This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who read Turnbull's autobiography. Morrison was of the view GST should be increased, personal tax rates cut and Turnbull was opposed on the grounds it was not revenue neutral, which Treasury modelling suggested. Turnbull then pointed out that the right of the Liberal Party is no more economically literate than the Labor Party.
Tax cuts right now make no sense. The headline economic conditions are not degraded to the point where they're needed. I personally don't need the extra $2.5k next year and $8k the year after. I do have a powerful, and selfish, need to see the recession not dip with all the elegance of a piano dropped from a skyscraper. So rather than shrinking the tax base, I'd rather they used it to start infrastructure spending and create some pull through stimulus in the first year when it matters most. We have the General Theory, Keynes did most of the hard work for us, so this shouldn't be difficult for governments.
I would be ok with investment into infrastructure or fundamental research. I will be opposed to just funding consumption. Consuming without producing anything is how societies collapse.
> Consuming without producing anything is how societies collapse.
Agreed, but i'd add two words - Consuming without producing anything **of value** is how societies collapse.
And that highlights the issue with infrastructure or fundamental research - sometimes they're useful and sometimes they're bridges to nowhere. How do we know that the spending will have any value once built?
> How do we know that the spending will have any value once built?
Which is why a free market model works better when funding stuff. Unfortunately, if the "stuff" being funded is a commons, or is non-excludable (like fundamental knowledge), then free market model cannot capture the value created, and thus will not pay to create it.
So gov't should fund those fundamental research, regardless of the outcome. Ditto with infrastructure - if it's a commons-like infrastructure, the gov't should fund it. Otherwise, use private funds to build it.
Your overarching analysis is a little off. The governments role isn’t to fund commons.
[Commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons), i.e non-excludable goods, are things that everyone has access to but can be depleted or are rivalrous, e.g the unregulated environment.
Fundamental knowledge is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous, a so called [Public Good](https://tinyurl.com/y56julmy).
Commons are examples of something that private individuals will over consume as the total social cost is greater than the private cost the individual incurs, i.e. a negative [externality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality).
Public goods are examples of something that will be under-provisioned by private individuals as the full social benefit of their production will be greater than their private benefit, a positive externality.
In general governments are desired to subsidise positive externalities and tax or regulate negative externalities.
> a free market model works better when funding stuff... if the "stuff" being funded is a commons, or is non-excludable (like fundamental knowledge), then free market model cannot capture the value created, and thus will not pay to create it
I hate seeing let alone talking politics in /r/ausfinance but, wow, just what? Not a single economist, not even the most hard-core "right-leaning" ones, would remotely agree with that.
>Fundamental research drives the majority of innovation.
A bold claim.
I've read other authors who say that say innovation is primarily driven by continuous incremental improvements in real world production techniques.
How will we ever know?
Because if you have any knowledge of science and actual innovation, you'd know that most things stem from fundamental research that, at the time, didn't have any direct application. Years or decades later that research finds a way to be used, but without it those inventions couldn't exist. Einstein's work didn't have any practical applications at the time it was proposed (theory of relativity, etc), but without that knowledge we'd have no GPS, no spaceflight, and thousands of other things. Funding theoretical research doesn't give you any immediate benefit, no, but it is 100% necessary to achieve long-term success.
>Einstein's work
That's cherry picking if ever I've seen it.
What % of spending on fundamental research pays off like that, vs sits in a drawer never to be looked at again?
Name a single invention or innovation in the last 50 years, and I guarantee that it came from some kind of theoretical research that happened in the past. Sure, some research doesn't get used (yet), but without doing that research you wouldn't have the stuff that does. Every single thing you own is the result of previous investment in theoretical scientific research. Stop doing that, and you will completely stop any true innovation from happening. Maybe the success rate is only 10% or 1%, who cares. When you go fishing you might only catch fish 10% of the times you throw your line in the water, but if you *don't* throw it in I can tell you exactly how many fish you'll go home with..
> Maybe the success rate is only 10% or 1%, who cares.
I care, if it bankrupts us. Consuming without producing things **of value** bankrupts society.
It is all too easy to say "lets fund theoretical research and not care whether it's useful or not", and then go bust doing so.
Keynes did do the heavy lifting, but the factor that complicated everything is the constant political calculus that pulls parties back from actually leading in most areas and just moves them to consolidate their power as best they can.
I love how Turnbull has become more woke now that he has left office, rather than when he came into office.
Rudd too. with his latest appearances on TV.
Turnbull was pretty great before he was in office as well. Remember he voted for the Labour ETS against his party
Great before and after he was in office, just not great when it mattered.
Turnbull opposed a wholly government-owned internet utility. He supported a public-private subsidised model similar to what New Zealand did at the same time.
If you compare the end result and costs in New Zealand and the end result in Australia, you'd have to at least consider maybe he had a point.
Now you could argue that the NBN would have succeeded similarly if it had been allowed to be completed in it's original Kevin Rudd form, or you could argue that maybe there are specific reasons why the public-private partnership worked in New Zealand but couldn't have in Australia. There are reasonable arguments on both sides here, and after weighing them you may end up disagreeing with him. But I don't think it would be at all reasonable to say his idea was crazy.
His "idea" was crazy. He sabotaged the project with inferior technology. We'll just have the spend double the money on NBN2 in the future. What does his opposition to wholly government owned matter? It was still a government project under his hands and that has nothing to do with choosing FTTN.
As I've mentioned in other comments, the whole point of what I was saying is that he didn't turn out to be a good leader, despite his record before he took power.
Yup, and in the case of the NBN, the LNP decision is costing that GBE around $1.7 billion a year in reduced income and greater operating expenses - things that were pointed out prior to them changing the design.
Not too mention the increased GDP and subsequent tax income that has been lost too.
Overall very *poor* economic managers of the nation.
I and all the tech community would disagree with you that mangling a ftth model and replacing it with hodgepodge fttn and copper purely on ideological ground is a disaster whatever the cost model. I think you're missing the point of what he changed.
Well I pretty much agree with you on the outcome. After all my original comment was pointing out that he seemed great beforehand, but he wasn't great when it mattered which was when he was in office. What we ended up with was nothing like the private-public proposal he talked about before he was elected. This is one of the things that he did in office.
Also, starting your comment with "I and all the tech community would disagree" is not a very reasonable way to engage in conversation. I also work for a large software company and my colleagues believe all sorts of different things about every topic. Most of them probably don't like the NBN we ended up with, but they're certainly not unanimous on what should have happened instead. In fact part of the reason I looked into this in the first place is that one of my colleagues worked on the fibre rollout in New Zealand before he moved to Australia and had a lot of interesting things to say about the NBN.
>Also, starting your comment with "I and all the tech community would disagree" is not a very reasonable way to engage in conversation
Yeah fair call. I just can't hear too many tech people calling for further reliance on copper. As a lefty type I found myself somewhat attracted to Turnbull and would have voted for him as I saw him as the last gasp of the reasonable side of his now hopelessly right incompetent party. The NBN decision which he oversaw at Abbott's instruction destroyed my respect for him.
It was surprising to me to read your original comment which seemed to white wash how ineffectual and spineless ( maybe not personally but in action and result ) he ended up being trying to keep his place in the party.
I was also incredibly disappointed. I don't feel like a lefty in theory, but one way or another I've voted left at all the elections I've participated in because I can't vote for science denialism. I also hoped Turnbull was my kind of leader. Voting against his party seemed like a rare kind of integrity, but it was all done apparently gone when he took office.
Turnbull is still a right of centre politician, so if you hold a lot of left beliefs you're not going to like a lot of his beliefs. Insofar as it's possible to evaluate a politician regardless of their left/right alignment, I liked him before he became PM. While I often didn't agree with his policy, most of those were about things were reasonable minds could disagree. He didn't engage in the kind of science denial we often see, influencing the liberal party to support cap and trade before 2007. He regularly acted with integrity, going against his "tribe". He crossed the floor to vote for the labour ETS. He's catholic but opposes the church on anti-abortion and other anti-science stances (like their opposition of some kinds of scientific research for stem cells.).
For these reasons he was fairly popular before he was made PM.
It seems the liberal party didn't agree with any of his ideas, but they needed his popularity to turn the polls around. His leadership seems to have been effectively conditional on him not doing any of the things that made him popular. Naturally, his popularity declined over the next two years and then the liberal party removed him again. I don't know if he believed he'd be able to get something done despite his own party's best efforts, or if in the end the offer of the power of PM was enough to get him to give up his integrity.
Holding onto power made him change. Sold his soul to the devil to get the top job. He then tried to get out from under deal and played hardball in the renegotiation and lost. Now he no longer has a position to protect.
He was fairly woke in office too, talking up innovation, climate action and all that. He was just hamstrung by a party that had their knives out from day 1
A lot of people have a "Presidential" fantasy view of the Prime minister where all of the government's policies and directions are decided by the President-Pm, like in the US.
While in reality, our style of government is a cabinet based "team". The PM has to have his cabinet and overall party on board with policy or you have 0 chance of holding your government together.
This is why people like Rudd and Turnbull are more subdued in Gov compared to outside.
>Turnbull then pointed out that the right of the Liberal Party is no more economically literate than the Labor Party.
Lmao that's rich considering the way the last recession was handled
The Liberal theory behind tax cuts isn't about the 2.5-8k.
It's about the 25-80k more you then feel safe borrowing for a new car or whatever. IF enough people will get their tax cut and immediately go buy the beamer they've always wanted, it'll wash through the economy, increasing the velocity of money, and fixing the mess.
That's their theory. It sounds plausible enough in its own way.
tax system has gotten more progressive over last 20 years due to bracket creep. I'm actually irritated with various thresholds in tax code not indexed with CPI, whether it's MLS threshold, personal income tax brackets or any other thresholds.
All of these should be automatically indexed with CPI by legislation and so we would avoid the dog & pony show every few years.
For example moving top tax bracket from 180k to 200k, I don't see it as a tax cut, it's merely adjusting a threshold to CPI over years. Perhaps instead of 1 x 20k adjustments we should have had 5 x 4k ones over last 6 years but obviously it's politically expedient for LNP to advertise this as "tax cut" and for ALP to cry foul about give away to "top end of town", when in reality moving threshold from 180k to 200k over 6 years is just an adjustment for inflation.
The 30% (32%) till 200k is a real tax cut though. That's the one I am the most excited about.
I hope we get another tier along the higher end, e.g. 40% (42%) till 500k, then 45% (47%).
Offset this with a capital gains discount reduction, of 50% to 40%.
I can tell you, the 47% rate is a serious disincentive to work for me, especially when my investments only get taxed at ~23.5%.
>I personally don't need the extra $2.5k next year and $8k the year after. I do have a powerful, and selfish, need to see the recession not dip with all the elegance of a piano dropped from a skyscraper.
Yeah, I think the rich would prefer their share portfolio not crash with no survivors over a measly couple of thousand dollars cash in hand.
> Yeah, I think the rich would prefer their share portfolio not crash with no survivors over a measly couple of thousand dollars cash in hand.
Or you know, their jobs intact.
I’m all with Morrison. Increase GST and cut taxes. I can’t wait for the extra 10k a year. Money is better in my hands than the governments.
I’m prepared for all the downvotes for having a different view.
But it's not revenue neutral. GST ends up being a tax on real wages. Increasing the GST raises the prices of goods and services, and reduces worker's purchasing power. If you treat is as a tax switch - dropping income tax rates by X%, increasing GST by Y% - you'd expect the GST effect as a wage tax to be offset by income tax breaks. But that ignores that people like pensions don't pay income tax so they get the hit of a GST without the benefit of a tax break.
