The Stage 3 tax cuts are so unaffordable in the long term that they are effectively the death knell of what was once Labor’s traditional objectives.
They need scrapping, not expanding.
Absolutely, but they’d be crucified if they went back on their election promise to keep the stage 3 cuts. They’d never hear the end of it.
I reckon they’ll wait things out for this term while economic conditions keep the budget in surplus, then take a policy to the next election for some kind of specific levy - maybe an NDIS levy - to try to claw back some revenue as the budget balance is forecast to turn south.
They did say before the last election that they’d make multinational corporations pay their fair share in tax, so that’s one area they could make changes to raise revenue, but anything they were going to do there they would have already done by now.
Hmm, you raise a good point. In the last few days the conversation has also been about colesworth. Maybe they’re thinking about a more general corporations tax increase, or some kind of fine regime in situations where market power is seen to be being abused.
Me, i favour closing corporations tax loop-holes and increasing corporations tax a bit. As far as stage 3 goes, keep most of it, because bracket creep has happened. But reintroduce the removed tax bracket so the end result is everybodies income tax moves up in line with the tax we were paying years ago.
It’s strategic. Let them slide this year to keep the promise and score some voter points, get relelected, then next year rebalance the tax brackets to be more equitable and fair.
if you believe that I have a rock I’d like to sell you
The only consolation is that bracket creep means the effect isn’t as terrible as we think.
From the article, it suggests it won’t affect the overall amount the cuts will cost the government, they will just scrape a bit off the high income earners and pass it to low/middle income earners. I think it is a media beat up about the problems and opposition he will get to this… I think it is fair, anyone who is opposed to sharing with the low / medium income earners would seem like a bit if a dickhead.
Just a rant from me - every one of the videos in the ‘breaking news’ section of my YouTube is about this. No problem with that.
But every single one of those videos is from Sky News - we’re talking 7 videos - and have a guess what they have to say about it!
How is that equitable YouTube? For reference, I don’t think it’s an algorithm thing because I never watch sky videos. Mainly ABC ones.
Scrap the stage 3 tax cuts, tax the rich higher, and bring in lower taxes for the majority of Australians who aren’t rich.
Or, maybe, they could address the terrible cost of living crisis that’s facing hard-working families in Australia. Start with kicking Colesworth up the arse for profiteering, then the energy sector.
You’re right, not being taxed as much would not help us have more usable income towards higher priced living expenses.
Better yet, do both.
…b-b-but the political capital! You think the Murdoch press are going to lay off a moment longer than it takes to sanitise Dutton’s image and correct the worst of the LNP’s utter economic vandalism?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has given the strongest indication yet that the stage 3 tax cuts will be expanded to benefit lower-income earners.
Independent economist Chris Richardson suggested the threshold could increase from $18,200 to $19,500 using the money saved at the top, delivering an across-the-board tax cut of $247 a year.
Acting Greens leader Mehreen Faruqi on Monday wrote to Treasurer Jim Chalmers to repeat calls to ditch the cuts, highlighting new analysis by the independent Parliamentary Budget Office showing three-quarters of the benefit would go to the top fifth of income earners.
Angela Jackson, lead economist at Impact Economics, said the reported alternative would make the cuts “fairer and more equitable and importantly increase incentives to work at the lower end where the most gains are to be had”.
“From a labour force participation point of view, lowering the top marginal rate will have minimal impact because those workers are generally already working full time,” Dr Jackson said.
“However lifting the tax-free threshold lowers the marginal tax rates of low-income and part-time workers, increasing the rewards from an extra hour of work.”
The original article contains 703 words, the summary contains 184 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Tough luck for being a hard worker. Changed jobs a few times and spent 18 months absolute cramming my life with studying etc to get a better job. And people wonder why we have people becoming landlords to get negative gearing to try and offset the high taxes.
Maybe lowering interest rates would be a better option here given that is what is causing the cost of living crisis as far as rent and mortgage. Has zero effect on cost of goods due to super profit greed.
The elected government has little to no control over interest rate decisions.
There’s plenty of people that work very hard and get paid well under 150k. Not really a valid statement.
I personally don’t see why they don’t temporarily force more contribution into super. Would take money out of the economy and be beneficial to people…
Australia has one of the lowest top tax bracket ranges around. It makes sense to bump it from 180k to 200k.
It would make more sense to add a new top bracket at a higher rate, leaving the existing ones as they are.
What makes you think 47% is not high enough?
