2019 Budget-in-reply Address - Canberra

Sounds like a whinge to me and downward envy. Nothing in your post changes anything, you wouldn't buy a property unless you knew the number and did research.
Given the lack of quality peer reviewed articles from others, it would appear there is little to support your views.

 

OK Simon - those were ambit claims. I'm secretly an anarchist!

 

Dont you hire a good accountant so that you minimise your tax liabilities?

 

Anyone benefits from the “high taxes” they pay in one way or another. Oh no! Shocking isn’t it?
Part of the reason we leave in a stable, safe and rather wealthy country is the progressive tax system.

Your “extra and oh so unfair” taxes pay for:

• Safety: keeping have nots fed and content and away from burglary and crime. When people are hangry, sick or desperate and have nothing to lose they turn violent. It’s not surprising that universal healthcare was introduced in Scotland post WWII, in Russia after revolution and in Germany during Bismarck wars!
• Around half the tax concessions flow to the wealthiest 20 per cent, while only $6.1 billion went to the bottom 20 per cent
  
• Social transfers stimulate economy and benefit those who run or have businesses.
• Rich benefit from schools, roads and security as much as the poor. In fact they utilise these services more often.

These are just off the top of my head. It’s so easy to cry poor while not realising the direct benefit that these “evil taxes” provide. Meh!

 

Bad. I don't mind a progressive tax system. The problem with our system is that it is way too complex. Then Labor want to limit how much advice we can get in a year. That's not right.

It's also a shame that the negative gearing changes undermine the progressivity of the tax system. But then, I'll be better off, so who am I to complain ;-)

 

Yes of course. But even then there is only so much you can (legally) minimise before the gouging starts.

 

I for one agree with the party who wants to change the 30 cents in the dollar income tax levels. I wish it would happen sooner rather than later.

I work part time so I am in the 19c bracket, after tax kicks in. More than half my income is within the tax free threshold. And now that most of you hate me, I shall continue.

I agree that those of you who earn the big dollars SHOULD be able to work longer hours, harder, and in more stressful roles, and be on the same level of taxation as the majority of us in that 30 (32)c bracket. I have never liked the system that when people get into the higher levels, their Marginal Tax Rate increases.

Having a tax-free threshold means the very lowest-earning folks, including for example those with disabilities and mothers/students who work part-time, can get a helping hand. The majority of full time employees then get to earn the majority of their income at 30% and the ones who do the extra miles are not penalised for doing so.

For some strange reason which is unusual in Oz, I actually support higher-income earners having their rate lowered. Before anyone howls me down, remember these people spend a lot more than low-income earners on GST items and thus pay a lot more taxes in the community on top of their income tax.

 

Hey @Angel. That’s not actually an accurate statement. Rich consume a smaller proportion of their income than the poor. They save money which people on lower incomes would spend. This leads to a reduction in aggregate demand, which in turn leads to unemployment. In response, governments take measures to stimulate demand, such as lowering interest rates. This feeds into asset bubbles—for example, unsustainably high housing prices.

Also...More egalitarian societies tend to have lower steady-state unemployment. They also tend to have higher rates of technical progress and productivity growth. [economics. Also just compare Australia and Norway to the US and China]

A more equal wage distribution encourages specialisation in higher value-adding industries, while low wage, low value-adding industries cannot compete [like manufacturing].

 

1. Simplicity - compliance and enforcement is as easy as possible. Liability as certain as possible.
2. Efficiency - as little interference in market choices as possible. But I’m a fan of tax as a lever to encourage positive economic outcomes or discourage negative ones. Good use is cigarettes tax vs a bad use is luxury vehicle tax.
2. Fairness - horizontal equity (same vs same) should be achieved AND vertical equity (richer vs poorer) should be achieved. I am in favour or the tax free threshold as a balance between flat and progressive. I don’t believe that your benefit from government services or support should determine fairness with regard to tax paid.

The wealthy are contributing to revenue through other inefficient tax measures that tip the fairness scale and are not for positive economical outcomes - namely property and vehicle taxes. I would rather see a flat tax above a tax free threshold and removal of inefficient taxes. Additionally, increasing simplicity to remove tax avoidance options for the wealthy and corporations.

 

Yeah....... I was in the 60 cents brigade too. Fiscal mis-management is what irks me. We are taxed on so many levels and honestly a populace of 25 million doesn't need the layers of state government wwith non-standardised and non-uniform state taxes and levies. We should have a federal government and maybe a CEO or similar to oversee state interest and create super-councils like Qld has. This is very evident in South East Qld. Jeff Kennett amalgamated councils in Victoria in the early 90's but he didn't go far enough.

 

nah. Say a person earns $500 a week and requires all of it to cover their essentials like shelter, food and transport They have nothing left over for discretionary spending which is where the GST comes in.

Then someone else earns $1000 a week and requires the same $500 for the essentials. I dont care whether they spend it all or save some, they will buy plenty of discretionary items and pay GST on it. This is more $$$ than the low-income earner spends on GST purchases.

Then person 3 earns $2000 a week and believes they require $1500 for their essentials, some of which includes GST. They might save or they might spend the rest - I bet most of them will spend and rack up another round of GST. They provide jobs for others, they contribute to public services. The higher their income, the more $$$ they contribute to the economy period. This is before you consider how much PAYE tax they contribute.

Please forget about quoting percentages of income/tax. This is academic talk to convey whatever outcome the author wants to convey. We can make statistics read whatever we want them to. Remember the typical Australian can't tell the difference between their tax rate and the % amount of tax they pay. *And that's the way consecutive governments want it to be.

 

Amalgamate councils? Western Australia has 137 local governments. What could be inefficient about that?

 

Why does WA need more than 4 or 5? Perth, Freo, Albany, Karratha and a handful of land councils.

 

O no, I'm not sure i can marry you now