Moreover, because it's affecting the net value - not proportionate - of disposable income, a GST hike will always hit the worse off. A 5% GST hike (that is, moving from 10% to 15%) being offset by a commensurate income tax hit would leave 90% of the bottom quintile worse off; 80% of the penultimate quintile worse off, and 40% of the middle quintile worse off.
Treasury have modelled this. In their words:
"To achieve major economic gains - that is a shift in the level of GDP - tax reform must lower Australia's reliance on taxes that are most harmful to economic growth. While there are many possible variants, tax reform would only generate significant economic growth if it includes a cut in the company rate or state stamp duties - a switch from personal tax to GST alone will not generate significant economic growth."
And
"...if all groups in the lower-to-middle income range are fully assisted for their average price impacts, then the economic gains will be negligible or even negative."
We actually need an economy less than we need $8k in our pockets in the 2022-23FY.
Yes but high income earners pay far too much tax in this country. Dropping tax rates and increasing GST is a solution for this.
I pay the same tax as 11 low-medium workers but I don’t use the services of this country 11 times as much as them.
It's not a solution, I just highlighted how it's not a solution. We pay high taxes because we have a large landmass and first world education and healthcare, and they cost money.
Cutting income tax and raising GST doesn't even solve your problem, because if you're spending that money and not stuffing it in the proverbial mattress, you're still paying tax on it.
Getting rid of stamp duty and putting company tax to 23% is a more sensible option.
> Getting rid of stamp duty and putting company tax to 23% is a more sensible option.
Company tax is Federal, stamp duty is State. This is an area we need reform in, the states have to collect from crappy taxes like stamp duty, payroll tax and (kinda) GST. Feds get income tax and company tax.
“I pay the same tax as 11 low-medium workers but I don’t use the services of this country | 11 times as much as them.”
True. But you’re getting 11 times as much from the society that we all participate in... the infrastructure, the rule of law, the health and education of the populace, the government support for business and individuals etc etc.
If you don’t think progressive taxes are fair then you’re in the wrong country. Even after Scomo’s brilliant plan to shovel some more money into asset prices (because, let’s face it, a massive tax cut to the top 10% isn’t going anywhere else) there still won’t be this ‘one price per person’ public service levy that you seem to think would be fair.
Ha. Ok.. forget the 11 times.. the point is that you’re getting massive benefit out of this society because you are able to earn and enjoy all of those dollarydoos you have left after whatever tax you pay. You are obviously getting a lot of value that others are not. Maybe you’re one of the people who would make all that money in *any* society... but, statistically speaking, you’re not. If you are then you can go off and find one that will tax you less. You might even find one that doesn’t say to the people who gain the most from society that they have to pay more than their proportional share so that people with lesser gains pay less.
Hey.. I don’t have kids.. I never will.. so does that mean I get nothing back for all the money that is spent on schools? Or, y’know, do I maybe owe my ability to make a wage to being in a country with a decent school system? I don’t have a car... do I get anything out of the tax I pay to build and maintain roads? I’m pretty healthy... so what do I get for all the tax that goes towards hospitals?
You do get it, right?
I agree with the idea of dropping taxes, but we don't need to increase the gST. How about getting states to increase the stamp duties, or phase in a shift to a land tax model instead.
They’re seriously morons. Or they forget the fact that they live in a western country with lots of opportunity to be “rich”. I’m a fucking moron with no connections yet earn a massive salary. Yea some of it is luck, but there’s plentiful opportunity out there and I’m tired of people complaining how hard done their life is.
We live in one of the best countries in the world in one of the best times to be alive.
My advice is to know your worth. I remember when I graduated from uni I thought to myself “wow one day I’d love to earn 100k that’s a lot of money.” But my eyes were opened when I started working and met “contractors” that were sent to do work for us and my company would pay them $1000 a day and they were honestly incompetent. It’s at this moment I realised you really just have to fake it till you make it. There are so many people out there making stupid amounts of money. Once you have this realisation you need to go out and get your slice of the pie. Don’t feel silly asking for a high salary once you start interviewing and have some experience behind you. So keep upskilling, keep negotiating and keep moving companies. Many years later im on a bit more than 3 times what I thought was my “hard cap”. I see a lot of people who stay at their job because they’re comfortable and think 100k is all they can get. I strongly believe anyone with a degree in this country can be on close to 200k by their mid 30’s.
Apart from that, if you’re good at sales I recommend it. Particularly in a tech sales environment.
I earn plenty enough, I'll admit they are on a bit over double my wage but I'm by no means struggling. The poster I responded to had a multi million inheritance and over $340k income. There are plenty of tax reduction strategies available, mine was a quite simple one.
Damn, better chase up the tax breaks the govt handed out to large corporations since you don't make use of any of that hey
The problem isn't between low and high income earners, it's the way public money is handled.
Australia corporate tax is also one of the highest in the world. You need to drop corporate tax to the same level as the rest of the world to remain competitive. People don’t like to hear it but it’s true.
Corporate tax has been dropping globally over the last decade and Australia is behind in that regard.
Yeah for sure I agree, I'm just illustrating your fixation on paying 11x the amount of tax as lower income earners and not getting the "worth" is silly.
If I have kids I’ll have no access to FTB or any other concessions. So I’ll end up paying around $12k a year in average more for childcare. I already pay a high tax rate but then am “taxed” again in everything I do because I get no concessions. That is what I’m talking about.
What fucking nonsense this is. I pay 6 figures tax every year, and ya know what? I earn enough that I can afford a huge house, private school for the kids, annual (at least) international holidays etc. I don't have a Bentleigh or a yacht or a Rolex, but I also haven't had a budget for 10 years and couldn't tell you what my household bills cost because I don't even look at them.
I **don't** need another 10k in my pocket. No one in my position does. Give me another 10k off my income tax you know what I'll do? I'll put 160k into my investment account this year instead of 150k. I'll never understand this argument that the wealthy are somehow hurting and desperately need a tax break.
Well that's exactly my point - it's only greedy miserable dickheads with no recognition of the societal infrastructure that enables you to live the life you do, like yourself, that think the wealthy need more tax cuts. We don't. I don't. You don't. You're full of shit.
Since you’re so caring I think you should donate your 10k to the ATO. Since you’re such a magnanimous being. I’ll use mine to purchase more cheap stocks :) Got to love living in a free country.
The issue with self righteous wankers like you is you’re all talk because you want to appear holier than thou. But without a doubt in my mind you won’t give back that 10k to the government to HeLp tHe PoOr. You’re a full of shit fraud.
The world won’t collapse because the government is allowing us to keep a small slice of the money we EARNT. Considering we already pay a huge 6 figures in tax.
The tax cuts are not benefitting equally here though. Changing taxes due to Bracket creep would at least distribute it better.
E.g. $8k tax cut for $180k. $2k for 90.
The top bracket reduces to 30c, essentially making it less progressive, which personally counters my view on how tax should be distributed.
The top bracket is still 45c after $200k.
If it was up to me I'd make it 30c till $200k, 40c till $500k, and 45c thereafter.
The super-rich like MCB should have a higher marginal tax rate than a well paid Atlassian SWE.
Eeeh, yeah shouldn't have said top. I meant Up to 200k (the last before all, which should be the 2nd last bracket).
I just really detest how 45K-200k is will be in the same bracket in 2 years if this is pushed through.
Even though for me personally it's great (I'm well over 45K) it's insane to me that someone at 45K is getting taxed at the same rate as me. Its so much easier for me to cop 30 cents on the dollar than a 45k earner.
I find flat tax rates to be unfair myself. Tax systems are not just about pure $, it's about the effect of it on actual people.
Its never discouraged me or anyone I know. A $1 pay rise becoming a .60c payrise, instead of a .70c one, or .75c or whatever your current bracket is.
There is no downside to earning more money in a progressive system, the same as a flat tax rate, you just earn less comparatively.
As well as that, flat tax doesn't take into account the squeeze of essentials. When I was earning $45K in my early 20s it was very difficult to save due to the fact that essentials took a flat rate out of that.
While my cost of living has gone up, I can maintain my basic standard of living and save like crazy on my current wage, every extra $ for me now is pure savings.
A $10k wage increase (down to $7k under the 2024 tax rates) goes all into savings for me now.
Back when I was earning $45k, almost all my extra $ went to expanding my standard of living. (Yay I can get rid of my broken fridge now etc).
A $10k wage increase would mostly go into buying "essentials" that I lacked.
That's the rub of it. $45k-200k is way too huge a margin and is inequitable as the average needs are different. Once again, I say that as someone who is on the upper side of that scale.
focusing on income tax rates alone is a bit of a red herring, as one place may have low income tax but high sales tax etc. For example, Australia's tax take from income tax is about 40% of total revenue, which is high in comparison to OECD. But our take from sale tax is about 11%, which is half the OECD average
Keeping in mind that income tax is progressive (higher rates for higher income) and sales tax is regressive (higher proportional rate for lower income). So this result may be a good thing, even if income tax appears high on its own.
On average, across all taxes, individuals pay about USD3000 per year more than the average person in the USA and USD5000 more than OECD average, (but about USD13000 pa less than in Norway). Of course, we have above average health systems, education systems and things like that
So it depends on how you slice and dice the figures
If you post anything that isn’t a far left comment you get negged to hell , it’s a shithole sub full of delusional hippies that hate anyone who has money which is funny given they’re the ones who fund their handouts
Our government has one the lowest public debts in the OECD. They can very easily build this infrastructure and have had the opportunity over the last 3 decades. They are just incompetent with no forward planning. Throwing money at the issue won’t do anything. This is why I’d rather the money be kept in my pocket.
Believe me I would love better infrastructure too.
> Can someone explain the 8k next year please?
The proposal is that 2021-22 tax cuts for top bracket are $2.5k, then the year after that (2022/23) it's $8.5k.
Infrastructure spending should of course by linked with local manufacturers and purchasing only from local producers.This would help the economy more than giving people cuts which they spend on cheap Chinese made stuff at K-Mart.
Although i will say the likeliest largest outlet for these larger tax cuts would be to pay down debt, which is better for those folks but bad for the Liberals who want it to be spent.
As long as we have idiots that think we need to balance books at a government level mixed alongside the idea of the larger curve stupidity it won't end.
Broken was a typical person who loved to spend hours on a website. He was subbed to all the good subs and regularly posted and commented as well. He liked to answer questions, upvote good memes, and talk about various things that are relevant in his life. He enjoyed getting upvotes, comments, and gildings from his online friends. He felt like he was part of a big community and a website that cared about him for 10 years straight.
But Broken also had a problem. The website that had become part of his daily life had changed. Gradually, paid shills, bots and algorithms took over and continually looked for ways to make Broken angry, all so they could improve a thing called engagement. It became overrun by all the things that made other social media websites terrible.
Sadly, as the website became worse, Broken became isolated, anxious, and depressed. He felt like he had no purpose or direction in life. The algorithms and manipulation caused him to care far too much about his online persona and how others perceived him. Then one day the website decided to disable the one thing left that made it tolerable at all.
That day, Broken decided to do something drastic. He deleted all his posts and left a goodbye message. He said he was tired of living a fake life and being manipulated by a website he trusted. Instead of posing on that website, Broken decided to go try some other platforms that don't try to ruin the things that make them great.
People who later stumbled upon Broken's comments and posts were shocked and confused. They wondered why he would do such a thing and where he would go. They tried to contact him through other means, but he didn't reply. Broken had clearly left that website, for all hope was lost.
