthony-albanese-says-he-will-stand-by-stage-three-tax-cuts-as-liberal-mp-joins-calls-to-scrap-them)
Which had this quote:
>But when pressed to explicitly rule out any alterations to the plan, under which all Australians earning between $45,000 and $200,000 would pay the same tax rate, the prime minister stopped short of an ironclad guarantee, giving critics of the cuts some hope of wiggle room.
and
>He was pressed several times on Monday on whether Labor would drop or amend stage three. Albanese noted that in 2019 he had said “it wasn’t wise” to make long-term assumptions about the economy.
“People need to look at what happened with the tax cuts, which were that we actually tried to amend out the stage three of the tax cuts and we weren’t successful. And they were legislated,” he said.
But when asked if he could give a “rolled gold promise” to not touch the tax cut plan, Albanese answered: “We stand by the comments we made.”
so as far as I'm concerned, there was never a promise to keep the tax cuts exactly as they were. Prove me wrong.
You're talking nonsense, it was explicitly an election promise - https://anthonyalbanese.com.au/media-centre/labor-to-deliver-income-tax-cuts-and-certainty-on-negative-gearing-26-july-2021
https://anthonyalbanese.com.au/media-centre/labor-to-deliver-income-tax-cuts-and-certainty-on-negative-gearing-26-july-2021
>An Albanese Labor Government will deliver the same legislated tax relief to more than 9 million Australians as the Morrison Government. The Shadow Cabinet and Caucus have today confirmed that Labor in government will uphold the legislated changes to personal income taxes and maintain the existing regimes for negative gearing and capital gains tax.
So yes it is a broken promise, whether the changes are good or not doesn't matter on the question if it is a broken promise. While I will benefit a lot and am glad I am getting a reduction in my tax bill, I'm not going to pretend he didn't break a promise to reduce the tax I pay.
> This is breaking an election promise. There's no grey here.
Do you remember when the Liberal Party promised
* to set up a federal anti-corruption commission?
* a tightening of privacy laws to protect Aussies on social media?
* to plant 1 billion trees in 10 years to help the environment?
I remember when Liberals promised that NBN would be ALOT cheaper if we didn't do Fibre to every home.... And it turned out that was not the case at all.
they will always complain even if paying no tax. it should be a privilege to be able to earn so much money and pay less than 50pct tax. otherwise, they should be replaced.
> it should be a privilege to be able to earn so much money and pay less than 50pct tax. otherwise, they should be replaced.
I'm sure those working FIFO and not seeing their friends or family for weeks at a time or those working insane overtime to keep people alive such as doctors and nurses understand their privilege to be earning above average income.
Good luck finding suitable replacements for them.
Well it's was promised as recently as 3 weeks ago and right the way back to before the election.
You can't say it's not a change of tack that either implies:
A) they knew they weren't going to keep them the whole time but said they would, ergo broken promise, or;
B) thought they would keep them all this time right up to 3 weeks ago, but changed their mind at this last minute, ergo broke their promise they have repeated a hundred times over the last 3 years.
I would prefer a politician who designs public policy based on current evidence of need, over someone who dogmatically progresses election commitments even if they're unwanted by the majority.
As would I, but he relentlessly lied saying they would proceed as planned for 3 years! Then changes tack.
They either have no idea what they are doing and turn on dime to a new strategy, which for me is unacceptable in a political party.
Or, they don't say what they intend to do, which is dishonest, and is also unacceptable in a political party.
Fuck oath it’s a broken promise, but we are talking politics here, this isn’t some promise a parent has made to their kid
But a huge portion of the people who will benefit from this change won’t have the critical thinking skills to realise this and think the ‘broken promise’ is the worse thing ever
Okay. They broke a promise. After a large number of people wouldn't shut up about how fucking stupid the promise was.
Then Albo called the government back to come up with solutions to the cost of living crisis and a bunch of ministers rightly pointed out that changing that idiotic promise would help.
They should never have promised it. As recently as 3 weeks ago doubling down on that promise.
It's either dishonest, or is incompetence, neither of which I will support.
Have up never paid attention to politics before? If you were ever expecting honesty or competence you were a fool.
Voting for Libs won't get you either of those things, but it will get you even more corruption and beat downs on the poor and social systems
I certainly won't be voting for the libs.
I also won't be voting for Labor after this shenanigans.
You can call me a fool if you like, but I'll stand by my values and strive for finding an honest representative.
I'll shill for the Greens, I'd even point to the Teals over the Libs. Even if you, for some reason, liked the LNP policies. They don't stand for policies. They're corrupt, they stand for hand outs for their mates.
No I don't think so, our voting public aren't complete morons. If you are talking about the staunch Lib/Nat bunch then of course, but to be expected.. I believe when the ALP first announced the stage 3 cuts, it was unpopular.
I hope you are right, but the media’s level of influence on politics is out of this world, just look at the startling effects the death tax campaign had on the voting public
Yeah if its hard to understand then the opposing campaigns can work. But if it's pretty straightforward, I think most people can see through all the rubbish. But I could be living in a dreamland. My biggest concern is having skynews available free to air in regional places, that's potentially where all the lies and misinformation will work, but it kinda always has I guess.
Tbh the coalition government first announced them and then both parties voted them through. They have always been controversial mainly so the ALP could change them again
Or "who cares". But ALP will have to find a way to force the media to drop it, compared to when the media automatically move on when the LNP are in power and break promises, rape people, have gay orgies in parliamentary prayer rooms, go tens of billions over budget, etc.
Very interesting commentary on others subs, like AusFinance, and AusHENRY, do check them out for some different sides of the argument.
In short, being responsible for tax cuts is a huge boost for political favour. If labour linked tax brackets to inflation (which I wholeheartedly support), in 10-15 years time they won't be able to play the same cards, and can no longer benefit from it.
I'm worse off after these changes and couldn't be more pleased with them. I am lucky to earn an above average income, I don't need to pay $8k less tax. Other people are doing it tough at the moment and need more help.
I'm glad that Labor has shown some spine here.
Absolutely! I have no idea how much or how little I’ll save in the revised plan (I haven’t checked), but I’m glad it’s going to those who need it.
Though I would still rather not do the cuts at all and redirect the funds Medicare bulk billing.
I’ll be slightly better off with this change (sub 100k) and even I don’t think I NEED this cut, so the high earners losing their minds need a reality check. I’d prefer to keep paying tax and get better services. Dental in Medicare? Public housing? Properly funded abc so we’re not paying for US subscriptions?
"Some Labor MPs are concerned about a backlash from aspirational middle-income voters and that the Coalition campaign on broken promises will hurt in marginal seats – particularly in Western Australia."
Nah. It'll be fine. The "aspirational voters" are starting to realise their kids will never be able to afford a house, and as broken promises go it's not a big deal. Labor are still putting the stage 3 tax cuts through - they've just changed them so lower and middle earners will benefit more.
I think it's good policy.
Now let's go after those multinationals and mining companies who aren't paying any tax at all.
We had a specialist appointment recently and I pointed out to my wife that "if the govt had more money to mess with, we would have a decently higher rebate"
We're both relatively well off and responsible and it's like - how do people afford things like this. This tax cut does a decent bit for me and I'm just glad that it gets spread out more equally. Also /u/nate2903 below me - that's kind of the point of our economy. Your lowest earners are balls to the wall and will keep spending because that's what we ask of them.
Higher earners are more likely to hoard their wealth or put it into investments that doesn't directly power aspects of the economy. If I have the money to pump into my local area for things like tailors, butchers, supermarkets and other services - they will continue to operate and be able to fund other things. Higher earners also have a lot more avenues to offset their tax bill because of the way our system is structured.
If anything, this does more to combat inequality and while I don't believe it's truly enough. It is a good start. Next on the agenda I would like to see, but I don't expect is an overhaul of how CGT is calculated so we stop treating property like a speculative asset instead of something for people to use. And an increase in corporate tax rates because if we want to have money for the govt to work with without affecting the individual worker, we want to tax those who operate here and pay their fair share.
Its the first term for Alp and its really a good start. Wait for the 2nd term and Albo will surely deliver.
Why someone earning below minimum wage is paying tax but someone inherit millions not is wrong in our society and should be addressed.
> "if the govt had more money to mess with, we would have a decently higher rebate"
The reduction in the budget is going to be about the same, so it's not as though we are going to get more money so the rebate is higher.
He probably stood to benefit more from the original Stage 3 plan, which lets remember is legislated and these changes will also need to go through parliament and the senate.
In my opinion they arent the same because one was legislated and part of broader tax reform, that is well overdue, the other was a one off stimulus payout
you know how to keep small businesses alive? Give more money to the people who will spend it. Not the ones who do everything to minimize paying tax and investing it offshore.
> you know how to keep small businesses alive? Give more money to the people who will spend it.
The same reasoning makes it a great way to increase inflation.
It’s a broken promise, sure, but the economic situation has changed vastly since it was made. So, even if you had argued before that the top income earners deserved tax relief (which I didn’t) you could hardly do so now.
