Budget May 2023

[Blue Flu]

11 hours ago, benj1980 said:

There's some being built in a neighbouring suburb, that suburb isn't very impressed. The houses are going up very quickly (hopefully there's still quality in the build), but look incredibly small with little to no garden. Not exactly the Australian house dream...

As I wrote in other threads, all part of the declining living standards being inflicted upon this country. The dream will be of course over time a roof of any kind , including for some a tent.

[Blue Flu]

17 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Have the baddies gone?

No mass exodus to the Badlands of Mandurah and environs if that's what you mean. Sadly.

[Ken]

1 hour ago, Blue Flu said:

But is social housing really the answer? It could be a part of the solution, but why not rental controls as in Europe?  

Because there's already a shortage of rental housing and rental controls would only exacerbate that. Government built rental housing (you can call it social housing if you want) is the obvious solution when no one else is prepared to invest in the sector.

[Ken]

3 hours ago, Ausvisitor said:

I don't see any problem with the tax cut.

But then I'm in the group that everyone seems to be treating like lepers (you know that group so good at what they do they get paid over $250k for doing it - and in the process also pay for everyone else to get tax cuts and benefits).

This might be the first time in my 40 years on the planet when I actually benefit from something in the budget and you all want to take that away from me

But it wasn't in this budget. it was in the LNP budget two years ago years ago (maybe longer) they just pushed it way down the road so they knew could scrap it before it came into force if necessary. This budget has merely decided not to scrap it (same as last year's budget) or to be precise has pushed the decision on scrapping it down the road again. That's because they know there's still time to scrap it in next year's budget as that will still be before it comes into force - and there's a better than even chance that they will.

[Blue Flu]

1 hour ago, Ken said:

Because there's already a shortage of rental housing and rental controls would only exacerbate that. Government built rental housing (you can call it social housing if you want) is the obvious solution when no one else is prepared to invest in the sector.

The obvious solution is to discourage the policy in way of tax breaks.  That and artificially stimulating the housing market. Controls work all over Europe. Of course they would wok in Australia given the right circumstances. 

The times last century when housing was affordable to most all working people in Australia are long over. Renting needs to be made a perfectly acceptable choice where people have the confidence to remain long term. 

[Ausvisitor]

4 hours ago, Parley said:

You don't need the money though. A lot more deserving cases out there.

But that money only exists to be taxed because I want it. If someone else wants it they could also work as hard as I do.

 

[Ausvisitor]

3 hours ago, Blue Flu said:

Perhaps because the country can ill afford it. If one has the fortune to be among the highest earners why shouldn't they contribute accordingly? We have an ever increasing inequality in this country. Why increase that? There are countless creative accounting ways in place in order to minimise tax. 

Why should someone contribute more because they earn more?

The fairer option would be everyone gets $50k tax free and every cent above that gets taxed at 35%

 No one can say that approach is unfair and it delivers more cash to the lower paid than the current system but works out about the same on overall tax take

[Ausvisitor]

1 hour ago, Ken said:

But it wasn't in this budget. it was in the LNP budget two years ago years ago (maybe longer) they just pushed it way down the road so they knew could scrap it before it came into force if necessary. This budget has merely decided not to scrap it (same as last year's budget) or to be precise has pushed the decision on scrapping it down the road again. That's because they know there's still time to scrap it in next year's budget as that will still be before it comes into force - and there's a better than even chance that they will.

They almost certainly won't scrap the tax cuts - it would open them up to lots of criticism

I could see them introducing some new levy (or change to some other existing tax/charge) that effectively gave with one hand and took with the other

[Jon the Hat]

5 hours ago, Ausvisitor said:

I don't see any problem with the tax cut.

But then I'm in the group that everyone seems to be treating like lepers (you know that group so good at what they do they get paid over $250k for doing it - and in the process also pay for everyone else to get tax cuts and benefits).

This might be the first time in my 40 years on the planet when I actually benefit from something in the budget and you all want to take that away from me

I will also benefit, but I am also smart enough to recognize that in addition to lots of hard work over many years, I also benefitted from being born white, in an prosperous part of a developed western country with high education standards,  went to a school that encouraged us to believe we could go to university, to parents who believe in hard work and making the most of your opportunities.  I also had a great group of friends at school who helped me stay on the right side of doing too many stupid things, and have been fortunate in being in the right place at the right time career wise.  Lots of people don't get these starts in life, and it is no bad thing to pay a bit more tax to help boost them up.