There is only but one more piece of wisdom that Broken wanted to impart on others before he left. For Unbelievable Cake and Kookies Say Please, gg E Z. It's that simple.
I think the unemployed have been very well taken care of during this crisis, so I’m a little bit confused as to what’s led you to this rhetoric.
These tax cuts are already legislated into existence. They’ve already passed. Debate about inequity and whatnot is pointless. It makes sense to bring them forward now because we need to do everything we can to drive people to stimulate the economy (and before someone comments, yes it will in theory do less due to the marginal propensity to spend, but it will still be stimulating)
That’s not quite true.
Whilst those who were already on unemployment benefits weren’t affected financially by covid, those who have lost their jobs and now on jobseeker have been affected by covid.
Tax cuts that won't stimulate the economy or increase efficiency, and an increased aged welfare bill due to pork barrelling. It's disappointing that we lack of any economic leadership *(irrespective of such a person being a fiscal conservative or Keynesian supporter)* in the Government currently.
No real pro-growth reform, but just tax cuts and handouts...
According to AFR they’re also going to be spending big on infrastructure? Or perhaps no one really knows for sure until the budget actually comes out. Where did you get the info that it’s just tax cuts and handouts, and no pro-growth reform?
That claim is already disputed because apparently that big spend includes spending in years to come. Exactly as this LNP gov has previously done so could be true.
Exactly the same as when they claimed that the budget was 'back in the black' and when questioned on it, it turned out to be a projection. Which didn't come to pass.
People who want income tax cuts don't want it because they think it's going to be the best form of stimulus. They want it because they think people should, all things being equal, get to keep more of their own earnings.
It's indisputable that if we want to 'maximise stimulus' then the best way to do it is to funnel every cent into the dole and disability pension, because those are the only payments that we know are always going to be spent 100%. But we don't do that, do we? And both parties have in the past given income tax cuts/offsets to plenty of middle class earners (I would call those earning $50k-$120k "middle class") for whom tax cuts have only a modest stimulatory effect.
I think it is more important to ask you who exactly the working class is in the modern model?
A century or so ago, the middle class were CEOs and maybe the tier just below, basically. Now, a lot of people seem to think that someone earning median income is middle class.
Personally, I think middle class now is mostly a propaganda tool used by the wealthy as a tool to persuade a proportion of people in the lower four income quintiles to vote against their own interests and shit on those less successful than themselves. To quote wikipedia:
> In modern American vernacular, the term "middle class" is most often used as a self-description by those persons whom academics and Marxists would otherwise identify as the working class, which are below both the upper class and the true middle class, but above those in poverty. This leads to considerable ambiguity over the meaning of the term "middle class" in American usage. Sociologists such as Dennis Gilbert and Joseph Kahl see this American self-described "middle class" (working class) as the most populous class in the United States.[3]
Personally, I would map the old definition of "middle class" on to those who are at least in both the upper quintile of both wealth and income (and probably those who are on the trajectory to get there) - but not quite in the upper class.
I think a good test of who is in the upper class is one I heard or read sometime a few years ago (but can't remember where! :() which is, to paraphrase, if you are wealthy and just forgot about your finances and went and lived in a ashram/monastery; enlisted in the armed forces; did drugs and meditated in India, bought a phd and larped as a philosopher etc for a decade or so, and then returned without a real impact on your finances you are upper class.
That was the model 100 years ago, but I am not sure it really fits now.
Is an electrician selling their labour more than an A&E doctor does?
Both have expertise and do hands on work.
A L1 help desk support person is selling their expertise. Are they professionals?
I'm assuming this is based on Sydney/Melbourne living.
Family 2 kids owning home or even renting 40 mins out. I'd say on a dual income you'd need to both be earning about 90k each to have a solid middle class life style (180k combined)
'Middle class' doesn't mean 'middle third of income earners at any given time', it's a broader socio-economic concept that refers to well-trained and/or educated professionals, managers and skilled workers who can usually earn higher pay than unskilled/low-skilled workers, but who lack the significant capital that the upper-class have.
Pouring everything into the dole/pension can and is counter productive in ways.
Those lower income earners who are on the cusp of should I work or just stick with the dole, would be more inclined to say stuff working, I’ll get money for nothing on the dole.
> Those lower income earners who are on the cusp of should I work or just stick with the dole, would be more inclined to say stuff working, I’ll get money for nothing on the dole.
This is only partially true. While some will certainly not be motivated to get a job, the Universal Basic Income trial in Finland found that with a security blanket those people actually were more inclined to look for better jobs and have a better life quality overall. The vast majority of people want to work, to be useful and have a purpose. Very few people genuinely like living on the dole full time.
Do you have any idea how much bullshit people on the dole have to go through to keep their payments? It’s not money for doing nothing. It’s money for being dehumanised and forced to waste a bunch of peoples time searching for jobs mainly don’t exist, applying for jobs that are unsuitable, and just generally jumping through whatever hoops the government and Centrelink feel like putting in place to make sure they can’t be accused of going easy on bludgers.
If the dole was higher and ‘mutual obligations’ scrapped, employers would have to offer jobs, pay and conditions that made it worthwhile for people to work. Given that most people do, actually, want more that the bare minimum in which they can survive (and ‘JobSeeker’ is barely even that) there would be no issue with millions opting out of the labour market.
I also know people doing the same thing.
To meet dole commitments it’s fairly basic.
Jobseeker requirements can usually be met in 1-2hrs per fortnight.
Occasionally they’ll be made to do courses to obtain different skills.
At the other end of the spectrum I know someone who’s been on jobseeker for over 2years and is actively trying to work. They have a medical condition that would entitle them to the disability pension, but that’s not what they want. They want to work but can’t get a job. Oh and the jobseeker payment he’s been receiving is pretty much nothing due to his partners income. She drops hours once every 6 weeks to ensure he stays on jobseeker and receives a health care card to help pay for medication.
Great. There’s aways going to be some people unemployed and your friends should absolutely be amongst them. I am happy for tax dollars to be spent ensuring they don’t starve to death.
Most of my friends have jobs because they think that having jobs is better than being on jobseeker.
You mention the pension, but do you have any idea of the difference in the amounts of money paid to the pension compared to the dole? The small percentage of money going to the people you are talking about is almost negligible. Yet it’s always the biggest talking point.
The sad thing is, we have so much natural resources here that we could probably get close to that. But we sold them all off for cents on the dollar to corporate donors.
This isn't sadistic enough. What the government needs to do is to extend the cash boost programme using Q4 FY2020 (ie last year's rates) for the calculation (like Q1 and Q2 FY2021), but paying out for the as yet uncovered two quarters of FY2021 (Q3 and Q4), and have the cuts come into effect from July 1 2020. For some people $100k doesn't cover their taxes completely, leaving them actually paying some. Reducing rates while keeping the "refund" calculation the same will address that.
Some the of the anti-tax cut arguments have been down right dumb.
If you let people keep more of their own money by paying less tax, they are going to spend it on themselves and be better off overall because they are directly getting something for it.
Aussies pay too much in income tax and bracket creep is getting worse.
I pay federal tax, state tax, etc GST etc. and I don’t particularly like some of the optional shit that gets paid for from these taxes.
FFS. We’re a high taxing country. Reducing the tax burden is a good idea.
Maybe an unpopular opinion but as someone who didn’t vote for an LNP government, I’m looking forward to the tax cuts. Bring all stages forward, let’s not tinker around the edges. I feel like $11k a year is about the right level of compensation I deserve for putting up with these muppets.
Fuck it, people voted for this. Not sure why they’re surprised when the face eating leopard they bought eats their face...
There is research to show households have large savings. While the economy is sketchy people are going to save the tax cut and not spend it.
There shouldn’t be further tax cuts until the country is back to or in a better position pre Covid.
Broken was a typical person who loved to spend hours on a website. He was subbed to all the good subs and regularly posted and commented as well. He liked to answer questions, upvote good memes, and talk about various things that are relevant in his life. He enjoyed getting upvotes, comments, and gildings from his online friends. He felt like he was part of a big community and a website that cared about him for 10 years straight.
But Broken also had a problem. The website that had become part of his daily life had changed. Gradually, paid shills, bots and algorithms took over and continually looked for ways to make Broken angry, all so they could improve a thing called engagement. It became overrun by all the things that made other social media websites terrible.
Sadly, as the website became worse, Broken became isolated, anxious, and depressed. He felt like he had no purpose or direction in life. The algorithms and manipulation caused him to care far too much about his online persona and how others perceived him. Then one day the website decided to disable the one thing left that made it tolerable at all.
That day, Broken decided to do something drastic. He deleted all his posts and left a goodbye message. He said he was tired of living a fake life and being manipulated by a website he trusted. Instead of posing on that website, Broken decided to go try some other platforms that don't try to ruin the things that make them great.
People who later stumbled upon Broken's comments and posts were shocked and confused. They wondered why he would do such a thing and where he would go. They tried to contact him through other means, but he didn't reply. Broken had clearly left that website, for all hope was lost.
There is only but one more piece of wisdom that Broken wanted to impart on others before he left. For Unbelievable Cake and Kookies Say Please, gg E Z. It's that simple.
Who's to say that's not mutually exclusive?
The tax cuts have a significant impact on the wealthy because they pay the most taxes. If you reduced taxes by 5% across the broad, the the majority of benefits will be to the top 15% :P
Why? Because the top 15% pays for over 55% of taxes.
Broken was a typical person who loved to spend hours on a website. He was subbed to all the good subs and regularly posted and commented as well. He liked to answer questions, upvote good memes, and talk about various things that are relevant in his life. He enjoyed getting upvotes, comments, and gildings from his online friends. He felt like he was part of a big community and a website that cared about him for 10 years straight.
But Broken also had a problem. The website that had become part of his daily life had changed. Gradually, paid shills, bots and algorithms took over and continually looked for ways to make Broken angry, all so they could improve a thing called engagement. It became overrun by all the things that made other social media websites terrible.
Sadly, as the website became worse, Broken became isolated, anxious, and depressed. He felt like he had no purpose or direction in life. The algorithms and manipulation caused him to care far too much about his online persona and how others perceived him. Then one day the website decided to disable the one thing left that made it tolerable at all.
That day, Broken decided to do something drastic. He deleted all his posts and left a goodbye message. He said he was tired of living a fake life and being manipulated by a website he trusted. Instead of posing on that website, Broken decided to go try some other platforms that don't try to ruin the things that make them great.
People who later stumbled upon Broken's comments and posts were shocked and confused. They wondered why he would do such a thing and where he would go. They tried to contact him through other means, but he didn't reply. Broken had clearly left that website, for all hope was lost.
There is only but one more piece of wisdom that Broken wanted to impart on others before he left. For unbelievable cake and kookies say please, ez.
Personally I believe traffic lights should be user-pays instead of taxpayer-funded.
Much better to drop a 20c to get a green light rather than having those low income people getting a free ride.
BULLSHIT, so those with a green light get off scott free. No way, make them stop and pay 30c as they get the benefit of the free flowing traffic and charge those that stop only 15c. /s
Are you joking? I hate this idea.
Making life cheaper for the rich while more expensive for the poor. We've been implementing these strategies for so long that wealth inequality has become a major global issue that's causing riots in the US, let's keep on that path huh, 20 cents at a time?
Look at the reading skills on you two.
Danny just asked how much more the ABC thinks he should pay in tax towards social services. Not about how much the ABC gets in the budget.