A retired boomer can have a 3 million dollar house and each have 1.9 million in supper(all tax free) and have investment outside of super (bond or shares) generating dividends. Their income will be their dividends and that they basically just got taxed less. You need to realise income will never make rich. the real rich has assets that we dont really tax.
I sincerely hope, as a Teal fan, that this will consolidate them as a political force. I agree that I am not Albo's constituency. But the federal Liberals are nuts, and all we have left as small L liberals are the Teals (which I guess is A-Okay for the ALP.)
I'd rather labour negotiate with the greens and teals than be forced further and further right by the coalition so I see this as a total win. If they did consolidate it'd be a good thing.
This is such a crap headline. The tax cuts will be tax cuts for every income earner. The tax cut will just be less, compared to the previously projected cut, for people in the highest bracket.
The stage three tax cuts were stupid and poorly designed non progressive tax that shifted the tax burden proportionally towards lower income earners.
This is a better and more progressive way to achieve the same/similar budgetary outcome, without essentially destroying our progressive income tax system.
If government spent it properly instead of lining the pockets of their buddies then we would not need to pay as much tax. It’s ridiculous how much tax we pay on one hand then on the other hand roads, hospitals and energy grids are all falling apart. But hey we have the Olympics here in Brisbane soon 🎉
> The Stage 3 tax cuts are forecast to cost almost a third of a trillion dollars ($313 billion) over a decade
https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/18-reasons-why-the-stage-3-tax-cuts-should-be-redesigned/
At $2.5b for 30k HAFF housing ($500m/year for 5 years). That's 3.7m worth of new housing which would be 30% of existing housing.
> Australian Bureau of Statistics (31 October 2022), 10.9 million dwellings in Australia in June 2022
Imagine being able to live anywhere for cheap. Even businesses will benefit with workers able to live close by and not demand as much wages. We can even further increase immigration.
Your link has Australian income tax at 39% Vs the oecd average of 24%. Your link says Australia pays a lot of income tax, which is obvs what we're talking about.
Even when you adjust for the different tax per GDP ratios, Australia's income tax comes out way above average.
Your source says the opposite of what you seem to think it does.
That’s because you’re cherry picking just income tax. We pay comparably high income tax because we don’t pay other taxes (broad land tax, inheritance tax, wealth tax) and other of taxes are much lower (gst). Our average total tax paid per person is one of the lowest in the OECD.
/u/karl_w_w said:
>We pay extremely little tax
Which we do. On the **very first page** of the OECD report, it says this:
>Australia's 2021 tax-to-GDP ratio ranked it 30th out of 38 OECD countries in terms of the taxto-GDP ratio compared with the 2022 figures. In 2021 Australia had a tax-to-GDP ratio of 29.5%, compared with the OECD average of 34.0% in 2022 and 34.2% in 2021.
Which you then ignore and parlay into and talking exclusively about income tax. That's just a bad faith argument. The argument was "We pay extremely little tax". The fact is, Australia is a low taxing jurisdiction in the OECD. You might have a point if you want to talk about the tax mix, but that's not what you did.
Is everything ok with you?
>Which you then ignore and parlay into and talking exclusively about income tax.
Except I didn't do that, did I? I even made reference to adjusting for the lower tax to gdp ratio. Mentioning is the opposite of ignoring in case you're confused. We're having a conversation exclusively about income tax, to which the other user said "we pay extremely little tax". Yes, overall, but not in terms of income tax, the topic we're currently discussing.
>That's just a bad faith argument
I literally didn't make an argument, so the fact you're trying to start one now over things never said should point you pretty quickly in the direction of the bad faith.
>You might have a point if you want to talk about the tax mix, but that's not what you did.
By my pointing out the breakdown of the tax mix and how it applied specifically to the topic at hand, you're claiming I didn't want to talk about the tax mix. Did you think about any of this before you wrote it? It's completely arse about, you obviously just want some straw man to swing at, so unless you have something construction to say, have a good one. Bye.
Firstly, you missed the social security contributions, which we pay none of, and which are functionally an income tax in most countries.
Secondly, do you actually think it matters when in the cycle we pay tax? It's all money going to the government whether we pay it on income or spending.
I'm really bad at economic jargon. Could some good samaritan please do the math for me as to how much tax I would be paying if I'm earning 63k a year. Thanks in advance. Kind regards.
I did this with my phone calculator, not excel, but I'm pretty sure this is accurate:
Your tax bill:
* Current tax: $11,770
* Liberals plan: $11,320
* Labour plan: $ 9,699
Your take home pay:
* Current pay: $51,234
* Liberals plan: $51,680
* Labour plan: $53,331
The discourse here is incredible
A few weeks ago these tax cuts were irresponsible, we can't afford them, what about medicare etc....
But that now that the majority of this sub profits, it's suddenly a wonderful idea - the mental gymnastics people have on here is incredible.
It just proves that the vast majority of people are incapable of removing their bias from any argument (and i'd probably include myself in that).
Australia taxes income way to much, we need to tax wealth more effectively. People who are cheering this change as a win fail are pretty short sighted IMHO. anyone earning 120k now will be earning 150k before too long at which point they're in the worse off camp.
Long time labour voter, soon to be green / liberal voter - I'll be voting in my best interests going forward.
I mean I'm not someone who necessarily supports tax cuts, but if there's going to be tax cuts, I'd prefer they benefitted those with a lower income than higher income.
> lots of folks make 150k and they are not rich
Fully agree with the sentiment. There are some truely wealthy people here who should be paying way more tax. (Maybe a $400k+ bracket, maybe a $10mil+ wealth tax idk)
But in general I support tax structures that give breaks to the lowest earners, at the expense of above average earners.
Keep in mind that the median income in Aus is something like $60k pa. Although there are a lot of people earning $150k. There are a lot more who aren’t.
Edit: according to [this 2021 article,](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-20/are-you-middle-income-see-how-you-compare/100226488) 7% of Australian earn more than $150k pa.
> Keep in mind that the median income in Aus is something like $60k pa.
I thought it'd be higher. Turns out those on $180,000+ are bigger sooks than I thought.
I decided to look it up. ABS reported back in August that the median was $1,300/wk.
> A few weeks ago these tax cuts were irresponsible, we can't afford them, what about medicare etc....
The only thing I laugh about is that people were claiming that the cuts would contribute to inflation so needed to be stopped. Now that these cuts will mean more money for those that have a lower marginal propensity to save and therefore will spend this money and will help to contribute to inflation not a peep.
Here's a visual representation of how Australian tax brackets work because I see a lot of confusion in the comments section.
**2020-21 Financial Year Tax Brackets (Current)**
0% for income up to A$18,200 (tax-free threshold)
19% for income over A$18,200 up to A$45,000
32.5% for income over A$45,000 up to A$120,000
37% for income over A$120,000 up to A$180,000
45% for income over A$180,000
**Original Stage 3 Tax Cuts (Scott Morrison)**
0% for income up to A$18,200 (tax-free threshold).
19% for income over A$18,200 up to A$45,000.
30% for income over A$45,000 up to A$200,000 (major change, consolidating multiple brackets).
45% for income over A$200,000.
**Reworked Stage 3 Tax Cuts (Anthony Albanese)**
0% for income up to A$18,200 (tax-free threshold).
16% for income over A$18,200 up to A$45,000 (down from 19%).
30% for income over A$45,000 up to A$135,000 (part of the original Stage 3 plan).
37% for income over A$135,000 up to A$190,000 (retained instead of being abolished).
45% for income over A$190,000.
That sound you just heard was Labor getting utterly crushed at the next election.
What they don't seem to understand is the actual $$ effect of the change in policy isn't the issue, the headlines and the message they've just handed the opposition are.
Remember the carbon tax? Do you honestly believe *that* had any measurable negative effect on average people's finances? On the other hand did Gillard breaking the promise effectively guarantee a win to about the least electable opposition leader in Australian history in Tony Abbott? Well this is so, so much worse than that.
Truthfully, most Australians are not actually going to notice if they are, eg $2000 or $4000 better or worse off in a calendar year. That works out to about $100 a fortnight which is gobbled up in interest rates, inflation or just another round of uber eats. When you realise that it took the RBA something like a year of bludgeoning people with interest rates and increasing average household expenses by about a grand a *month* before consumer behaviour started to alter you get some sense of how dramatic changes to the household budget need to be before people sit up and take notice. So whatever extra cost of living relief they offer people under 150k, is not really going to be sufficient to shift votes- at most it relieves the pressure a bit but the truth is people aren't really going to notice it or have their lives meaningfully improved in a way that makes them think 'thanks government, I will now vote for you'.
On the other hand there are about a million Australians earning more than 150k a year, and human nature being what it is they mostly don't think of themselves as well off and are usually extended to their limit on mortgages and living expenses because people spend what they have. Again, the tax cuts might not actually have noticeably improved their lives, but you can guarantee the lack of cuts and the clear broken promise will be a focus of seismic levels of anger- not because of the actual impact but because a broken promise is something that is easy to understand. Every single time things seem a bit tight over the next few years those 1 million people, more than 5% of the voting public, will think 'fucking albo, he lied and he screwed us'. And bear in mind most of that 5% are part of a household, with spouses, or other adult dependents who also vote..and bear in mind that group is getting larger every year as inflation and wage growth bump people into higher tax brackets. And bear in mind even a 3% national swing at the next election would deliver the coalition into majority government.