[Ausvisitor]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

I will also benefit, but I am also smart enough to recognize that in addition to lots of hard work over many years, I also benefitted from being born white, in an prosperous part of a developed western country with high education standards,  went to a school that encouraged us to believe we could go to university, to parents who believe in hard work and making the most of your opportunities.  I also had a great group of friends at school who helped me stay on the right side of doing too many stupid things, and have been fortunate in being in the right place at the right time career wise.  Lots of people don't get these starts in life, and it is no bad thing to pay a bit more tax to help boost them up.

We will have to disagree, but I do respect your viewpoint I just don't think the same.

[Blue Flu]

4 hours ago, Ausvisitor said:

But that money only exists to be taxed because I want it. If someone else wants it they could also work as hard as I do.

 

Nothing to do with working hard . In fact it is the real grafters that too often miss out. It is those that manipulate the system to their advantage that come out best in too many instances. 

[Blue Flu]

4 hours ago, Ausvisitor said:

Why should someone contribute more because they earn more?

The fairer option would be everyone gets $50k tax free and every cent above that gets taxed at 35%

 No one can say that approach is unfair and it delivers more cash to the lower paid than the current system but works out about the same on overall tax take

Simply because as you write they earn more. It depends on the type of society you want. A dog eat dog , where the onus is purely on money and status  (often with a lot of pretense) or a society where everybody as a stake and the difference is not hundreds of times between lowest paid and top. (a very eighties concept) 

Higher tax thresholds may help but usually not favoured as lower paid are easier to get tax from. High paid have numerous ways to lower taxable income or indeed pay nothing. 

[Blue Flu]

3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

I will also benefit, but I am also smart enough to recognize that in addition to lots of hard work over many years, I also benefitted from being born white, in an prosperous part of a developed western country with high education standards,  went to a school that encouraged us to believe we could go to university, to parents who believe in hard work and making the most of your opportunities.  I also had a great group of friends at school who helped me stay on the right side of doing too many stupid things, and have been fortunate in being in the right place at the right time career wise.  Lots of people don't get these starts in life, and it is no bad thing to pay a bit more tax to help boost them up.

It is more than that. I've never known a time with people having less scruples.  That goes across the board and inflicts all social classes. Those with high professional standards are just as easily impacted by their peers less than ethical behaviour or corrupt practices. Greed has imposed itself on society increasingly as the guiding factor. (bigging themselves up at the same time) It certainly looks good from afar. 

Mostly it is lip service pretending to be a caring person with the interests of society paramount , when actually too often things are not what they may appear. 

[DrDougster]

11 hours ago, Ausvisitor said:

Why should someone contribute more because they earn more?

The fairer option would be everyone gets $50k tax free and every cent above that gets taxed at 35%

 No one can say that approach is unfair and it delivers more cash to the lower paid than the current system but works out about the same on overall tax take

To support people less fortunate.

Your suggestion wouldn't be fairer, it would be treating people the same. That approach would be inherently sexist and increase inequity across society so, yeah, I'd say it would be unfair. Popular with people who think "stars" sexually assaulting women was/is acceptable, but unfair nonetheless.

Edited May 12, 2023 by DrDougster

[InnerVoice]

22 hours ago, Ausvisitor said:

Why should someone contribute more because they earn more?

The fairer option would be everyone gets $50k tax free and every cent above that gets taxed at 35%

 No one can say that approach is unfair and it delivers more cash to the lower paid than the current system but works out about the same on overall tax take

 

11 hours ago, DrDougster said:

To support people less fortunate.

And the rest of us benefit too. Personally I'd rather pay more tax and live in a world not surrounded by poor, sick, uneducated people who are more likely to resort to crime because there's no chance of escaping poverty. Scandinavian countries are often cited as having the best quality of life in the world (despite their winters), with free healthcare, education and excellent public services, but it all comes at a cost in the form of higher taxes. If you want to see a country in social decline look no further than the UK, where tax rates have been continually reduced since the 1980s.

If they're going to cut taxes then surely increasing the tax-free threshold would be fairer than reducing tax rates by a percentage, which always benefits higher earners the most. The threshold hasn't changed since it was raised to $18,200, 11 years ago. By comparison the UK personal allowance before tax is the equivalent of $23,500, and the cost of living and wages are generally lower over there.

[Blue Flu]

3 hours ago, InnerVoice said:

 

And the rest of us benefit too. Personally I'd rather pay more tax and live in a world not surrounded by poor, sick, uneducated people who are more likely to resort to crime because there's no chance of escaping poverty. Scandinavian countries are often cited as having the best quality of life in the world (despite their winters), with free healthcare, education and excellent public services, but it all comes at a cost in the form of higher taxes. If you want to see a country in social decline look no further than the UK, where tax rates have been continually reduced since the 1980s.