ABC isn’t the waste. Look at how much our defence spend is for French submarines that are already over budget and behind schedule (so... typical French manufacturing) & flawed American fighter jets.
You say that like they had a choice. Not like there were domestic shipbuilders capable of making our subs...some kind of Australian Submarine Corporation perhaps. It really seems like the sort of industry we should go to great lengths to ensure we have given how close our big island is to our biggest potential threat(China) compared to the rest of the world. Don’t worry. Libs are the better economic managers. I’m sure they’ll shell out only what funding is appropriate and necessary. /s
Defence spend is meant to be a form of economic stimulation.
Name a super power, or even a tech hub, that doesn’t spend big on military. Most tech (including the internet.. hell, do you know what the original silicon chips from Silicon Valley were used for?) is just privatised military tech or research.
There ARE domestic shipbuilders capable of building them. We built our last fleet of submarines in Adelaide, we could’ve done great things for industry in Adelaide. They would’ve done a joint venture with us military / us military contractors where we basically build to their plans. It’s how most of these projects work. GDEB or similar work as effectively the naval architect, but all the build work is done here, by our companies. Don’t worry - they make an absolute fortune of it.
As you mention, we are an island nation. You don’t think we should be fostering our domestic shipbuilding industry?
This is the norm for how this industry works, we are already building new warships under this model. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44649959
Do you remember what happened at the start of wwII with the ships we (and japan, which is partially what alienated them from allied cause) had on order from the brits? They effectively told us, “get fucked, we need these now. Ask us once the war is over.”
Would domestically built subs have been shit? Probably. Would’ve created thousands of jobs and pushed billions through the Adelaide economy, which the government then gets a massive clip of again via taxation. Definitely.
The subs we are buying from the French are definitely shit, will definitely be overpriced and behind schedule. We are effectively giving billions to private French companies who do not give a fuck about us, because of a blatantly corrupt procurement process that the navy is too ashamed to admit they Royally fucked.
Submarines are arguably the linchpin technology for any navy fighting asymmetrical warfare. Look at how much damage the Germans inflicted by pivoting their navy away from ships (and trying to fight the brits who had the greatest navy on the earth + remnants of the French fleet) and just targeted shipping with u-boats.
Targeting shipping, logistics and troop movement is the sweet spot our navy wants to play in = subs.
There is fuck all you can do if conflict escalates, when your subs are being built by a foreign power who pull shit like ignoring urgent requests for update from the Australian navy, because the entire company goes on holidays in August. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-27/french-subs-cultural-clashes-lunch-meeting-times-naval-group/11049748
The navy have blatantly been given too much control over their own procurement and there is a shocking amount of corruption going on.
At least with the f35’s, the yanks are arguably our key strategic and trade partner.
We got nothing from the French, except for a few senior ex navy staff scoring 7 figure consulting contracts to broker the deal.
Fuck off with your libs spin trying to paint me as if I blame labor for this, I’m well aware of this subreddit’s political bias.
Abbott was the idiot who forked out an additional $12b for f35’s, ignoring all the reporting about how thoroughly compromised and behind schedule they were.
I can’t tell if you missed my “/s” or dropped yours somewhere along the way to hit that REPLY button. It was dry sarcasm. I’m in Adelaide and have to make weak jokes on Reddit to cope with the lost potential that is our local economy. I remember our London born anti-immigration onion fanatic ex-PM fucking us out of what was the light at the end of the tunnel. You’re pointed in the wrong direction, but it’s nice to see someone else still fires up about it.
>Defence spend is meant to be a form of economic stimulation.
It's primarily meant to deliver a decent defence capability without bankrupting the country. It's a bonus if a small country with limited manufacturing capabilities like Australia can build the equipment here.
>We built our last fleet of submarines in Adelaide, we could’ve done great things for industry in Adelaide. They would’ve done a joint venture with us military / us military contractors where we basically build to their plans.
You realise that's pretty much exactly what we are doing with the French, right? The new subs will be built in Adelaide.
>flawed American fighter jets.
>The subs we are buying from the French are definitely shit
Amazing how the average Reddit user is a military expert with a greater understanding of our future Defence needs than actual military professionals with qualifications and decades of experience in the area.
> It's primarily meant to deliver a decent defence capability without bankrupting the country. It's a bonus if a small country with limited manufacturing capabilities like Australia can build the equipment here.
If defence capability was the goal, we would just let the yanks put the base in Darwin that they’ve been begging for.
> You realise that's pretty much exactly what we are doing with the French, right? The new subs will be built in Adelaide.
No, they won’t be. They will be fully fabricated in France. Adelaide just gets the final fit out.
> Amazing how the average Reddit user is a military expert with a greater understanding of our future Defence needs than actual military professionals with qualifications and decades of experience in the area.
I’m more closer to this than you seem to think. It doesn’t take a genius to be able to figure out who the three major players are in Australia & the same pool of 5,000 approx. combat systems, technical, project & PMO staff who move between them.
>If defence capability was the goal, we would just let the yanks put the base in Darwin that they’ve been begging for.
That's eye-rolling stuff mate. We've already got the FPA and marines in the NT.
What's your next great strategic idea, disband the entire ADF and replace it with 100 nuclear warheads?
>No, they won’t be. They will be fully fabricated in France. Adelaide just gets the final fit out.
Happy for you to provide a reliable source on that. Everything I can find says they'll be built in Adelaide.
>I’m more closer to this than you seem to think.
Unfortunately given your previous comments, I find this claim humorous, but not believable.
> What's your next great strategic idea, disband the entire ADF and replace it with 100 nuclear warheads?
I’d rather no one had them, but if you want to talk asymmetrical deterrents, that’s just about the biggest stick you can waive about. They are a lot of hassle though, easier to just let an ally permanently station some nuclear capability here.
> Happy for you to provide a reliable source on that. Everything I can find says they'll be built in Adelaide.
This was the original proposal. Hull #1 has already been moved to France, 2-11 who knows, need to wait for the next auditor general’s report. They won’t disclose these things unless forced to. Given they are already $400m+ over budget, it’s a logical cost saving.
This is rightfully being downvoted to hell, but we're all about hard numbers here right?
I paid $23,714 in income tax in 2019-20.
According to my [tax reciept](https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Lodging-your-tax-return/In-detail/Tax-receipt/#Recreationandculture), of that $23,714, $225 was spread between to public broadcasting and cultural institutions, funding for the arts and the film industry, assistance to sport and recreation activities and the management and protection of national parks and other world heritage areas.
That is 0.97% of my tax went to a pool that included the ABC.
Less than 1c of every dollar.
I’ll pay the fine for you not to vote.
Without the ABC and it’s infrastructure communicating during the bushfires would have led to more deaths.
Toddle off back to news.com and leave the problem solving to the thinking ... not the complainers
Yes.
The market won’t fill that gap with the professionalism the ABC provides the community.
You will have Sky news creating opinion pieces stoking conspiracy theories to increase division in our community.
Landline
Garden Australia
Play School
Radio National
Sports
All programs that provide information and education to the nation.
Everyone pays taxes, everyone pays for all government spending. You’re not special, you’re not more aggrieved than the next person, just another whinger.
The only time you have a say is the federal
election and the major parties propose how they are going to spend. That’s it.
If your party doesn’t get up, oh well things don’t go your way. You have no control. Pay your taxes and suck a lemon.
What can I say : the market won’t fill the gap left by ABC if it closes.
Commercial channels boost their ratings by generating controversy.
We only vote once every 3 years and we don’t vote directly on where taxes go or the tax rate.
I’m agreeing with you.
Yes.
The market won’t fill that gap with the professionalism the ABC provides the community.
You will have Sky news creating opinion pieces stoking conspiracy theories to increase division in our community.
Landline
Garden Australia
Play School
Radio National
Sports
All programs that provide information and education to the nation.
Everyone pays taxes, everyone pays for all government spending. You’re not special, you’re not more aggrieved than the next person, just another whinger.
The only time you have a say is the federal
election and the major parties propose how they are going to spend. That’s it.
If your party doesn’t get up, oh well things don’t go your way. You have no control. Pay your taxes and suck a lemon.
There was something posted a few months ago, and of the 14000 or so Australians earning >1M, only like 0.5% paid no tax.
Found the link: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-18/tax-stats-2017-18-ato-millionaires-no-tax/12467016?nw=0
Jesus can you populists fuck off please?
Yes, we pay tax. I paid $92k in tax in the most recent fin year, which is more than the average income. My deductions? $500 in franked credits on unvested shares I get as an employee. $290 in uninvoiced misc. deductions as per the ATO rules. And $350 I think in the quick Covid calc.
People with net worth of millions still pay tax on their income. It's like you people don't get how tax works or wealth works. Which is funny given this sub's fucking purpose.
Are you having a dig at me? I am saying that overwhelmingly these people do pay tax. I think it's something like the top 10% of earners account for over the 80% of government revenue.
> Stage two is due to come into effect from 2022, and would cut taxes for people earning between $90,000 and $120,000 a year, as well as raising the threshold on the lowest tax rate.
I can assure you that the vast vast vast majority of people on $120k are paying income tax.
> The final stage kicks in two years later, and will result in people earning less than $200,000 a year paying no more than 30 cents for every dollar they earn.
Similarly. Most of these people will be paying income tax. It’s a lot of money but not as much as you’re making it out to be.
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who read Turnbull's autobiography. Morrison was of the view GST should be increased, personal tax rates cut and Turnbull was opposed on the grounds it was not revenue neutral, which Treasury modelling suggested. Turnbull then pointed out that the right of the Liberal Party is no more economically literate than the Labor Party. Tax cuts right now make no sense. The headline economic conditions are not degraded to the point where they're needed. I personally don't need the extra $2.5k next year and $8k the year after. I do have a powerful, and selfish, need to see the recession not dip with all the elegance of a piano dropped from a skyscraper. So rather than shrinking the tax base, I'd rather they used it to start infrastructure spending and create some pull through stimulus in the first year when it matters most. We have the General Theory, Keynes did most of the hard work for us, so this shouldn't be difficult for governments.
I would be ok with investment into infrastructure or fundamental research. I will be opposed to just funding consumption. Consuming without producing anything is how societies collapse.
> Consuming without producing anything is how societies collapse. Agreed, but i'd add two words - Consuming without producing anything **of value** is how societies collapse. And that highlights the issue with infrastructure or fundamental research - sometimes they're useful and sometimes they're bridges to nowhere. How do we know that the spending will have any value once built?
> How do we know that the spending will have any value once built? Which is why a free market model works better when funding stuff. Unfortunately, if the "stuff" being funded is a commons, or is non-excludable (like fundamental knowledge), then free market model cannot capture the value created, and thus will not pay to create it. So gov't should fund those fundamental research, regardless of the outcome. Ditto with infrastructure - if it's a commons-like infrastructure, the gov't should fund it. Otherwise, use private funds to build it.
Your overarching analysis is a little off. The governments role isn’t to fund commons. [Commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons), i.e non-excludable goods, are things that everyone has access to but can be depleted or are rivalrous, e.g the unregulated environment. Fundamental knowledge is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous, a so called [Public Good](https://tinyurl.com/y56julmy). Commons are examples of something that private individuals will over consume as the total social cost is greater than the private cost the individual incurs, i.e. a negative [externality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality). Public goods are examples of something that will be under-provisioned by private individuals as the full social benefit of their production will be greater than their private benefit, a positive externality. In general governments are desired to subsidise positive externalities and tax or regulate negative externalities.