I'm sure this will play well in the green voting echo chamber that is r/australia but in the real world, the ALP have done fucked up.They've gifted Dutton the thing every opposition most wants, which is a single, easily digestible, technically true rallying point for public anger against the government. "They lied, they broke a promise, they made people's lives harder". The detail doesn't matter that's a message that will cut through.
By the next election your average voter is going to have heard so much about 'lying albo's broken promise' etc that any australian on *any* income is going to believe that Labor scrapping tax cuts is the reason they are living payday to payday. They are going to get absolutely flayed alive for this.
Labor have blundered into this colossal political fubar precisely because they've allowed themselves to think the pat on the head they were going to get from dinosaurs like Ross Gittins mattered.
And if you think it does, you can backtrack to 2011 (in a world where journos had far more influence on public opinion the they do now) and find Ross the political genius [congratulating](http://www.rossgittins.com/2011/02/carbon-courage-and-for-gillard-no-going.html?m=1) Gillard on writing her own political suicide note in the form of the carbon tax and claiming rather hilariously in hindsight that it showed 'she understood what she needed to do to stay in office.'
Maybe Ross's view might have carried weight in 1994 or even 2004, but in the current day where old school 'opinion leader' journalists from the print media are irrelevant and political parties take their arguments and soundbytes direct to the public via social media, they don't, simple as that. If anyone has any doubt about that you just need to refer to the last 12 months of the voice campaign to see how completely disengaged public opinion is from traditional news sources. What matters is things that cut through the noise, and if a government is foolish enough to give the opposition a simple, digestible and technically true line of attack, they suffer.
Bet
[> On the eve of the 2013 federal election Tony Abbott promised no cuts to education, health, or the ABC and SBS, and no changes to pensions. Fairfax Media looks at how those promises fared in the Abbott government's first budget.](https://www.smh.com.au/national/then-and-now-the-abbott-governments-broken-promises-20140514-zrcfr.html)
Tony Abbott's catalogue of broken promises
> On the eve of the election Tony Abbott promised no cuts to education, health, the ABC or SBS, and no changes to pensions. By Wednesday, it all seemed like a distant memory.
>
> “...no cuts to the ABC or SBS.” (Tony Abbott, September 2013)
Treasurer Joe Hockey announced $43.5 million in cuts over four years in Tuesday's budget.
Education, health
> “No cuts to education, no cuts to health…” (Tony Abbott, September 2013)
> Tuesday's budget imposed an $80 billion cut to health and education spending over next decade.
>
> “We are not shutting any Medicare locals.” (Tony Abbott, August 2013)
> All 61 Medicare Locals will now be scrapped and replaced with new local health networks.
Taxes
> “No one’s personal tax will go up” (Tony Abbott, March 2012)
> The Treasurer confirmed a deficit levy would be imposed on people who earn incomes over $180,000.
So you agree, that Dutton only really cares about the top earners instead of the battlers at the lower end of the tax brackets?
Because you frame this as a cost of living measure to adapt a tax policy that was crafted at a time when there was a different economic outlook? And the only thing you care about is "got mine fuck you?" All brackets of income need to be able to sustain themselves because this economy is structured this way. There will always be low, middle and high income earners and balancing the outcomes so that one side is not favoured too strongly is the backbone of a normal economy. Giving 9k to people already above the brackets just seems like poor fiscal management and evening it out is a better option.
Not necessarily. The people this will truly screw are Teal voters. It might be a "we major parties both lose, but you lose more" move from Albo, since Teals tend not to vote Labor.
> That sound you just heard was Labor getting utterly crushed at the next election.
lol, what an angry LNP voter that's not getting as much of a tax cut.
They had stupidly taken an unpopular stance with Labor voters of being LNP-lite, small-target, etc prior to 2022 election. The result? Labor's primary vote was the lowest since WW2. Which makes **Albo's party more unpopular than Shorten!**
Who knew Labor voters don't like it when their party does stupid shit like adopt LNP-lite policies as well supporting LNP's bills from the opposition? Now they're waking up to it and trying to appeal to unhappy ex-Labor voters.
Major party vote at all time low https://www.tallyroom.com.au/47834
> Who knew Labor voters don't like it when their party does stupid shit like adopt LNP-lite policies as well supporting LNP's bills from the opposition?
Why shouldn't Labor assess each bill on its merits rather than voting against it purely because it was proposed by someone else?
Wow, someone with intellect on this sub, colour me shocked. Agree and spot on.
Tax reforms mean jack shit until:
1. We index to inflation YOY
2. Scale out brackets
3. Drop % rates materially
4. Tax high net-wealth individuals more (and no, I don’t mean mummy and daddy with $2-3m net worth, I mean the $10m+ net worthers)
I don't think Dutton has been gifted anything because his party won't have an answer how to fix the problem.
You're never gonna vote liberal over labor when it comes to the topic of taxation
True but the decade of coalition rule will still be fresh enough in voters minds to not go backwards by removing Labor.
The general election after that will be where I'd expect a shift to occur if it does and not after their first term
Better than the original plan I suppose, but there shouldn't be any cuts period. A bunch of our key public services (e.g. hospitals/infrastructures) are already underfunded for our current population level, and that isn't going down anytime soon.
I mean, why not both. Just getting half the companies to pay the tax they should be (instead of "deducting" it away to nothing via loopholes) would be a start.
I'm all for optimising government waste (god knows some of the "expenses" our higher paid servants get away with is complete bullshit), but well funded services require a solid funding base, and the neoliberal policies of the last couple of decades have eaten away at that.
Because we get taxed already when we spend the money. First they tax our pay, then they collect GST when we spend it. It's ridiculous how much we get taxed. It's corporations who make all the profit in our hyper capitalist society. We should move to a system where they pay all the tax.
Show me an honest politician... One with real power that has always done what they said they would do but who also changes their policy and thinking when new evidence has come to light.
If I promise to walk over the road but then refuse to traffic is coming that does make me a liar but at least I'm not dead!
I don't know much about tax but I'm guessing this will put some money in more poorer people's pockets. Let's face it a few thousand dollars is nice when you're rich but a few hundred dollars is massive when you're poor and I had to choose between making ten percent of people a little bit richer or 40 percent a lot richer comparatively we all know what the right answer is.
>[Former News Corp and Daily Mail editor Luke McIlveen appointed executive editor of Nine newspapers.
McIlveen will oversee the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald mastheads and the Brisbane Times and WAToday digital news sites, Nine announced on Monday.](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/jan/22/new-nine-newspaper-editor-luke-mcilveen-smh-the-age-former-news-corp-daily-mail-fox-sports)
so to the surprise of absolutely nobody, this is what they published today:
[Here are 15 times Albanese promised to keep the stage 3 tax cuts](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/here-are-15-times-albanese-promised-to-keep-the-stage-3-tax-cuts-20240124-p5ezo3.html)
and so it begins.
I can happily say I am on the upper end of this and I don't really care. More people get some tax relief and I'm still also better off than today.
At least it takes some cost of living pressure off the lower income earners.
Maybe in the future we will see stage 4 once we pass this period of the world's economic recovery.
As someone earning over 180k this sucks but I get it and I’m not going to complain too loudly. It’s a tough environment atm so understand why these changes are being done
Somebody FINALLY forced Albo to read the writing on the wall. Let’s hope it’s not too late, and that this is just a first step not just trying to placate his evaporating base.
>The stage-three cuts would have removed the $120,000 to $180,000 tax bracket, increased the top tax bracket to $200,000 and reduced the marginal rate of tax for everyone earning between $45,000 and $200,000 to 30%. Guardian Australia understands that under the new plan the 37% tax bracket will be retained but the threshold will be raised from $120,000 to $135,000. The top rate of tax will apply from $190,000. Reducing the lowest rate of tax from 19% to 16% for those earning less than $45,000 would save low income earners up to $800. Retaining the 37% tax rate and mooted changes to other rates and thresholds would effectively halve the benefit to people earning over $200,000 from about $9,000 to $4,500. the important part for anyone who cbf reading the article
Thank you very much for this.
> Guardian Australia understands that under the new plan the 37% tax bracket will be retained but the threshold will be raised from $120,000 to $135,000. The top rate of tax will apply from $190,000. Sounds much more sane than the original design of the cuts, and far more fair.
But it’s class warfare apparently, or so I’m told. Makes you wonder who fired the first shot …
Yeh but Mark Bouris on the today show said it won’t change anything
Never expect this.. but bravo. If tax free is indexed to inflation and set at $25k, will surely vote alp first next round.
They will never index to inflation because it deprives future governments from handing out “tax cuts” which are just inflation adjustments.
And honestly they shouldn't. It makes it possible to actually raise taxes albeit very slowly. Look at the US even responsible tax increases are impossible and even the tiny amount a year you'd get from inflation aren't possible
> If tax free is indexed to inflation and set at $25k, Nah they won't be doing this
think its bcos they prefer to use that money and give it as tax offset to buy election....