If they're going to cut taxes then surely increasing the tax-free threshold would be fairer than reducing tax rates by a percentage, which always benefits higher earners the most. The threshold hasn't changed since it was raised to $18,200, 11 years ago. By comparison the UK personal allowance before tax is the equivalent of $23,500, and the cost of living and wages are generally lower over there.

The rising inequality of course does not bid well for most of us. We are already witnessing massive crime in our regional localities in the tropics. All cities have suburban areas spoiled to various extents by increasing crime .

Australia has vastly and rather rapidly increased inequality levels. A very high per cent hold much of the wealth. Corruption is very evident. Again by people in a position to exploit their status. It is increasing hard for those at the lower 25 per cent of the population to get ahead. Very tiring to still sometimes read how egalitarian Australia sometimes claims to be. 

Yes tax threshold remains too low in Australia. It is in part (probably a large part) due to the ease of catching the lower earners than those earning far more who use creative tax accounting in order to limit tax liability. Tightening the 'screws' too much more on those on big earnings simply entices greater tax avoidance. 

 

[Blue Flu]

17 hours ago, DrDougster said:

To support people less fortunate.

Your suggestion wouldn't be fairer, it would be treating people the same. That approach would be inherently sexist and increase inequity across society so, yeah, I'd say it would be unfair. Popular with people who think "stars" sexually assaulting women was/is acceptable, but unfair nonetheless.

Exactly. That is why flat tax favours the better off who are already well ahead on the present measurement. 

[Jon the Hat]

On 13/05/2023 at 11:51, InnerVoice said:

 

And the rest of us benefit too. Personally I'd rather pay more tax and live in a world not surrounded by poor, sick, uneducated people who are more likely to resort to crime because there's no chance of escaping poverty. Scandinavian countries are often cited as having the best quality of life in the world (despite their winters), with free healthcare, education and excellent public services, but it all comes at a cost in the form of higher taxes. If you want to see a country in social decline look no further than the UK, where tax rates have been continually reduced since the 1980s.

If they're going to cut taxes then surely increasing the tax-free threshold would be fairer than reducing tax rates by a percentage, which always benefits higher earners the most. The threshold hasn't changed since it was raised to $18,200, 11 years ago. By comparison the UK personal allowance before tax is the equivalent of $23,500, and the cost of living and wages are generally lower over there.

Tax rates in the UK have not been continually reduced since the 80s.  Admittedly the stupid high tax rates of the 70s are fortunately no more, but there was the introduction of the higher rate, the removal of the tax free allowance over 100k and the never ending creep of threshold reductions.

[InnerVoice]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

Tax rates in the UK have not been continually reduced since the 80s.  Admittedly the stupid high tax rates of the 70s are fortunately no more, but there was the introduction of the higher rate, the removal of the tax free allowance over 100k and the never ending creep of threshold reductions.

Fair point. I'll rephrase that to tax rates have been changed so that rich people pay less tax since the 1980s.

[Blue Flu]

15 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Tax rates in the UK have not been continually reduced since the 80s.  Admittedly the stupid high tax rates of the 70s are fortunately no more, but there was the introduction of the higher rate, the removal of the tax free allowance over 100k and the never ending creep of threshold reductions.

Actually a higher tax can be very liberating. When one does not need to worry getting ill, having a good retirement pension, not forgetting free child care at the other end of the spectrum, alongside a better standard of living for most of the population then money well spent.  That's real freedom. No need for illegal activities to supplement social failings or simply promote greed and corrosive behaviour. 

 

[benj1980]

If higher taxation meant a high level of free medical care for all, improvements in education standards including free university fees and a reasonable social care net including pension I'd be all for it. But how much are we talking here? Medicare is good to a point - I've got private insurance, the school education system has three tiers, social care hasn't kept up with inflation and university fees continue to go up. Lots of billions?!

[Parley]

6 hours ago, benj1980 said:

If higher taxation meant a high level of free medical care for all, improvements in education standards including free university fees and a reasonable social care net including pension I'd be all for it. But how much are we talking here? Medicare is good to a point - I've got private insurance, the school education system has three tiers, social care hasn't kept up with inflation and university fees continue to go up. Lots of billions?!

As Margaret Thatcher pointed out, eventually you will run out of other peoples' money.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Parley

[Bulya]

36 minutes ago, Parley said:

As Margaret Thatcher pointed out, eventually you will run out of other peoples' money.

The govt can’t ‘run out of money’  it shouldn’t need explaining to you..

[Ken]

1 hour ago, Parley said:

As Margaret Thatcher pointed out, eventually you will run out of other peoples' money.

It depends upon what you do with the money. If you are using it to grow the economy faster than you are increasing your borrowing you will not run out.

[Parley]

1 hour ago, Bulya said:

The govt can’t ‘run out of money’  it shouldn’t need explaining to you..

The US will in about 18 days.