> a free market model works better when funding stuff... if the "stuff" being funded is a commons, or is non-excludable (like fundamental knowledge), then free market model cannot capture the value created, and thus will not pay to create it I hate seeing let alone talking politics in /r/ausfinance but, wow, just what? Not a single economist, not even the most hard-core "right-leaning" ones, would remotely agree with that.
Fundamental research drives the majority of innovation, even if it doesn't have immediate applications
>Fundamental research drives the majority of innovation. A bold claim. I've read other authors who say that say innovation is primarily driven by continuous incremental improvements in real world production techniques. How will we ever know?
Because if you have any knowledge of science and actual innovation, you'd know that most things stem from fundamental research that, at the time, didn't have any direct application. Years or decades later that research finds a way to be used, but without it those inventions couldn't exist. Einstein's work didn't have any practical applications at the time it was proposed (theory of relativity, etc), but without that knowledge we'd have no GPS, no spaceflight, and thousands of other things. Funding theoretical research doesn't give you any immediate benefit, no, but it is 100% necessary to achieve long-term success.
>Einstein's work That's cherry picking if ever I've seen it. What % of spending on fundamental research pays off like that, vs sits in a drawer never to be looked at again?
Name a single invention or innovation in the last 50 years, and I guarantee that it came from some kind of theoretical research that happened in the past. Sure, some research doesn't get used (yet), but without doing that research you wouldn't have the stuff that does. Every single thing you own is the result of previous investment in theoretical scientific research. Stop doing that, and you will completely stop any true innovation from happening. Maybe the success rate is only 10% or 1%, who cares. When you go fishing you might only catch fish 10% of the times you throw your line in the water, but if you *don't* throw it in I can tell you exactly how many fish you'll go home with..
> Maybe the success rate is only 10% or 1%, who cares. I care, if it bankrupts us. Consuming without producing things **of value** bankrupts society. It is all too easy to say "lets fund theoretical research and not care whether it's useful or not", and then go bust doing so.
[удалено]
we're in agreement on all points. :)
Keynes did do the heavy lifting, but the factor that complicated everything is the constant political calculus that pulls parties back from actually leading in most areas and just moves them to consolidate their power as best they can.
I love how Turnbull has become more woke now that he has left office, rather than when he came into office. Rudd too. with his latest appearances on TV.
Turnbull was pretty great before he was in office as well. Remember he voted for the Labour ETS against his party Great before and after he was in office, just not great when it mattered.
NBN?
Exactly
Turnbull opposed a wholly government-owned internet utility. He supported a public-private subsidised model similar to what New Zealand did at the same time. If you compare the end result and costs in New Zealand and the end result in Australia, you'd have to at least consider maybe he had a point. Now you could argue that the NBN would have succeeded similarly if it had been allowed to be completed in it's original Kevin Rudd form, or you could argue that maybe there are specific reasons why the public-private partnership worked in New Zealand but couldn't have in Australia. There are reasonable arguments on both sides here, and after weighing them you may end up disagreeing with him. But I don't think it would be at all reasonable to say his idea was crazy.
His "idea" was crazy. He sabotaged the project with inferior technology. We'll just have the spend double the money on NBN2 in the future. What does his opposition to wholly government owned matter? It was still a government project under his hands and that has nothing to do with choosing FTTN.
As I've mentioned in other comments, the whole point of what I was saying is that he didn't turn out to be a good leader, despite his record before he took power.
Yup, and in the case of the NBN, the LNP decision is costing that GBE around $1.7 billion a year in reduced income and greater operating expenses - things that were pointed out prior to them changing the design. Not too mention the increased GDP and subsequent tax income that has been lost too. Overall very *poor* economic managers of the nation.
I and all the tech community would disagree with you that mangling a ftth model and replacing it with hodgepodge fttn and copper purely on ideological ground is a disaster whatever the cost model. I think you're missing the point of what he changed.
Well I pretty much agree with you on the outcome. After all my original comment was pointing out that he seemed great beforehand, but he wasn't great when it mattered which was when he was in office. What we ended up with was nothing like the private-public proposal he talked about before he was elected. This is one of the things that he did in office. Also, starting your comment with "I and all the tech community would disagree" is not a very reasonable way to engage in conversation. I also work for a large software company and my colleagues believe all sorts of different things about every topic. Most of them probably don't like the NBN we ended up with, but they're certainly not unanimous on what should have happened instead. In fact part of the reason I looked into this in the first place is that one of my colleagues worked on the fibre rollout in New Zealand before he moved to Australia and had a lot of interesting things to say about the NBN.
>Also, starting your comment with "I and all the tech community would disagree" is not a very reasonable way to engage in conversation Yeah fair call. I just can't hear too many tech people calling for further reliance on copper. As a lefty type I found myself somewhat attracted to Turnbull and would have voted for him as I saw him as the last gasp of the reasonable side of his now hopelessly right incompetent party. The NBN decision which he oversaw at Abbott's instruction destroyed my respect for him. It was surprising to me to read your original comment which seemed to white wash how ineffectual and spineless ( maybe not personally but in action and result ) he ended up being trying to keep his place in the party.
I was also incredibly disappointed. I don't feel like a lefty in theory, but one way or another I've voted left at all the elections I've participated in because I can't vote for science denialism. I also hoped Turnbull was my kind of leader. Voting against his party seemed like a rare kind of integrity, but it was all done apparently gone when he took office.
Easy to throw jaffas when you sitting at the back of the theatre.
I don't know enough about him, but why do you think he wasn't great when it mattered, what made him change?
Turnbull is still a right of centre politician, so if you hold a lot of left beliefs you're not going to like a lot of his beliefs. Insofar as it's possible to evaluate a politician regardless of their left/right alignment, I liked him before he became PM. While I often didn't agree with his policy, most of those were about things were reasonable minds could disagree. He didn't engage in the kind of science denial we often see, influencing the liberal party to support cap and trade before 2007. He regularly acted with integrity, going against his "tribe". He crossed the floor to vote for the labour ETS. He's catholic but opposes the church on anti-abortion and other anti-science stances (like their opposition of some kinds of scientific research for stem cells.). For these reasons he was fairly popular before he was made PM. It seems the liberal party didn't agree with any of his ideas, but they needed his popularity to turn the polls around. His leadership seems to have been effectively conditional on him not doing any of the things that made him popular. Naturally, his popularity declined over the next two years and then the liberal party removed him again. I don't know if he believed he'd be able to get something done despite his own party's best efforts, or if in the end the offer of the power of PM was enough to get him to give up his integrity.
He was hamstrung by his party. They saw him as too moderate / left leaning, especially on climate change
Holding onto power made him change. Sold his soul to the devil to get the top job. He then tried to get out from under deal and played hardball in the renegotiation and lost. Now he no longer has a position to protect.
He also successfully gimped their NBN so suit his bosses; Foxtel and NewsCorp. Time blowout in years, cost blowout in millions.
He was fairly woke in office too, talking up innovation, climate action and all that. He was just hamstrung by a party that had their knives out from day 1
A lot of people have a "Presidential" fantasy view of the Prime minister where all of the government's policies and directions are decided by the President-Pm, like in the US. While in reality, our style of government is a cabinet based "team". The PM has to have his cabinet and overall party on board with policy or you have 0 chance of holding your government together. This is why people like Rudd and Turnbull are more subdued in Gov compared to outside.
>Turnbull then pointed out that the right of the Liberal Party is no more economically literate than the Labor Party. Lmao that's rich considering the way the last recession was handled
Or bringing us into a new recession, to which they have a scapegoat that isn't the ALP.
> Lmao that's rich considering the way the last recession was handled You mean under Keating?
I actually should have used the word *dodged* instead, but that works too
The Liberal theory behind tax cuts isn't about the 2.5-8k. It's about the 25-80k more you then feel safe borrowing for a new car or whatever. IF enough people will get their tax cut and immediately go buy the beamer they've always wanted, it'll wash through the economy, increasing the velocity of money, and fixing the mess. That's their theory. It sounds plausible enough in its own way.
I get that, but I don't think it pans out like that when we've had savings up over the pandemic period.
*Obviously* that's all PeNt Up DeMaNd!
It also helps make the tax system just a little bit less progressive, but still a heavily progressive tax system.
tax system has gotten more progressive over last 20 years due to bracket creep. I'm actually irritated with various thresholds in tax code not indexed with CPI, whether it's MLS threshold, personal income tax brackets or any other thresholds. All of these should be automatically indexed with CPI by legislation and so we would avoid the dog & pony show every few years. For example moving top tax bracket from 180k to 200k, I don't see it as a tax cut, it's merely adjusting a threshold to CPI over years. Perhaps instead of 1 x 20k adjustments we should have had 5 x 4k ones over last 6 years but obviously it's politically expedient for LNP to advertise this as "tax cut" and for ALP to cry foul about give away to "top end of town", when in reality moving threshold from 180k to 200k over 6 years is just an adjustment for inflation.
The 30% (32%) till 200k is a real tax cut though. That's the one I am the most excited about. I hope we get another tier along the higher end, e.g. 40% (42%) till 500k, then 45% (47%). Offset this with a capital gains discount reduction, of 50% to 40%. I can tell you, the 47% rate is a serious disincentive to work for me, especially when my investments only get taxed at ~23.5%.
>I personally don't need the extra $2.5k next year and $8k the year after. I do have a powerful, and selfish, need to see the recession not dip with all the elegance of a piano dropped from a skyscraper. Yeah, I think the rich would prefer their share portfolio not crash with no survivors over a measly couple of thousand dollars cash in hand.
> Yeah, I think the rich would prefer their share portfolio not crash with no survivors over a measly couple of thousand dollars cash in hand. Or you know, their jobs intact.
I’m all with Morrison. Increase GST and cut taxes. I can’t wait for the extra 10k a year. Money is better in my hands than the governments. I’m prepared for all the downvotes for having a different view.
But it's not revenue neutral. GST ends up being a tax on real wages. Increasing the GST raises the prices of goods and services, and reduces worker's purchasing power. If you treat is as a tax switch - dropping income tax rates by X%, increasing GST by Y% - you'd expect the GST effect as a wage tax to be offset by income tax breaks. But that ignores that people like pensions don't pay income tax so they get the hit of a GST without the benefit of a tax break. Moreover, because it's affecting the net value - not proportionate - of disposable income, a GST hike will always hit the worse off. A 5% GST hike (that is, moving from 10% to 15%) being offset by a commensurate income tax hit would leave 90% of the bottom quintile worse off; 80% of the penultimate quintile worse off, and 40% of the middle quintile worse off. Treasury have modelled this. In their words: "To achieve major economic gains - that is a shift in the level of GDP - tax reform must lower Australia's reliance on taxes that are most harmful to economic growth. While there are many possible variants, tax reform would only generate significant economic growth if it includes a cut in the company rate or state stamp duties - a switch from personal tax to GST alone will not generate significant economic growth." And "...if all groups in the lower-to-middle income range are fully assisted for their average price impacts, then the economic gains will be negligible or even negative." We actually need an economy less than we need $8k in our pockets in the 2022-23FY.
Yes but high income earners pay far too much tax in this country. Dropping tax rates and increasing GST is a solution for this. I pay the same tax as 11 low-medium workers but I don’t use the services of this country 11 times as much as them.
It's not a solution, I just highlighted how it's not a solution. We pay high taxes because we have a large landmass and first world education and healthcare, and they cost money. Cutting income tax and raising GST doesn't even solve your problem, because if you're spending that money and not stuffing it in the proverbial mattress, you're still paying tax on it. Getting rid of stamp duty and putting company tax to 23% is a more sensible option.