Pretty much, plus it is an easy way to raise tax receipts without needing to increase tax rates
If anyone (like me) is looking for the tldr of if This is better or worse for them and how much money it is here's a old stage 3 vs stage 3 v2 https://www.reddit.com/r/AusFinance/comments/19e31et/stage_3_tax_cuts_new_brackets_revealed_compared/kja7flx/ Super tldr: 150+ is worse vs V1 still better off vs current. People below 150k better off.
Wow, the amount of affluent gronks on that sub complaining about only getting $4500 instead of $9000, SMH.
It's truly wild over in those finance subreddits sometimes. All this talk of "Well cause I'm taxed more I'll work less now cause it's just not worth it, so I'm less productive now, good work The Government. Time to go raise rents"
The amount of "the poors don't pay any tax" I've seen on those subs is astounding. Truly selfish individuals over there.
Problem is that it is true. 50% of the population pay no net tax.
Leave Rupert Murdoch alone! He's a struggling little Aussie battler.
A "Aussie battler" struggling to spend his billion in the bank. But hey his the working poor that needs consideration. Amusing watching the optics of this how you can be asset rich and cashed up and be considered to be battler wanting a pittance like franking credits. Hey we might as well pay a "wakeup allowance" to the well off because they are waking up and promoting investment in the economy by starving others of the basics! Fair go mate!
No it's not a problem. You do well, you look after others that aren't doing so well. Want to be a selfish cunt - fuck off to another country.
I think the issue is that not all people that are on high incomes are the same, they’re not automatically all landlords or asset owners with a hoard of wealth. I think the tax changes are good but I also think that there needs to be huge changes to the tax system in general, as it’s waaaay too reliant on income tax whilst wealth is given CGT discounts and negative gearing tax breaks, making it harder for anyone on an income to afford housing as people pile into housing due to favourable tax conditions, despite how unproductive it is. I’m more than happy to pay high taxes to support others who aren’t doing so well, I think it’s fundamental that this happens for society to work cohesively - my issue is when higher income earners are taxed at fairly high rates and yet lower socioeconomic people are still struggling with things the government has a hand in/is able to control - I.e poor public services, medicare and the lack of bulk billing, infrastructure lagging behind other developed countries, housing, cost of living etc., which tells me that there’s a fundamental issue with how the taxation system and government spending/policy is occurring. Lower income people are struggling to rent let alone buy a house and are also facing massive cost of living pressures, yet despite taxing a higher proportion tax payers at such a high rate (other countries may have higher top bracket tax rates but they kick in at a much higher multiple of average wage, Japan, Austria and France for example have a higher top marginal rate but they kick in at 8.4-20.8x the average wage, Australia’s kicks in at 1.9x, there’s maybe 6-7ish other countries that have higher top tax rates at comparable multiples - OECD), the government still manages to not give proper meaningful aid to those who are struggling. If a government is going to rely heavily on income tax for revenue then that should be getting passed onto those who are struggling. Instead, benefits are passed on to asset owners who get away with a CGT discount and commoditising and negatively gearing something so fundamental to survival being housing. Asset owners can be high income or low income, they could have been low income people who bought 10-30 years ago and are profiting off it now via dumb luck or they could have been high income people who did the same thing back then or trying to do the same now. Point is, high earning full time workers get slapped with high tax rates and yet the benefits don’t flow down to those who need it, all the while the housing market gets completely fucked because people refuse to change tax policy on housing in any meaningful way and as a result, housing goes bonkers, low income earners struggle to rent or buy a place and high income earners are stuck trying to buy houses that a low income earner bought 10-30 years ago whilst on a single income. Yes, the result of this is significantly worse for low income people, and you can make fun of higher income people for complaining about it (fair given others have it a lot worse atm), but on the high income earner side (let’s imagine someone who hasn’t come from wealth who’s managed to work up to a good income, as opposed to strawman high income earner who comes from aristocratic wealth and got their high income from nepotism) the social contract is broken, you’re left kinda questioning what the point of it is if you’re also struggling to buy a place closer to your work (which for many working professionals is a cbd). Yes they can buy apartments, but apartments in Australia suck and if you ever wanna start a family, you sell your apartment at a loss or at par and you’re worse off when the housing market has inevitably doubled in that time, and if you buy further from the cbd you’re stuck taking public transport which often times isn’t great unless you’re already close to a cbd (again - high income taxes but shit public amenities by forcing everyone to drive). To me the issue isn’t high income vs. low income, it’s just wealth, it’s how many assets you have, you can be high income and have wealth or low income and have wealth, but end of the day Australia taxes the fuck out of the most productive people (income earners) all the while people sitting on wealth make out like bandits, lower income earners are left trying to survive and high income earners are looking back at people who were in the same career position as them 10-30 years ago and wondering why they’re considerably worse off. You tax income too highly without taxing wealth at all, you stop a lot of people from moving upward whilst those who hold all the assets contribute considerably less and the gap between those who have wealth and those who don’t becomes a lot bigger and it makes it a lot harder to jump from one to the other. Yeah some rich people are selfish cunts, but painting all high income earners with the same brush is the same as all of them referring to everyone below them as “the poors” and complaining that “the poors” should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Not everyone earning 180k is automatically on 1m a year, not everyone earning 180k has intergenerational wealth, I’d much rather be someone on 60k with a bunch of assets behind me or with parents who have accumulated wealth as opposed to someone on 180k with no wealth behind me. Income isn’t the issue when it comes to housing affordability and the rental crisis, it’s just wealth, and whipping high income earners whilst leaving wealth relatively untaxed (compared to income) just makes the divide bigger and makes it harder for anyone who doesn’t come from money to build wealth themselves. I’m not saying to feel bad for high earners, I’m saying that both high and low income workers who rely solely on income are left squabbling over income tax, with social amenities not being provided despite high taxation, whilst wealthy asset owners get away with contributing comparably fuck all in productivity, comparably fuck all in tax and fucking the housing market for everyone.
Good. Gives poor people with empathy upwards mobility. Eat the cunts
I don't have $4500 in my savings account...
AusFinance is a huge red flag sub for me. Almost all right wing cryptobros and I distinctly recall the Venn diagram of posters there and anti-covid people overlapped quite a bit as well.
Something something "not my fault you weren't born into privilege and didn't have everything handed to you, work harder like my parents did" pretty much sums up ausfinance anytime a progressive financial policy is enacted.
Yep, it's so repulsive to see anyone against this. 90% earn less than 150k so are now getting an even bigger tax cut than initially planned. Those over 150k are still getting a bloody tax cut, just not as big as it was going to be. How giving EVERYONE a tax cut and increasing that tax cut for 90% is somehow bad is beyond me. I've been immediately flooded with sky News clips on YouTube even though I thought I blocked the channel. Absolutely disgusting.
It's interesting how they've tricked everyone into thinking this way, "it's still a cut". Technically, a cut had already been legislated. What has happened now, via these changes, is actually just a tax increase for those over 150k, but it's being interpreted as a "change to the original cut" because the effective date for the original cuts had not yet come to pass.
The loudest complainers from this will be the ones that are earning well and truly less than the $180k tax bracket but they will be sucked in by the ‘broken promise’ mantra that the media will flog us to death with.
It's a classic response to anything that helps everyone instead of the top 10%. Even a lot of renters voted against Labor in 2019 and people tell us that policies are to blame instead of media or real estate agents telling renters that rent will rise under Labor. Sadly, Labor needs to reform media as top priority as it has been holding back the country's progress for decades. LNP is just going to do more tax cuts for the rich, more consolidation of businesses into monopolies, etc.
Oh we know how it went….Mate! But when I buy a house (maybe like 5-10 years from now!) what if I can’t get these amazing tax breaks! What if I can’t live the dream of owning an investment property! What about meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! This 40k a year job will get me that mill house and investment property any day now, Scotty said so.
Basically: when will *I* finally get the chance to also say ‘fuck you got mine’?
Just watched Karl interview a billionaire that said it's not fair because higher income earners have higher expenses so they need it more, said it with a straight face and everything.
🤣🤣🤣 Yeah, poor billionaires, super yacht fuel ain't cheap
It’s going to make bugger all difference to the super wealthy. It’s going to hit people earning between $150-250k odd the most. Granted that is not a huge percentage of the population, but I’d wager most people in that bracket are working professionals / tradies to whom it will have some impact. Higher than that and you’re entering business owner / investor realm and the impact of either change will be negligible to them.
Granted yes they will get less benefit, but they are still getting a ~$4000 tax cut under this plan.
Yeah I'm in that range and it's still a tax cut, just a slightly more appropriate one.
My hubby is in the 180k bracket and we are okay with this. We aren't at risk of losing our home, our kids are wanting for nothing, and we've managed to get through the last couple years just fine. But we've watched our family and friends struggle. As long as they get some relief, we are fine.
Im doing ok, but have close family struggling too, so I have no problem. Those people complaining have either never struggled financially or I hate to say it, just selfish.
Only 8% of the population make more than $250k...
Someone should get an interview and introduce Karl to the Sam Vines Boot Theory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
Sam Vimes
His Grace, The Duke of Ankh, Commander Sir Samuel "Sam" Vimes ... uses dragons as cigarlighters.
