How does everyone feel about the liberal party policy to reduce the tax rate to 30 cents in the dollar for income earners between $45,000 - $200,000? This is part of their policy to kick in from 2024 (so still a few years out) Labor is opposed to stages two and three of the government's tax plan which includes this change.. I personally think this is long overdue our tax rates are far too high. This would mean the more you work the more of your hard earned income you get to keep. It would be an incentive for people to better themselves, study, invent, create and earn higher incomes. Shorten's arguement is its unfair that a $50,000 employee would pay the same 30 cents in the dollar than say a doctor earning 200k (for income from 45k onwards). I don't see it that way. The 50k income earner has an incentive to upskill / achieve more and has more opportunity to keep more of the value they bring to the economy.
The policy will be hard on Australia, they are setting us up for a structural deficit. Money now for pain later, is that what we want? https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...o-deficit-research-finds-20190408-p51c0l.html
It's about ****en time we get to keep more of our tax dollars. We should stop more of the fraud, waste and abuse of our money.
This is the same old argument that I have a real problem with. Someone earning $50,000 will pay something like $7,032 in tax (ignoring other levies and rebates) Someone earning $200,000 will pay $52,043 in tax. How is it unfair that someone earning 4 times more per year pays 7 times more tax? The effective tax rate for someone earning $50,000 per year will be 14.0% while the effective tax rate for someone earning $200,000 per year will be 26% How is that unfair? It's not unfair at all. Personally I've been advocating for something along these lines for a long time - a flat 30% tax bracket for everyone (with a tax free threshold for the lowest income earners). Keep company tax rates at the same 30% level. Will simplify so many things. There has never been a justifiable reason for the government to take nearly 50% of someone's earnings.
I'd love to have the privilege of having 50% of my $2m earnings taxed. I wouldn't even lose sleep. But that is not what you are pointing out. "Never justified" is what you are saying. In the past there have been times when taxes were astronomical for all sorts of reasons, as to whether it was justified is a personal opinion. What about paying for, lets say, World War 2? Was that justified? If so your claim of "There has never been a justifiable reason for the government to take nearly 50% of someone's earnings." is wrong. History of Federal Income Tax Rates: 1913 – 2019
Actually, the point of my post was that a 30% tax bracket to $200,000 is not unfair. But as for my final throw-away comment, it was indeed nothing more than an opinion and not the point of this discussion.
Regardless of whether the next tax bracket kicks in at $120k or $200k, there will always be those who whinge that they don't want to do overtime/earn more/study/progress/take a more important role as they will lose half of it in tax (it's only on the amount above the threshold and only until they lodge their tax return and get it all back). Although it makes great reading and causes the most reaction by flattening out the tax scales, like any pyramid, the number of people earning the >$200k is relatively small compared to the numbers earning <$120k, so effectively it benefits very few people and costs the government very little. If you create a lower tax rate that benefits the majority of income earners, it is more expensive to the budget bottom line and is not recouped, just like giving everyone $1000 to blow on tv sets or whatever.