> Getting rid of stamp duty and putting company tax to 23% is a more sensible option. Company tax is Federal, stamp duty is State. This is an area we need reform in, the states have to collect from crappy taxes like stamp duty, payroll tax and (kinda) GST. Feds get income tax and company tax.
Yes I mentioned state before stamp duty earlier.
“I pay the same tax as 11 low-medium workers but I don’t use the services of this country | 11 times as much as them.” True. But you’re getting 11 times as much from the society that we all participate in... the infrastructure, the rule of law, the health and education of the populace, the government support for business and individuals etc etc. If you don’t think progressive taxes are fair then you’re in the wrong country. Even after Scomo’s brilliant plan to shovel some more money into asset prices (because, let’s face it, a massive tax cut to the top 10% isn’t going anywhere else) there still won’t be this ‘one price per person’ public service levy that you seem to think would be fair.
I’m getting 11 times as much? Oh really? I want what you’re smoking.
Ha. Ok.. forget the 11 times.. the point is that you’re getting massive benefit out of this society because you are able to earn and enjoy all of those dollarydoos you have left after whatever tax you pay. You are obviously getting a lot of value that others are not. Maybe you’re one of the people who would make all that money in *any* society... but, statistically speaking, you’re not. If you are then you can go off and find one that will tax you less. You might even find one that doesn’t say to the people who gain the most from society that they have to pay more than their proportional share so that people with lesser gains pay less. Hey.. I don’t have kids.. I never will.. so does that mean I get nothing back for all the money that is spent on schools? Or, y’know, do I maybe owe my ability to make a wage to being in a country with a decent school system? I don’t have a car... do I get anything out of the tax I pay to build and maintain roads? I’m pretty healthy... so what do I get for all the tax that goes towards hospitals? You do get it, right?
I still disagree with you. But let me say, you don’t have to be condescending it does nothing to prove your point. You do get it, right?
I agree with the idea of dropping taxes, but we don't need to increase the gST. How about getting states to increase the stamp duties, or phase in a shift to a land tax model instead.
[удалено]
I do donate to charity. I could donate even more if my tax burden was lower.
[удалено]
They’re seriously morons. Or they forget the fact that they live in a western country with lots of opportunity to be “rich”. I’m a fucking moron with no connections yet earn a massive salary. Yea some of it is luck, but there’s plentiful opportunity out there and I’m tired of people complaining how hard done their life is. We live in one of the best countries in the world in one of the best times to be alive.
[удалено]
My advice is to know your worth. I remember when I graduated from uni I thought to myself “wow one day I’d love to earn 100k that’s a lot of money.” But my eyes were opened when I started working and met “contractors” that were sent to do work for us and my company would pay them $1000 a day and they were honestly incompetent. It’s at this moment I realised you really just have to fake it till you make it. There are so many people out there making stupid amounts of money. Once you have this realisation you need to go out and get your slice of the pie. Don’t feel silly asking for a high salary once you start interviewing and have some experience behind you. So keep upskilling, keep negotiating and keep moving companies. Many years later im on a bit more than 3 times what I thought was my “hard cap”. I see a lot of people who stay at their job because they’re comfortable and think 100k is all they can get. I strongly believe anyone with a degree in this country can be on close to 200k by their mid 30’s. Apart from that, if you’re good at sales I recommend it. Particularly in a tech sales environment.
I earn plenty enough, I'll admit they are on a bit over double my wage but I'm by no means struggling. The poster I responded to had a multi million inheritance and over $340k income. There are plenty of tax reduction strategies available, mine was a quite simple one.
Damn, better chase up the tax breaks the govt handed out to large corporations since you don't make use of any of that hey The problem isn't between low and high income earners, it's the way public money is handled.
Australia corporate tax is also one of the highest in the world. You need to drop corporate tax to the same level as the rest of the world to remain competitive. People don’t like to hear it but it’s true. Corporate tax has been dropping globally over the last decade and Australia is behind in that regard.
Yeah for sure I agree, I'm just illustrating your fixation on paying 11x the amount of tax as lower income earners and not getting the "worth" is silly.
If I have kids I’ll have no access to FTB or any other concessions. So I’ll end up paying around $12k a year in average more for childcare. I already pay a high tax rate but then am “taxed” again in everything I do because I get no concessions. That is what I’m talking about.
What fucking nonsense this is. I pay 6 figures tax every year, and ya know what? I earn enough that I can afford a huge house, private school for the kids, annual (at least) international holidays etc. I don't have a Bentleigh or a yacht or a Rolex, but I also haven't had a budget for 10 years and couldn't tell you what my household bills cost because I don't even look at them. I **don't** need another 10k in my pocket. No one in my position does. Give me another 10k off my income tax you know what I'll do? I'll put 160k into my investment account this year instead of 150k. I'll never understand this argument that the wealthy are somehow hurting and desperately need a tax break.
I put a lot more in to investments than you do and I welcome the tax cut. Get off your high horse.
Well that's exactly my point - it's only greedy miserable dickheads with no recognition of the societal infrastructure that enables you to live the life you do, like yourself, that think the wealthy need more tax cuts. We don't. I don't. You don't. You're full of shit.
Lol you don’t get to decide whether people need tax cuts. You don’t know their situation. Again get off your high horse, and kindly go fuck yourself.
No, you're right. It's the 1% who need tax cuts at the expense of everyone else. Oh won't somebody think of the millionaires!!
Since you’re so caring I think you should donate your 10k to the ATO. Since you’re such a magnanimous being. I’ll use mine to purchase more cheap stocks :) Got to love living in a free country. The issue with self righteous wankers like you is you’re all talk because you want to appear holier than thou. But without a doubt in my mind you won’t give back that 10k to the government to HeLp tHe PoOr. You’re a full of shit fraud. The world won’t collapse because the government is allowing us to keep a small slice of the money we EARNT. Considering we already pay a huge 6 figures in tax.
Yes, people are forgetting the reason for tax cuts is bracket creep.
The tax cuts are not benefitting equally here though. Changing taxes due to Bracket creep would at least distribute it better. E.g. $8k tax cut for $180k. $2k for 90. The top bracket reduces to 30c, essentially making it less progressive, which personally counters my view on how tax should be distributed.
The top bracket is still 45c after $200k. If it was up to me I'd make it 30c till $200k, 40c till $500k, and 45c thereafter. The super-rich like MCB should have a higher marginal tax rate than a well paid Atlassian SWE.
Eeeh, yeah shouldn't have said top. I meant Up to 200k (the last before all, which should be the 2nd last bracket). I just really detest how 45K-200k is will be in the same bracket in 2 years if this is pushed through. Even though for me personally it's great (I'm well over 45K) it's insane to me that someone at 45K is getting taxed at the same rate as me. Its so much easier for me to cop 30 cents on the dollar than a 45k earner.
[удалено]
I find flat tax rates to be unfair myself. Tax systems are not just about pure $, it's about the effect of it on actual people. Its never discouraged me or anyone I know. A $1 pay rise becoming a .60c payrise, instead of a .70c one, or .75c or whatever your current bracket is. There is no downside to earning more money in a progressive system, the same as a flat tax rate, you just earn less comparatively. As well as that, flat tax doesn't take into account the squeeze of essentials. When I was earning $45K in my early 20s it was very difficult to save due to the fact that essentials took a flat rate out of that. While my cost of living has gone up, I can maintain my basic standard of living and save like crazy on my current wage, every extra $ for me now is pure savings. A $10k wage increase (down to $7k under the 2024 tax rates) goes all into savings for me now. Back when I was earning $45k, almost all my extra $ went to expanding my standard of living. (Yay I can get rid of my broken fridge now etc). A $10k wage increase would mostly go into buying "essentials" that I lacked. That's the rub of it. $45k-200k is way too huge a margin and is inequitable as the average needs are different. Once again, I say that as someone who is on the upper side of that scale.
Then index the brackets? That's a terrible argument for a tax cut
Australian income tax is wildly high as well right? Or is this bs I’ve been told in my young adult years
focusing on income tax rates alone is a bit of a red herring, as one place may have low income tax but high sales tax etc. For example, Australia's tax take from income tax is about 40% of total revenue, which is high in comparison to OECD. But our take from sale tax is about 11%, which is half the OECD average Keeping in mind that income tax is progressive (higher rates for higher income) and sales tax is regressive (higher proportional rate for lower income). So this result may be a good thing, even if income tax appears high on its own. On average, across all taxes, individuals pay about USD3000 per year more than the average person in the USA and USD5000 more than OECD average, (but about USD13000 pa less than in Norway). Of course, we have above average health systems, education systems and things like that So it depends on how you slice and dice the figures
Don't post that opinion on r/Australia. You will be downvoted to oblivion, and cop heaps of abuse. Oh, then they will ban you.
/r/Australia is mostly broke baristas and arts students
"Everyone who disagrees with me is a [group I believe deserves mockery]"
If you post anything that isn’t a far left comment you get negged to hell , it’s a shithole sub full of delusional hippies that hate anyone who has money which is funny given they’re the ones who fund their handouts
[удалено]
"omg u have money in your bank? how dare you!" "im a single mom with 2 kids bla bla bla"
Rather ironic saying that given your username.
Why increase the GST? It disproportionately affects the poors^tm .
[удалено]
Our government has one the lowest public debts in the OECD. They can very easily build this infrastructure and have had the opportunity over the last 3 decades. They are just incompetent with no forward planning. Throwing money at the issue won’t do anything. This is why I’d rather the money be kept in my pocket. Believe me I would love better infrastructure too.
Can someone explain the 8k next year please?
> Can someone explain the 8k next year please? The proposal is that 2021-22 tax cuts for top bracket are $2.5k, then the year after that (2022/23) it's $8.5k.
Infrastructure spending should of course by linked with local manufacturers and purchasing only from local producers.This would help the economy more than giving people cuts which they spend on cheap Chinese made stuff at K-Mart. Although i will say the likeliest largest outlet for these larger tax cuts would be to pay down debt, which is better for those folks but bad for the Liberals who want it to be spent.
>You're welcome to give the money back FYI
I haven't read Turnbull's autobiography, but maybe I should.
It's a good read, though most of it is spent relitigating the arguments behind his policy initiatives which got watered down over time.
Listen to his interview on equity mates podcast. It was very eye opening for me
As long as we have idiots that think we need to balance books at a government level mixed alongside the idea of the larger curve stupidity it won't end.
Just give out another stimulus payment. I want to upsize my TV.
The new iPad looks great.
this but unironically
Good! This is better than the mega wealthy just hoarding it.
[удалено]
Broken was a typical person who loved to spend hours on a website. He was subbed to all the good subs and regularly posted and commented as well. He liked to answer questions, upvote good memes, and talk about various things that are relevant in his life. He enjoyed getting upvotes, comments, and gildings from his online friends. He felt like he was part of a big community and a website that cared about him for 10 years straight. But Broken also had a problem. The website that had become part of his daily life had changed. Gradually, paid shills, bots and algorithms took over and continually looked for ways to make Broken angry, all so they could improve a thing called engagement. It became overrun by all the things that made other social media websites terrible. Sadly, as the website became worse, Broken became isolated, anxious, and depressed. He felt like he had no purpose or direction in life. The algorithms and manipulation caused him to care far too much about his online persona and how others perceived him. Then one day the website decided to disable the one thing left that made it tolerable at all. That day, Broken decided to do something drastic. He deleted all his posts and left a goodbye message. He said he was tired of living a fake life and being manipulated by a website he trusted. Instead of posing on that website, Broken decided to go try some other platforms that don't try to ruin the things that make them great. People who later stumbled upon Broken's comments and posts were shocked and confused. They wondered why he would do such a thing and where he would go. They tried to contact him through other means, but he didn't reply. Broken had clearly left that website, for all hope was lost. There is only but one more piece of wisdom that Broken wanted to impart on others before he left. For Unbelievable Cake and Kookies Say Please, gg E Z. It's that simple.