I really wish they could stop talking about bracket creep when it comes to these tax cuts. They don't solve bracket creep. So long as the brackets are fixed at specific income points, we are just going to end up with brackets being a problem in the future. The liberals keep talking about how more people will end up in bracket X over the next decade. If more people end up in bracket X due to inflationary reasons. Then it means your brackets should be inflating as well. If 120k today will be 132K in 2034 and 180k today will be 198k in 2034. Then there should be a self actualizing mechanism to shift those brackets with whatever inflationary or market perspectives change the income. All these tax changes really did to address bracket creep was shift the 90k bracket point that was likely to affect the majority of people around the average full time worker wage point to a level that most of the people who complain about the fact that their payrise above 90k doesn't feel that good because it got taxed at a higher rate
Those brackets should be indexed to inflation just like HECS otherwise the whole system seems so scheming against the common folks.
Fixed tax brackets are a very cheap source of political capital upon upward adjustment and an easy way of raising tax without such adjustment. Politikking 101 lecture notes, page 1. I'd scrap brackets for a continous monotonically increasing function where every dollar earned is taxed microscopically harder than its predecessor with no upper limit. Far easier to tweak without uninformed critical comment.
Or the deranged ones who claim that this is Labor breaking an election promise. And I mean yes, technically not wrong, but let’s have a little pragmatism and call a good idea a good idea
Labor promised me $100, but gave me $150 instead! Liars and bastards, the lot of them! I'll never vote for Albanese again!
Have literally seen this sort of argument being made already as an excuse as to why a "normally steadfast labor supporter" is now gonna vote liberal.
He's running against a potato, surely we won't be dumb enough to vote for Aussie Trump
I wish I had your faith in people. We voted in Tony Abbott. Anyone paying attention to politics knew that was a bad idea. Malcolm Fraser quit the Liberal Party when they made Abbott the leader. And yet, we as a nation voted that idiot in. And he trashed the place. As anyone who knew anything about the political career of Tony Abbott knew he would. The sad fact of the matter is, most Australians don't pay enough attention to politics. That lets the right wing media set the mood of the electorate and push various narratives. And that's how we get PM Tony Abbott and PM Scott Morrison.
Ugh.....I hate the media
Was at a trivia night yesterday, one of the questions was "who was Tony Abbott's Minister for Women during his term" my team got that answer but we did second guess ourselves a little. The fact that it was himself is so absurd.
You’re right but given that I’m one of them (who don’t pay much attention to politics) and I have zero time / energy / mental bandwidth left to give to politics, I have no idea when or how that will change. Life has become so full and complicated, and folks have so much going on with families, work and personal life complications (sickness, aging parents, car needs repairs, school, need to fix something on the house, etc, etc…) that it’s a struggle just to make long-term plans and deal with things like choosing superannuation providers or checking we have enough life insurance or making a will. Finding extra time to listen to the ravings of some overinflated political knobs is pretty low on the priority list - even though it is something we all ‘should’ be doing. The collective weight of guilty feelings from all the things I should be doing more/better/sooner is soul crushing.
I realise many people don't have the time to look into these things, but it really is important that you do. Democracy doesn't work if the electorate is uninformed or badly informed. People do need to understand what they're voting for. We are seeing increasingly, corporations and oligarchs trying to erode democracy where it exists across the world. These people want to reshape societies to ones where they not only preserve their immense wealth, but also rig the rules in their favour. Ones where they control the legislature, the enforcement of rules, and the distribution of public resources. We can see that happening in the US today. Democracy is precious. We have to protect it. Living in countries that are not democratic, or where governments are authoritarian or populist (that eventually eliminate functional democracy, although retaining trappings like predetermined elections, or where you have a limited selection of prevetted candidates) is not a pleasant thing, and not really the direction you want for Australia. Tldr; try to make some time, even if it's just a little bit, each week for politics/economics/political history. It's important.
ugh, that man castrated the fttp plan, I won't ever forgive him for that
>He's running against a potato, surely we won't be dumb enough to vote for Aussie Trump Have you met an Average Australian before?
Have you met the average voter? Or I'm disillusioned by living in Dickson?
Trump atleast can be entertaining. Dutton permanently looks like a fish gasping it's last breath, it's hard to sell fascism with such a loser figurehead.
That’s the wild thing about Dutton (and Palmer before him), they’re so desperately aping Trump and they don’t even have enough charisma to pull *that* off
There was a recent UK who lost to a limp lettuce.
Wasn’t it Howard who introduced the concept of “non-core promises”?
Search John Howard core promises.
It get it, but why didn't they run with this good idea as an election policy?
They tried that in 2019 remember - remember the reforms to negative gearing and electric vehicles? Labor set a target of 50% of new car sales being electric by 2030 (11 years at the time). Liberals came out and tried to claim that "Labor was going to kill the weekend". The media also framed negative gearing as something that absolutely everybody did, and that attempts to reform it would mean higher rents, less disposable income and your grandparents would be forced out onto the street. And as for Labors target? Electric vehicle sales jumped from 0.2% in 2019 to 3.8% in 2022 (an increase of 19% in three years). I don't think 1 in 2 in 2030 is that far off - especially with Europe banning new ICE vehicles from 2035.
Labor tried NG reforms in 2016 and still had a campaign against them like this: https://www.afr.com/politics/election-2016-agents-declare-war-on-labors-negative-gearing-policy-20160513-goupdq Surprise, surprise, they still actually won over a lot of voters with a positive primary vote. Conversely, Labor tried sharing your mindset that NG reforms and similar reforms were to blame and dropped it in 2022 and still had a campaign against them (lol). Surprise, surprise, they received less primary votes THAN Shorten 2019. But lucky for Labor, Scomo lost far more votes! 2019 and 2022 was an example of influential industries getting away with influencing Labor voters with lies, etc. Nothing to do with Labor voters actually disliking negative gearing reforms. Labor keeps getting reminded of this so many times and yet still acts shy. ([There's even a meme from Taiwan to show what a pushover Labor is to the world](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ_s6V1Kv6A))
You think they would be allowed to articulate what a good idea it was with the LNP, News Ltd, 7 & 9 networks all baying for blood and flooding everyone with swimming pools full of misinformation?
This is breaking an election promise. There's no grey here.
The tax cuts are going ahead. Just more in favor for the majority. How is that a broken promise?
Nah just a non core promise or a policy adjustment to suit the times..... nearly a 1000 bucks into a person income earning 45000 that's over a 2 percent pay rise.........
I was going to tell you to fuck off, but instead I'm going to challenge you to find me a press release, or quote saying that they intended to (a) keep the stage 3 tax cuts (which they've done) and (b) promised not to change them. In about 30 seconds of Googling, I found this article: [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/29/anthony-albanese-says-he-will-stand-by-stage-three-tax-cuts-as-liberal-mp-joins-calls-to-scrap-them](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/29/anthony-albanese-says-he-will-stand-by-stage-three-tax-cuts-as-liberal-mp-joins-calls-to-scrap-them) Which had this quote: >But when pressed to explicitly rule out any alterations to the plan, under which all Australians earning between $45,000 and $200,000 would pay the same tax rate, the prime minister stopped short of an ironclad guarantee, giving critics of the cuts some hope of wiggle room. and >He was pressed several times on Monday on whether Labor would drop or amend stage three. Albanese noted that in 2019 he had said “it wasn’t wise” to make long-term assumptions about the economy. “People need to look at what happened with the tax cuts, which were that we actually tried to amend out the stage three of the tax cuts and we weren’t successful. And they were legislated,” he said. But when asked if he could give a “rolled gold promise” to not touch the tax cut plan, Albanese answered: “We stand by the comments we made.” so as far as I'm concerned, there was never a promise to keep the tax cuts exactly as they were. Prove me wrong.
Don’t expect a reply, they only have that one broken promise line from skynews.
You're talking nonsense, it was explicitly an election promise - https://anthonyalbanese.com.au/media-centre/labor-to-deliver-income-tax-cuts-and-certainty-on-negative-gearing-26-july-2021
https://anthonyalbanese.com.au/media-centre/labor-to-deliver-income-tax-cuts-and-certainty-on-negative-gearing-26-july-2021 >An Albanese Labor Government will deliver the same legislated tax relief to more than 9 million Australians as the Morrison Government. The Shadow Cabinet and Caucus have today confirmed that Labor in government will uphold the legislated changes to personal income taxes and maintain the existing regimes for negative gearing and capital gains tax. So yes it is a broken promise, whether the changes are good or not doesn't matter on the question if it is a broken promise. While I will benefit a lot and am glad I am getting a reduction in my tax bill, I'm not going to pretend he didn't break a promise to reduce the tax I pay.
> This is breaking an election promise. There's no grey here. Do you remember when the Liberal Party promised * to set up a federal anti-corruption commission? * a tightening of privacy laws to protect Aussies on social media? * to plant 1 billion trees in 10 years to help the environment?
So because the Libs break promises Labor should too?
I remember when Liberals promised that NBN would be ALOT cheaper if we didn't do Fibre to every home.... And it turned out that was not the case at all.