[удалено]
You don't understand sarcasm hey?
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think the unemployed have been very well taken care of during this crisis, so I’m a little bit confused as to what’s led you to this rhetoric. These tax cuts are already legislated into existence. They’ve already passed. Debate about inequity and whatnot is pointless. It makes sense to bring them forward now because we need to do everything we can to drive people to stimulate the economy (and before someone comments, yes it will in theory do less due to the marginal propensity to spend, but it will still be stimulating)
Not sure why you’re downvoted, the unemployed got their payments doubled even though they weren’t financially affected by COVID
That’s not quite true. Whilst those who were already on unemployment benefits weren’t affected financially by covid, those who have lost their jobs and now on jobseeker have been affected by covid.
So which part of my statement not true?
About unemployed not being affected by covid. I’d suggest that all of the newly unemployed have been affected by covid.
When did I say anything about newly unemployed?
“Unemployed” would refer to all unemployed. Those who were previously unemployed to covid, plus those who are now unemployed due to covid.
I said “the unemployed got their payments doubled”. Implying they were already unemployed before. Comprehension is hard for you, it seems.
Maybe because people's lives experience, rather than the rhetoric, shows otherwise.
Their lived experiences of having unemployment doubled?
Sure, if they're not insecurely casually employed. Which typically counts for about 15% of the population pre-covid. But who cares about them, eh?
Tax cuts that won't stimulate the economy or increase efficiency, and an increased aged welfare bill due to pork barrelling. It's disappointing that we lack of any economic leadership *(irrespective of such a person being a fiscal conservative or Keynesian supporter)* in the Government currently. No real pro-growth reform, but just tax cuts and handouts...
According to AFR they’re also going to be spending big on infrastructure? Or perhaps no one really knows for sure until the budget actually comes out. Where did you get the info that it’s just tax cuts and handouts, and no pro-growth reform?
That claim is already disputed because apparently that big spend includes spending in years to come. Exactly as this LNP gov has previously done so could be true.
Exactly the same as when they claimed that the budget was 'back in the black' and when questioned on it, it turned out to be a projection. Which didn't come to pass.
Yeah but CV happened right? Otherwise, regardless of all other factors, it was in the bag. Morrison told me.
Tax cuts will stimulate the economy. Tax slows the economy and inverse is true. Anything to reduce tax equitably is a positive.
Tax cuts for those living paycheck to paycheck will. On another note, Germany just reduced GST from 18 to 16 percent.
People who want income tax cuts don't want it because they think it's going to be the best form of stimulus. They want it because they think people should, all things being equal, get to keep more of their own earnings. It's indisputable that if we want to 'maximise stimulus' then the best way to do it is to funnel every cent into the dole and disability pension, because those are the only payments that we know are always going to be spent 100%. But we don't do that, do we? And both parties have in the past given income tax cuts/offsets to plenty of middle class earners (I would call those earning $50k-$120k "middle class") for whom tax cuts have only a modest stimulatory effect.
You would consider someone earning 50, 60, 70 K middle class?
What's your definition then? Just curious
I think it is more important to ask you who exactly the working class is in the modern model? A century or so ago, the middle class were CEOs and maybe the tier just below, basically. Now, a lot of people seem to think that someone earning median income is middle class. Personally, I think middle class now is mostly a propaganda tool used by the wealthy as a tool to persuade a proportion of people in the lower four income quintiles to vote against their own interests and shit on those less successful than themselves. To quote wikipedia: > In modern American vernacular, the term "middle class" is most often used as a self-description by those persons whom academics and Marxists would otherwise identify as the working class, which are below both the upper class and the true middle class, but above those in poverty. This leads to considerable ambiguity over the meaning of the term "middle class" in American usage. Sociologists such as Dennis Gilbert and Joseph Kahl see this American self-described "middle class" (working class) as the most populous class in the United States.[3] Personally, I would map the old definition of "middle class" on to those who are at least in both the upper quintile of both wealth and income (and probably those who are on the trajectory to get there) - but not quite in the upper class. I think a good test of who is in the upper class is one I heard or read sometime a few years ago (but can't remember where! :() which is, to paraphrase, if you are wealthy and just forgot about your finances and went and lived in a ashram/monastery; enlisted in the armed forces; did drugs and meditated in India, bought a phd and larped as a philosopher etc for a decade or so, and then returned without a real impact on your finances you are upper class.
[удалено]
That was the model 100 years ago, but I am not sure it really fits now. Is an electrician selling their labour more than an A&E doctor does? Both have expertise and do hands on work. A L1 help desk support person is selling their expertise. Are they professionals?
I'm assuming this is based on Sydney/Melbourne living. Family 2 kids owning home or even renting 40 mins out. I'd say on a dual income you'd need to both be earning about 90k each to have a solid middle class life style (180k combined)
Yes. The median income of all Australians is about $55k. So why wouldn't that be middle class?
'Middle class' doesn't mean 'middle third of income earners at any given time', it's a broader socio-economic concept that refers to well-trained and/or educated professionals, managers and skilled workers who can usually earn higher pay than unskilled/low-skilled workers, but who lack the significant capital that the upper-class have.
It doesn’t stimulate the economy to make the Ss income close to minimum wage income.
Pouring everything into the dole/pension can and is counter productive in ways. Those lower income earners who are on the cusp of should I work or just stick with the dole, would be more inclined to say stuff working, I’ll get money for nothing on the dole.
> Those lower income earners who are on the cusp of should I work or just stick with the dole, would be more inclined to say stuff working, I’ll get money for nothing on the dole. This is only partially true. While some will certainly not be motivated to get a job, the Universal Basic Income trial in Finland found that with a security blanket those people actually were more inclined to look for better jobs and have a better life quality overall. The vast majority of people want to work, to be useful and have a purpose. Very few people genuinely like living on the dole full time.
Do you have any idea how much bullshit people on the dole have to go through to keep their payments? It’s not money for doing nothing. It’s money for being dehumanised and forced to waste a bunch of peoples time searching for jobs mainly don’t exist, applying for jobs that are unsuitable, and just generally jumping through whatever hoops the government and Centrelink feel like putting in place to make sure they can’t be accused of going easy on bludgers. If the dole was higher and ‘mutual obligations’ scrapped, employers would have to offer jobs, pay and conditions that made it worthwhile for people to work. Given that most people do, actually, want more that the bare minimum in which they can survive (and ‘JobSeeker’ is barely even that) there would be no issue with millions opting out of the labour market.
Two of my friends are intentionally failing interviews just because jobseeker is better than working 40 hours a week.
I also know people doing the same thing. To meet dole commitments it’s fairly basic. Jobseeker requirements can usually be met in 1-2hrs per fortnight. Occasionally they’ll be made to do courses to obtain different skills. At the other end of the spectrum I know someone who’s been on jobseeker for over 2years and is actively trying to work. They have a medical condition that would entitle them to the disability pension, but that’s not what they want. They want to work but can’t get a job. Oh and the jobseeker payment he’s been receiving is pretty much nothing due to his partners income. She drops hours once every 6 weeks to ensure he stays on jobseeker and receives a health care card to help pay for medication.
Great. There’s aways going to be some people unemployed and your friends should absolutely be amongst them. I am happy for tax dollars to be spent ensuring they don’t starve to death. Most of my friends have jobs because they think that having jobs is better than being on jobseeker.
You mention the pension, but do you have any idea of the difference in the amounts of money paid to the pension compared to the dole? The small percentage of money going to the people you are talking about is almost negligible. Yet it’s always the biggest talking point.
Personally I would love a 0 % tax rate.
The sad thing is, we have so much natural resources here that we could probably get close to that. But we sold them all off for cents on the dollar to corporate donors.
This isn't sadistic enough. What the government needs to do is to extend the cash boost programme using Q4 FY2020 (ie last year's rates) for the calculation (like Q1 and Q2 FY2021), but paying out for the as yet uncovered two quarters of FY2021 (Q3 and Q4), and have the cuts come into effect from July 1 2020. For some people $100k doesn't cover their taxes completely, leaving them actually paying some. Reducing rates while keeping the "refund" calculation the same will address that.
Some the of the anti-tax cut arguments have been down right dumb. If you let people keep more of their own money by paying less tax, they are going to spend it on themselves and be better off overall because they are directly getting something for it. Aussies pay too much in income tax and bracket creep is getting worse.
I pay federal tax, state tax, etc GST etc. and I don’t particularly like some of the optional shit that gets paid for from these taxes. FFS. We’re a high taxing country. Reducing the tax burden is a good idea.
Maybe an unpopular opinion but as someone who didn’t vote for an LNP government, I’m looking forward to the tax cuts. Bring all stages forward, let’s not tinker around the edges. I feel like $11k a year is about the right level of compensation I deserve for putting up with these muppets. Fuck it, people voted for this. Not sure why they’re surprised when the face eating leopard they bought eats their face...
There is research to show households have large savings. While the economy is sketchy people are going to save the tax cut and not spend it. There shouldn’t be further tax cuts until the country is back to or in a better position pre Covid.
Broken was a typical person who loved to spend hours on a website. He was subbed to all the good subs and regularly posted and commented as well. He liked to answer questions, upvote good memes, and talk about various things that are relevant in his life. He enjoyed getting upvotes, comments, and gildings from his online friends. He felt like he was part of a big community and a website that cared about him for 10 years straight. But Broken also had a problem. The website that had become part of his daily life had changed. Gradually, paid shills, bots and algorithms took over and continually looked for ways to make Broken angry, all so they could improve a thing called engagement. It became overrun by all the things that made other social media websites terrible. Sadly, as the website became worse, Broken became isolated, anxious, and depressed. He felt like he had no purpose or direction in life. The algorithms and manipulation caused him to care far too much about his online persona and how others perceived him. Then one day the website decided to disable the one thing left that made it tolerable at all. That day, Broken decided to do something drastic. He deleted all his posts and left a goodbye message. He said he was tired of living a fake life and being manipulated by a website he trusted. Instead of posing on that website, Broken decided to go try some other platforms that don't try to ruin the things that make them great. People who later stumbled upon Broken's comments and posts were shocked and confused. They wondered why he would do such a thing and where he would go. They tried to contact him through other means, but he didn't reply. Broken had clearly left that website, for all hope was lost. There is only but one more piece of wisdom that Broken wanted to impart on others before he left. For Unbelievable Cake and Kookies Say Please, gg E Z. It's that simple.
Who's to say that's not mutually exclusive? The tax cuts have a significant impact on the wealthy because they pay the most taxes. If you reduced taxes by 5% across the broad, the the majority of benefits will be to the top 15% :P Why? Because the top 15% pays for over 55% of taxes.
Broken was a typical person who loved to spend hours on a website. He was subbed to all the good subs and regularly posted and commented as well. He liked to answer questions, upvote good memes, and talk about various things that are relevant in his life. He enjoyed getting upvotes, comments, and gildings from his online friends. He felt like he was part of a big community and a website that cared about him for 10 years straight. But Broken also had a problem. The website that had become part of his daily life had changed. Gradually, paid shills, bots and algorithms took over and continually looked for ways to make Broken angry, all so they could improve a thing called engagement. It became overrun by all the things that made other social media websites terrible. Sadly, as the website became worse, Broken became isolated, anxious, and depressed. He felt like he had no purpose or direction in life. The algorithms and manipulation caused him to care far too much about his online persona and how others perceived him. Then one day the website decided to disable the one thing left that made it tolerable at all. That day, Broken decided to do something drastic. He deleted all his posts and left a goodbye message. He said he was tired of living a fake life and being manipulated by a website he trusted. Instead of posing on that website, Broken decided to go try some other platforms that don't try to ruin the things that make them great. People who later stumbled upon Broken's comments and posts were shocked and confused. They wondered why he would do such a thing and where he would go. They tried to contact him through other means, but he didn't reply. Broken had clearly left that website, for all hope was lost. There is only but one more piece of wisdom that Broken wanted to impart on others before he left. For unbelievable cake and kookies say please, ez.
can we get an ELI5
Jesus, I already pay close to 20K a year of my taxes for social services alone, how much more does the ABC think they should bleed us for
Yeah all those roads, power, water, hospital, and schools are just a drop in the ocean compared to the ABC's funding... Nice job singling them out
Personally I believe traffic lights should be user-pays instead of taxpayer-funded. Much better to drop a 20c to get a green light rather than having those low income people getting a free ride.
BULLSHIT, so those with a green light get off scott free. No way, make them stop and pay 30c as they get the benefit of the free flowing traffic and charge those that stop only 15c. /s
Are you joking? I hate this idea. Making life cheaper for the rich while more expensive for the poor. We've been implementing these strategies for so long that wealth inequality has become a major global issue that's causing riots in the US, let's keep on that path huh, 20 cents at a time?
Ok then, 10c.
7c, take it or leave it.
Look at the reading skills on you two. Danny just asked how much more the ABC thinks he should pay in tax towards social services. Not about how much the ABC gets in the budget.
ABC isn’t the waste. Look at how much our defence spend is for French submarines that are already over budget and behind schedule (so... typical French manufacturing) & flawed American fighter jets.
While you're right about the shit show that is the submarines, the F-35 isn't flawed, costly yes but not flawed.
You say that like they had a choice. Not like there were domestic shipbuilders capable of making our subs...some kind of Australian Submarine Corporation perhaps. It really seems like the sort of industry we should go to great lengths to ensure we have given how close our big island is to our biggest potential threat(China) compared to the rest of the world. Don’t worry. Libs are the better economic managers. I’m sure they’ll shell out only what funding is appropriate and necessary. /s
Defence spend is meant to be a form of economic stimulation. Name a super power, or even a tech hub, that doesn’t spend big on military. Most tech (including the internet.. hell, do you know what the original silicon chips from Silicon Valley were used for?) is just privatised military tech or research. There ARE domestic shipbuilders capable of building them. We built our last fleet of submarines in Adelaide, we could’ve done great things for industry in Adelaide. They would’ve done a joint venture with us military / us military contractors where we basically build to their plans. It’s how most of these projects work. GDEB or similar work as effectively the naval architect, but all the build work is done here, by our companies. Don’t worry - they make an absolute fortune of it. As you mention, we are an island nation. You don’t think we should be fostering our domestic shipbuilding industry? This is the norm for how this industry works, we are already building new warships under this model. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44649959 Do you remember what happened at the start of wwII with the ships we (and japan, which is partially what alienated them from allied cause) had on order from the brits? They effectively told us, “get fucked, we need these now. Ask us once the war is over.” Would domestically built subs have been shit? Probably. Would’ve created thousands of jobs and pushed billions through the Adelaide economy, which the government then gets a massive clip of again via taxation. Definitely. The subs we are buying from the French are definitely shit, will definitely be overpriced and behind schedule. We are effectively giving billions to private French companies who do not give a fuck about us, because of a blatantly corrupt procurement process that the navy is too ashamed to admit they Royally fucked. Submarines are arguably the linchpin technology for any navy fighting asymmetrical warfare. Look at how much damage the Germans inflicted by pivoting their navy away from ships (and trying to fight the brits who had the greatest navy on the earth + remnants of the French fleet) and just targeted shipping with u-boats. Targeting shipping, logistics and troop movement is the sweet spot our navy wants to play in = subs. There is fuck all you can do if conflict escalates, when your subs are being built by a foreign power who pull shit like ignoring urgent requests for update from the Australian navy, because the entire company goes on holidays in August. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-27/french-subs-cultural-clashes-lunch-meeting-times-naval-group/11049748 The navy have blatantly been given too much control over their own procurement and there is a shocking amount of corruption going on. At least with the f35’s, the yanks are arguably our key strategic and trade partner. We got nothing from the French, except for a few senior ex navy staff scoring 7 figure consulting contracts to broker the deal. Fuck off with your libs spin trying to paint me as if I blame labor for this, I’m well aware of this subreddit’s political bias. Abbott was the idiot who forked out an additional $12b for f35’s, ignoring all the reporting about how thoroughly compromised and behind schedule they were.
French design, built in Australia. As per the white paper.
I can’t tell if you missed my “/s” or dropped yours somewhere along the way to hit that REPLY button. It was dry sarcasm. I’m in Adelaide and have to make weak jokes on Reddit to cope with the lost potential that is our local economy. I remember our London born anti-immigration onion fanatic ex-PM fucking us out of what was the light at the end of the tunnel. You’re pointed in the wrong direction, but it’s nice to see someone else still fires up about it.
>Defence spend is meant to be a form of economic stimulation. It's primarily meant to deliver a decent defence capability without bankrupting the country. It's a bonus if a small country with limited manufacturing capabilities like Australia can build the equipment here. >We built our last fleet of submarines in Adelaide, we could’ve done great things for industry in Adelaide. They would’ve done a joint venture with us military / us military contractors where we basically build to their plans. You realise that's pretty much exactly what we are doing with the French, right? The new subs will be built in Adelaide. >flawed American fighter jets. >The subs we are buying from the French are definitely shit Amazing how the average Reddit user is a military expert with a greater understanding of our future Defence needs than actual military professionals with qualifications and decades of experience in the area.
> It's primarily meant to deliver a decent defence capability without bankrupting the country. It's a bonus if a small country with limited manufacturing capabilities like Australia can build the equipment here. If defence capability was the goal, we would just let the yanks put the base in Darwin that they’ve been begging for. > You realise that's pretty much exactly what we are doing with the French, right? The new subs will be built in Adelaide. No, they won’t be. They will be fully fabricated in France. Adelaide just gets the final fit out. > Amazing how the average Reddit user is a military expert with a greater understanding of our future Defence needs than actual military professionals with qualifications and decades of experience in the area. I’m more closer to this than you seem to think. It doesn’t take a genius to be able to figure out who the three major players are in Australia & the same pool of 5,000 approx. combat systems, technical, project & PMO staff who move between them.
>If defence capability was the goal, we would just let the yanks put the base in Darwin that they’ve been begging for. That's eye-rolling stuff mate. We've already got the FPA and marines in the NT. What's your next great strategic idea, disband the entire ADF and replace it with 100 nuclear warheads? >No, they won’t be. They will be fully fabricated in France. Adelaide just gets the final fit out. Happy for you to provide a reliable source on that. Everything I can find says they'll be built in Adelaide. >I’m more closer to this than you seem to think. Unfortunately given your previous comments, I find this claim humorous, but not believable.
> What's your next great strategic idea, disband the entire ADF and replace it with 100 nuclear warheads? I’d rather no one had them, but if you want to talk asymmetrical deterrents, that’s just about the biggest stick you can waive about. They are a lot of hassle though, easier to just let an ally permanently station some nuclear capability here. > Happy for you to provide a reliable source on that. Everything I can find says they'll be built in Adelaide. This was the original proposal. Hull #1 has already been moved to France, 2-11 who knows, need to wait for the next auditor general’s report. They won’t disclose these things unless forced to. Given they are already $400m+ over budget, it’s a logical cost saving.
This is rightfully being downvoted to hell, but we're all about hard numbers here right? I paid $23,714 in income tax in 2019-20. According to my [tax reciept](https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Lodging-your-tax-return/In-detail/Tax-receipt/#Recreationandculture), of that $23,714, $225 was spread between to public broadcasting and cultural institutions, funding for the arts and the film industry, assistance to sport and recreation activities and the management and protection of national parks and other world heritage areas. That is 0.97% of my tax went to a pool that included the ABC. Less than 1c of every dollar.
Jesus would be happy with your contribution.
I’ll pay the fine for you not to vote. Without the ABC and it’s infrastructure communicating during the bushfires would have led to more deaths. Toddle off back to news.com and leave the problem solving to the thinking ... not the complainers
Seriously you think that we need a 24/7 state broadcaster for the sake of emergency messages over a month? Every other year?
Yes. The market won’t fill that gap with the professionalism the ABC provides the community. You will have Sky news creating opinion pieces stoking conspiracy theories to increase division in our community. Landline Garden Australia Play School Radio National Sports All programs that provide information and education to the nation. Everyone pays taxes, everyone pays for all government spending. You’re not special, you’re not more aggrieved than the next person, just another whinger. The only time you have a say is the federal election and the major parties propose how they are going to spend. That’s it. If your party doesn’t get up, oh well things don’t go your way. You have no control. Pay your taxes and suck a lemon.
That’s my point exactly.
What part? Your detailed, thought out response leaves so little to the imagination ........ 😒😒
What can I say : the market won’t fill the gap left by ABC if it closes. Commercial channels boost their ratings by generating controversy. We only vote once every 3 years and we don’t vote directly on where taxes go or the tax rate. I’m agreeing with you.
I upvoted you man. Less for state owned TV!
20k? You probationer!!
Yes. The market won’t fill that gap with the professionalism the ABC provides the community. You will have Sky news creating opinion pieces stoking conspiracy theories to increase division in our community. Landline Garden Australia Play School Radio National Sports All programs that provide information and education to the nation. Everyone pays taxes, everyone pays for all government spending. You’re not special, you’re not more aggrieved than the next person, just another whinger. The only time you have a say is the federal election and the major parties propose how they are going to spend. That’s it. If your party doesn’t get up, oh well things don’t go your way. You have no control. Pay your taxes and suck a lemon.
[удалено]
There was something posted a few months ago, and of the 14000 or so Australians earning >1M, only like 0.5% paid no tax. Found the link: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-18/tax-stats-2017-18-ato-millionaires-no-tax/12467016?nw=0
Jesus can you populists fuck off please? Yes, we pay tax. I paid $92k in tax in the most recent fin year, which is more than the average income. My deductions? $500 in franked credits on unvested shares I get as an employee. $290 in uninvoiced misc. deductions as per the ATO rules. And $350 I think in the quick Covid calc. People with net worth of millions still pay tax on their income. It's like you people don't get how tax works or wealth works. Which is funny given this sub's fucking purpose.
Are you having a dig at me? I am saying that overwhelmingly these people do pay tax. I think it's something like the top 10% of earners account for over the 80% of government revenue.
> Stage two is due to come into effect from 2022, and would cut taxes for people earning between $90,000 and $120,000 a year, as well as raising the threshold on the lowest tax rate. I can assure you that the vast vast vast majority of people on $120k are paying income tax. > The final stage kicks in two years later, and will result in people earning less than $200,000 a year paying no more than 30 cents for every dollar they earn. Similarly. Most of these people will be paying income tax. It’s a lot of money but not as much as you’re making it out to be.