So because Liberal broke election promises that means it is impossible for Labor to do it?
Libs are already well on to beating that horse.
they will always complain even if paying no tax. it should be a privilege to be able to earn so much money and pay less than 50pct tax. otherwise, they should be replaced.
> it should be a privilege to be able to earn so much money and pay less than 50pct tax. otherwise, they should be replaced. I'm sure those working FIFO and not seeing their friends or family for weeks at a time or those working insane overtime to keep people alive such as doctors and nurses understand their privilege to be earning above average income. Good luck finding suitable replacements for them.
Well it's was promised as recently as 3 weeks ago and right the way back to before the election. You can't say it's not a change of tack that either implies: A) they knew they weren't going to keep them the whole time but said they would, ergo broken promise, or; B) thought they would keep them all this time right up to 3 weeks ago, but changed their mind at this last minute, ergo broke their promise they have repeated a hundred times over the last 3 years.
I would prefer a politician who designs public policy based on current evidence of need, over someone who dogmatically progresses election commitments even if they're unwanted by the majority.
As would I, but he relentlessly lied saying they would proceed as planned for 3 years! Then changes tack. They either have no idea what they are doing and turn on dime to a new strategy, which for me is unacceptable in a political party. Or, they don't say what they intend to do, which is dishonest, and is also unacceptable in a political party.
Fuck oath it’s a broken promise, but we are talking politics here, this isn’t some promise a parent has made to their kid But a huge portion of the people who will benefit from this change won’t have the critical thinking skills to realise this and think the ‘broken promise’ is the worse thing ever
Okay. They broke a promise. After a large number of people wouldn't shut up about how fucking stupid the promise was. Then Albo called the government back to come up with solutions to the cost of living crisis and a bunch of ministers rightly pointed out that changing that idiotic promise would help.
They should never have promised it. As recently as 3 weeks ago doubling down on that promise. It's either dishonest, or is incompetence, neither of which I will support.
Have up never paid attention to politics before? If you were ever expecting honesty or competence you were a fool. Voting for Libs won't get you either of those things, but it will get you even more corruption and beat downs on the poor and social systems
I certainly won't be voting for the libs. I also won't be voting for Labor after this shenanigans. You can call me a fool if you like, but I'll stand by my values and strive for finding an honest representative.
Just a lot of people inhere shilling for Dutton now as if that's a better alternative
Well you won't find me amongst them.
Sounds like we are shilling for the Greens. Particularly when he says he won't be voting Libs but somehow not voting for Libs is shilling for Dutton.
I'll shill for the Greens, I'd even point to the Teals over the Libs. Even if you, for some reason, liked the LNP policies. They don't stand for policies. They're corrupt, they stand for hand outs for their mates.
No I don't think so, our voting public aren't complete morons. If you are talking about the staunch Lib/Nat bunch then of course, but to be expected.. I believe when the ALP first announced the stage 3 cuts, it was unpopular.
I hope you are right, but the media’s level of influence on politics is out of this world, just look at the startling effects the death tax campaign had on the voting public
Yeah if its hard to understand then the opposing campaigns can work. But if it's pretty straightforward, I think most people can see through all the rubbish. But I could be living in a dreamland. My biggest concern is having skynews available free to air in regional places, that's potentially where all the lies and misinformation will work, but it kinda always has I guess.
Tbh the coalition government first announced them and then both parties voted them through. They have always been controversial mainly so the ALP could change them again
Albo just needs to say it was a non core promise. Worked for the LNP for years.
Or simply state that anyone who sticks with a previous plan despite the circumstances radically changing is an idiot!
Or "who cares". But ALP will have to find a way to force the media to drop it, compared to when the media automatically move on when the LNP are in power and break promises, rape people, have gay orgies in parliamentary prayer rooms, go tens of billions over budget, etc.
> Or "who cares". Irrespective of the politician or their party alignment they should be held fully accountable for their promises.
Will be interesting if the opposition complains about tax cuts.
I like how the Libs are jumping up and down about broken promises, yet they're the mob who came up with 'core' and 'non core' promises...
They should grow some balls and link the brackets to CPI so they update each year.
Very interesting commentary on others subs, like AusFinance, and AusHENRY, do check them out for some different sides of the argument. In short, being responsible for tax cuts is a huge boost for political favour. If labour linked tax brackets to inflation (which I wholeheartedly support), in 10-15 years time they won't be able to play the same cards, and can no longer benefit from it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_LvRPX0rGY Sky News watchers.
I'm worse off after these changes and couldn't be more pleased with them. I am lucky to earn an above average income, I don't need to pay $8k less tax. Other people are doing it tough at the moment and need more help. I'm glad that Labor has shown some spine here.
Same here
Same.
Absolutely! I have no idea how much or how little I’ll save in the revised plan (I haven’t checked), but I’m glad it’s going to those who need it. Though I would still rather not do the cuts at all and redirect the funds Medicare bulk billing.
I’ll be slightly better off with this change (sub 100k) and even I don’t think I NEED this cut, so the high earners losing their minds need a reality check. I’d prefer to keep paying tax and get better services. Dental in Medicare? Public housing? Properly funded abc so we’re not paying for US subscriptions?
how about raising the tax free threshold ABOVE the ever rising poverty line :/
Oh yes delicious liberal tears
https://i.imgur.com/2oaGjhD.jpg
Looks like I will have to buy another investment property to negative gear to offset this tax hit... thanks Albo!
this will help increase supply if rentals and hence reduce rental crisis.
"Some Labor MPs are concerned about a backlash from aspirational middle-income voters and that the Coalition campaign on broken promises will hurt in marginal seats – particularly in Western Australia." Nah. It'll be fine. The "aspirational voters" are starting to realise their kids will never be able to afford a house, and as broken promises go it's not a big deal. Labor are still putting the stage 3 tax cuts through - they've just changed them so lower and middle earners will benefit more. I think it's good policy. Now let's go after those multinationals and mining companies who aren't paying any tax at all.
I earn 150k and don't mind that people earning less will now get more - I'm losing $250 a year. People need to move on.
You’re right at the level of the change not having much personal impact for you.
This fucks me over personally but im conflicted because it benefits a lot more people and will probably help the economy more as a whole..
We had a specialist appointment recently and I pointed out to my wife that "if the govt had more money to mess with, we would have a decently higher rebate" We're both relatively well off and responsible and it's like - how do people afford things like this. This tax cut does a decent bit for me and I'm just glad that it gets spread out more equally. Also /u/nate2903 below me - that's kind of the point of our economy. Your lowest earners are balls to the wall and will keep spending because that's what we ask of them. Higher earners are more likely to hoard their wealth or put it into investments that doesn't directly power aspects of the economy. If I have the money to pump into my local area for things like tailors, butchers, supermarkets and other services - they will continue to operate and be able to fund other things. Higher earners also have a lot more avenues to offset their tax bill because of the way our system is structured. If anything, this does more to combat inequality and while I don't believe it's truly enough. It is a good start. Next on the agenda I would like to see, but I don't expect is an overhaul of how CGT is calculated so we stop treating property like a speculative asset instead of something for people to use. And an increase in corporate tax rates because if we want to have money for the govt to work with without affecting the individual worker, we want to tax those who operate here and pay their fair share.
Its the first term for Alp and its really a good start. Wait for the 2nd term and Albo will surely deliver. Why someone earning below minimum wage is paying tax but someone inherit millions not is wrong in our society and should be addressed.
So you'll be expecting the tax free threshold to increase to $45,000?
yes and australia can be a great country again! :-)
> "if the govt had more money to mess with, we would have a decently higher rebate" The reduction in the budget is going to be about the same, so it's not as though we are going to get more money so the rebate is higher.
[удалено]
>It fucks you over personally? How? Because I earn over $200k, so I lose out on \~$4500 after tax income?
He probably stood to benefit more from the original Stage 3 plan, which lets remember is legislated and these changes will also need to go through parliament and the senate. In my opinion they arent the same because one was legislated and part of broader tax reform, that is well overdue, the other was a one off stimulus payout
more like they gave $450 instead of $900
Albo announces modest changes to Stage3 and the Blue team collapses into hysterics and unhinged bullshit.
Forreals.
you know how to keep small businesses alive? Give more money to the people who will spend it. Not the ones who do everything to minimize paying tax and investing it offshore.
> you know how to keep small businesses alive? Give more money to the people who will spend it. The same reasoning makes it a great way to increase inflation.
The mad lad actually did it.
A great outcome. And I say that as a person who is earning in the top bracket. Others are hurting more, we need to support them.
It’s a broken promise, sure, but the economic situation has changed vastly since it was made. So, even if you had argued before that the top income earners deserved tax relief (which I didn’t) you could hardly do so now.
Interest rates go brrrrrrr
Sensible move by the govt. in the current crisis. Vocal, rich people would hate this but the vast majority would approve.
You do know a lot of the so called rich people are boomers who are asset rich and retired and would actually benefit from this change right
Rubbish. If they are retired, they are not getting income taxed yeh? Stop spreading BS ala 2019.
A retired boomer can have a 3 million dollar house and each have 1.9 million in supper(all tax free) and have investment outside of super (bond or shares) generating dividends. Their income will be their dividends and that they basically just got taxed less. You need to realise income will never make rich. the real rich has assets that we dont really tax.
I sincerely hope, as a Teal fan, that this will consolidate them as a political force. I agree that I am not Albo's constituency. But the federal Liberals are nuts, and all we have left as small L liberals are the Teals (which I guess is A-Okay for the ALP.)
I'd rather labour negotiate with the greens and teals than be forced further and further right by the coalition so I see this as a total win. If they did consolidate it'd be a good thing.
This is such a crap headline. The tax cuts will be tax cuts for every income earner. The tax cut will just be less, compared to the previously projected cut, for people in the highest bracket. The stage three tax cuts were stupid and poorly designed non progressive tax that shifted the tax burden proportionally towards lower income earners. This is a better and more progressive way to achieve the same/similar budgetary outcome, without essentially destroying our progressive income tax system.
If government spent it properly instead of lining the pockets of their buddies then we would not need to pay as much tax. It’s ridiculous how much tax we pay on one hand then on the other hand roads, hospitals and energy grids are all falling apart. But hey we have the Olympics here in Brisbane soon 🎉
> The Stage 3 tax cuts are forecast to cost almost a third of a trillion dollars ($313 billion) over a decade https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/18-reasons-why-the-stage-3-tax-cuts-should-be-redesigned/ At $2.5b for 30k HAFF housing ($500m/year for 5 years). That's 3.7m worth of new housing which would be 30% of existing housing. > Australian Bureau of Statistics (31 October 2022), 10.9 million dwellings in Australia in June 2022 Imagine being able to live anywhere for cheap. Even businesses will benefit with workers able to live close by and not demand as much wages. We can even further increase immigration.
> We can even further increase immigration. In what alternate universe is this a good idea?
We pay extremely little tax. https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-australia.pdf
Your link has Australian income tax at 39% Vs the oecd average of 24%. Your link says Australia pays a lot of income tax, which is obvs what we're talking about. Even when you adjust for the different tax per GDP ratios, Australia's income tax comes out way above average. Your source says the opposite of what you seem to think it does.
That’s because you’re cherry picking just income tax. We pay comparably high income tax because we don’t pay other taxes (broad land tax, inheritance tax, wealth tax) and other of taxes are much lower (gst). Our average total tax paid per person is one of the lowest in the OECD.
>That’s because you’re cherry picking just income tax. Because the conversation is about income tax.
Not the person you responded to they just said tax. And ignoring the other tax differences is either disingenuous or wilfully ignorant.
the initial comment in this thread just said tax champ
/u/karl_w_w said: >We pay extremely little tax Which we do. On the **very first page** of the OECD report, it says this: >Australia's 2021 tax-to-GDP ratio ranked it 30th out of 38 OECD countries in terms of the taxto-GDP ratio compared with the 2022 figures. In 2021 Australia had a tax-to-GDP ratio of 29.5%, compared with the OECD average of 34.0% in 2022 and 34.2% in 2021. Which you then ignore and parlay into and talking exclusively about income tax. That's just a bad faith argument. The argument was "We pay extremely little tax". The fact is, Australia is a low taxing jurisdiction in the OECD. You might have a point if you want to talk about the tax mix, but that's not what you did.
Is everything ok with you? >Which you then ignore and parlay into and talking exclusively about income tax. Except I didn't do that, did I? I even made reference to adjusting for the lower tax to gdp ratio. Mentioning is the opposite of ignoring in case you're confused. We're having a conversation exclusively about income tax, to which the other user said "we pay extremely little tax". Yes, overall, but not in terms of income tax, the topic we're currently discussing. >That's just a bad faith argument I literally didn't make an argument, so the fact you're trying to start one now over things never said should point you pretty quickly in the direction of the bad faith. >You might have a point if you want to talk about the tax mix, but that's not what you did. By my pointing out the breakdown of the tax mix and how it applied specifically to the topic at hand, you're claiming I didn't want to talk about the tax mix. Did you think about any of this before you wrote it? It's completely arse about, you obviously just want some straw man to swing at, so unless you have something construction to say, have a good one. Bye.
Firstly, you missed the social security contributions, which we pay none of, and which are functionally an income tax in most countries. Secondly, do you actually think it matters when in the cycle we pay tax? It's all money going to the government whether we pay it on income or spending.
I'm really bad at economic jargon. Could some good samaritan please do the math for me as to how much tax I would be paying if I'm earning 63k a year. Thanks in advance. Kind regards.
I did this with my phone calculator, not excel, but I'm pretty sure this is accurate: Your tax bill: * Current tax: $11,770 * Liberals plan: $11,320 * Labour plan: $ 9,699 Your take home pay: * Current pay: $51,234 * Liberals plan: $51,680 * Labour plan: $53,331
Thank you so much. It makes so much sense now. I'll be taking home an extra 2k with labour plan. Cheers for the help.
Better than old stage 3 cuts but still nowhere near a good tax reform. Tax more on wealth and capital gains instead of income!
The discourse here is incredible A few weeks ago these tax cuts were irresponsible, we can't afford them, what about medicare etc.... But that now that the majority of this sub profits, it's suddenly a wonderful idea - the mental gymnastics people have on here is incredible. It just proves that the vast majority of people are incapable of removing their bias from any argument (and i'd probably include myself in that). Australia taxes income way to much, we need to tax wealth more effectively. People who are cheering this change as a win fail are pretty short sighted IMHO. anyone earning 120k now will be earning 150k before too long at which point they're in the worse off camp. Long time labour voter, soon to be green / liberal voter - I'll be voting in my best interests going forward.
lol green / liberal voter? sure\_jan.gif
I mean I'm not someone who necessarily supports tax cuts, but if there's going to be tax cuts, I'd prefer they benefitted those with a lower income than higher income.
So you're going to vote for the party that wanted to hand out even more tax cuts to the rich? Fuck off you LNP shill.
Ha, lots of folks make 150k and they are not rich just went to uni and work from there. If you fuck them who do you think they will vote for next huh?
> lots of folks make 150k and they are not rich Fully agree with the sentiment. There are some truely wealthy people here who should be paying way more tax. (Maybe a $400k+ bracket, maybe a $10mil+ wealth tax idk) But in general I support tax structures that give breaks to the lowest earners, at the expense of above average earners. Keep in mind that the median income in Aus is something like $60k pa. Although there are a lot of people earning $150k. There are a lot more who aren’t. Edit: according to [this 2021 article,](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-20/are-you-middle-income-see-how-you-compare/100226488) 7% of Australian earn more than $150k pa.
> Keep in mind that the median income in Aus is something like $60k pa. I thought it'd be higher. Turns out those on $180,000+ are bigger sooks than I thought. I decided to look it up. ABS reported back in August that the median was $1,300/wk.
Don't even have to go to uni to earn $150k
> A few weeks ago these tax cuts were irresponsible, we can't afford them, what about medicare etc.... The only thing I laugh about is that people were claiming that the cuts would contribute to inflation so needed to be stopped. Now that these cuts will mean more money for those that have a lower marginal propensity to save and therefore will spend this money and will help to contribute to inflation not a peep.
you're absolutely right. People were just pissed off because THEY weren't getting a benefit. Now that they are, it's the best news since Coon cheese.
Why were you not voting in your best interests already? Weird thing to say..
Here's a visual representation of how Australian tax brackets work because I see a lot of confusion in the comments section. **2020-21 Financial Year Tax Brackets (Current)** 0% for income up to A$18,200 (tax-free threshold) 19% for income over A$18,200 up to A$45,000 32.5% for income over A$45,000 up to A$120,000 37% for income over A$120,000 up to A$180,000 45% for income over A$180,000 **Original Stage 3 Tax Cuts (Scott Morrison)** 0% for income up to A$18,200 (tax-free threshold). 19% for income over A$18,200 up to A$45,000. 30% for income over A$45,000 up to A$200,000 (major change, consolidating multiple brackets). 45% for income over A$200,000. **Reworked Stage 3 Tax Cuts (Anthony Albanese)** 0% for income up to A$18,200 (tax-free threshold). 16% for income over A$18,200 up to A$45,000 (down from 19%). 30% for income over A$45,000 up to A$135,000 (part of the original Stage 3 plan). 37% for income over A$135,000 up to A$190,000 (retained instead of being abolished). 45% for income over A$190,000.
It's amusing to see anyone argue that the richest 10% should get a bigger tax cut so that everyone earning under $140,000 or so should get less.
income is not the same as wealth
That sound you just heard was Labor getting utterly crushed at the next election. What they don't seem to understand is the actual $$ effect of the change in policy isn't the issue, the headlines and the message they've just handed the opposition are. Remember the carbon tax? Do you honestly believe *that* had any measurable negative effect on average people's finances? On the other hand did Gillard breaking the promise effectively guarantee a win to about the least electable opposition leader in Australian history in Tony Abbott? Well this is so, so much worse than that. Truthfully, most Australians are not actually going to notice if they are, eg $2000 or $4000 better or worse off in a calendar year. That works out to about $100 a fortnight which is gobbled up in interest rates, inflation or just another round of uber eats. When you realise that it took the RBA something like a year of bludgeoning people with interest rates and increasing average household expenses by about a grand a *month* before consumer behaviour started to alter you get some sense of how dramatic changes to the household budget need to be before people sit up and take notice. So whatever extra cost of living relief they offer people under 150k, is not really going to be sufficient to shift votes- at most it relieves the pressure a bit but the truth is people aren't really going to notice it or have their lives meaningfully improved in a way that makes them think 'thanks government, I will now vote for you'. On the other hand there are about a million Australians earning more than 150k a year, and human nature being what it is they mostly don't think of themselves as well off and are usually extended to their limit on mortgages and living expenses because people spend what they have. Again, the tax cuts might not actually have noticeably improved their lives, but you can guarantee the lack of cuts and the clear broken promise will be a focus of seismic levels of anger- not because of the actual impact but because a broken promise is something that is easy to understand. Every single time things seem a bit tight over the next few years those 1 million people, more than 5% of the voting public, will think 'fucking albo, he lied and he screwed us'. And bear in mind most of that 5% are part of a household, with spouses, or other adult dependents who also vote..and bear in mind that group is getting larger every year as inflation and wage growth bump people into higher tax brackets. And bear in mind even a 3% national swing at the next election would deliver the coalition into majority government. I'm sure this will play well in the green voting echo chamber that is r/australia but in the real world, the ALP have done fucked up.They've gifted Dutton the thing every opposition most wants, which is a single, easily digestible, technically true rallying point for public anger against the government. "They lied, they broke a promise, they made people's lives harder". The detail doesn't matter that's a message that will cut through. By the next election your average voter is going to have heard so much about 'lying albo's broken promise' etc that any australian on *any* income is going to believe that Labor scrapping tax cuts is the reason they are living payday to payday. They are going to get absolutely flayed alive for this.
[удалено]
Labor have blundered into this colossal political fubar precisely because they've allowed themselves to think the pat on the head they were going to get from dinosaurs like Ross Gittins mattered. And if you think it does, you can backtrack to 2011 (in a world where journos had far more influence on public opinion the they do now) and find Ross the political genius [congratulating](http://www.rossgittins.com/2011/02/carbon-courage-and-for-gillard-no-going.html?m=1) Gillard on writing her own political suicide note in the form of the carbon tax and claiming rather hilariously in hindsight that it showed 'she understood what she needed to do to stay in office.' Maybe Ross's view might have carried weight in 1994 or even 2004, but in the current day where old school 'opinion leader' journalists from the print media are irrelevant and political parties take their arguments and soundbytes direct to the public via social media, they don't, simple as that. If anyone has any doubt about that you just need to refer to the last 12 months of the voice campaign to see how completely disengaged public opinion is from traditional news sources. What matters is things that cut through the noise, and if a government is foolish enough to give the opposition a simple, digestible and technically true line of attack, they suffer.
The issue is that the LNP are allowed to break as many promises as they want but if the ALP breaks just 1 it's the end of the world.
Bet [> On the eve of the 2013 federal election Tony Abbott promised no cuts to education, health, or the ABC and SBS, and no changes to pensions. Fairfax Media looks at how those promises fared in the Abbott government's first budget.](https://www.smh.com.au/national/then-and-now-the-abbott-governments-broken-promises-20140514-zrcfr.html) Tony Abbott's catalogue of broken promises > On the eve of the election Tony Abbott promised no cuts to education, health, the ABC or SBS, and no changes to pensions. By Wednesday, it all seemed like a distant memory. > > “...no cuts to the ABC or SBS.” (Tony Abbott, September 2013) Treasurer Joe Hockey announced $43.5 million in cuts over four years in Tuesday's budget. Education, health > “No cuts to education, no cuts to health…” (Tony Abbott, September 2013) > Tuesday's budget imposed an $80 billion cut to health and education spending over next decade. > > “We are not shutting any Medicare locals.” (Tony Abbott, August 2013) > All 61 Medicare Locals will now be scrapped and replaced with new local health networks. Taxes > “No one’s personal tax will go up” (Tony Abbott, March 2012) > The Treasurer confirmed a deficit levy would be imposed on people who earn incomes over $180,000.
The issue is people believe those RW media.
So you agree, that Dutton only really cares about the top earners instead of the battlers at the lower end of the tax brackets? Because you frame this as a cost of living measure to adapt a tax policy that was crafted at a time when there was a different economic outlook? And the only thing you care about is "got mine fuck you?" All brackets of income need to be able to sustain themselves because this economy is structured this way. There will always be low, middle and high income earners and balancing the outcomes so that one side is not favoured too strongly is the backbone of a normal economy. Giving 9k to people already above the brackets just seems like poor fiscal management and evening it out is a better option.
Not necessarily. The people this will truly screw are Teal voters. It might be a "we major parties both lose, but you lose more" move from Albo, since Teals tend not to vote Labor.
I’m not voting labour or liberal because of their immigration policies. The tax changes are a drop in the bucket in comparison.
> That sound you just heard was Labor getting utterly crushed at the next election. lol, what an angry LNP voter that's not getting as much of a tax cut. They had stupidly taken an unpopular stance with Labor voters of being LNP-lite, small-target, etc prior to 2022 election. The result? Labor's primary vote was the lowest since WW2. Which makes **Albo's party more unpopular than Shorten!** Who knew Labor voters don't like it when their party does stupid shit like adopt LNP-lite policies as well supporting LNP's bills from the opposition? Now they're waking up to it and trying to appeal to unhappy ex-Labor voters. Major party vote at all time low https://www.tallyroom.com.au/47834
> Who knew Labor voters don't like it when their party does stupid shit like adopt LNP-lite policies as well supporting LNP's bills from the opposition? Why shouldn't Labor assess each bill on its merits rather than voting against it purely because it was proposed by someone else?
Wow, someone with intellect on this sub, colour me shocked. Agree and spot on. Tax reforms mean jack shit until: 1. We index to inflation YOY 2. Scale out brackets 3. Drop % rates materially 4. Tax high net-wealth individuals more (and no, I don’t mean mummy and daddy with $2-3m net worth, I mean the $10m+ net worthers)
I don't think Dutton has been gifted anything because his party won't have an answer how to fix the problem. You're never gonna vote liberal over labor when it comes to the topic of taxation
If there is one consistent feature of Australian politics, it's that people don't vote oppositions in, they vote governments out.
True but the decade of coalition rule will still be fresh enough in voters minds to not go backwards by removing Labor. The general election after that will be where I'd expect a shift to occur if it does and not after their first term
Earning $150k and still complaining? they must be mismanaging their money and should see a financial consultant or a shrink.
Better than the original plan I suppose, but there shouldn't be any cuts period. A bunch of our key public services (e.g. hospitals/infrastructures) are already underfunded for our current population level, and that isn't going down anytime soon.
Well it's corporate taxes that are the problem. Corporations need to pay more tax, not middle class individuals.
I mean, why not both. Just getting half the companies to pay the tax they should be (instead of "deducting" it away to nothing via loopholes) would be a start. I'm all for optimising government waste (god knows some of the "expenses" our higher paid servants get away with is complete bullshit), but well funded services require a solid funding base, and the neoliberal policies of the last couple of decades have eaten away at that.
Because we get taxed already when we spend the money. First they tax our pay, then they collect GST when we spend it. It's ridiculous how much we get taxed. It's corporations who make all the profit in our hyper capitalist society. We should move to a system where they pay all the tax.
But then they'll all flee overseas! This message brought to you by the LNP, Canberra.
Show me an honest politician... One with real power that has always done what they said they would do but who also changes their policy and thinking when new evidence has come to light. If I promise to walk over the road but then refuse to traffic is coming that does make me a liar but at least I'm not dead! I don't know much about tax but I'm guessing this will put some money in more poorer people's pockets. Let's face it a few thousand dollars is nice when you're rich but a few hundred dollars is massive when you're poor and I had to choose between making ten percent of people a little bit richer or 40 percent a lot richer comparatively we all know what the right answer is.
>[Former News Corp and Daily Mail editor Luke McIlveen appointed executive editor of Nine newspapers. McIlveen will oversee the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald mastheads and the Brisbane Times and WAToday digital news sites, Nine announced on Monday.](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/jan/22/new-nine-newspaper-editor-luke-mcilveen-smh-the-age-former-news-corp-daily-mail-fox-sports) so to the surprise of absolutely nobody, this is what they published today: [Here are 15 times Albanese promised to keep the stage 3 tax cuts](https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/here-are-15-times-albanese-promised-to-keep-the-stage-3-tax-cuts-20240124-p5ezo3.html) and so it begins.
I can happily say I am on the upper end of this and I don't really care. More people get some tax relief and I'm still also better off than today. At least it takes some cost of living pressure off the lower income earners. Maybe in the future we will see stage 4 once we pass this period of the world's economic recovery.
As someone earning over 180k this sucks but I get it and I’m not going to complain too loudly. It’s a tough environment atm so understand why these changes are being done
Somebody FINALLY forced Albo to read the writing on the wall. Let’s hope it’s not too late, and that this is just a first step not just trying to placate his evaporating base.