Another year, Another budget and another cock-up for the government.
80% of workers will get that sandwhich and milkshake offer again, (Approx $6 a week more) Should be a good run for the snackbar owners of Australia,come July 2005! LOL
Still no real incentive for people to get off welfare and into work.
Tax rates in Australia are still way too high, especially for the poor. How can the tax free threshhold be $6000, when it is said to be living under the poverty line if you earn under $20,000 per year.
Low Income earners get $60 to $240 tax cut and high income earners get $4,000, yes another true cock-up!
clowboy
11th-May-2005, 09:45 AM
I guess the write up will be in today's paper, I havent paid to much attention to it all becuase it wont really change my life in any great detail.
Is there an online link?
would be far better to abolish the tax free threshold and lower the middle tax bracket IMHO.
Looks like the market doesn't like the budget either, All ORDS trading in the red...booo hooo!
Doesn't help when the DOW is down too.
clowboy
11th-May-2005, 10:24 AM
ha ha ha
I quote that link
"THE 17 per cent marginal tax rate will be cut to 15 per cent for people earning $60001 to $21,600;"
60,001 nice.......Ill get another $50 a week
Ha ha ha
taurus
11th-May-2005, 12:37 PM
Now to get my income up to $94K, or $188K and somehow try & artifically split it :p: (95,000 marks the 47c/$ bracket now right?).
I guess if you're on the big money, you won't be complaining; but you're not paying tax anyway are you :rolleyes:
Can anyone point out the advantages/disadvantages of a FLAT tax system (if my terminology is correct)? I don't know much about it, other than the fact the rich won't evade it as easily.
T.
Knobby22
11th-May-2005, 01:49 PM
Now to get my income up to $94K, or $188K and somehow try & artifically split it :p: (95,000 marks the 47c/$ bracket now right?).
I guess if you're on the big money, you won't be complaining; but you're not paying tax anyway are you :rolleyes:
Can anyone point out the advantages/disadvantages of a FLAT tax system (if my terminology is correct)? I don't know much about it, other than the fact the rich won't evade it as easily.
T.
A flat tax is advantageous to the rich as the poor pays more tax. That's why the US has it.
I thought the budget was good. The funny thing is that he government will have paid off all its debt next year and on the following year with the selling of Telstra will have $45 billion! to win the election. Also just like to point out that the future fund should also have an upward effect on investment and the stockmarket. The US and British and Japanese economies are struggling under debt and we have none. We are becoming one of the richest countries in the world. They will have to give us more tax cuts and more services. We all get tax cuts and everyone whinges, human nature. The average wage is above $50,000 by the way.
Smurf1976
11th-May-2005, 05:34 PM
The average wage is above $50,000 by the way.
Median average or mean average? (Yes it matters - a lot :) )
mime
11th-May-2005, 06:13 PM
I'll tell you something I learnt about Labor.
Their goal is to break the people financially so they are more dependent on them. Just look at all the Labor states. They still have taxes which were supposed to be abolished with the intro of the GST.
WaySolid
11th-May-2005, 06:47 PM
Another year, Another budget and another cock-up for the government.
80% of workers will get that sandwhich and milkshake offer again, (Approx $6 a week more) Should be a good run for the snackbar owners of Australia,come July 2005! LOL
Still no real incentive for people to get off welfare and into work.
Tax rates in Australia are still way too high, especially for the poor. How can the tax free threshhold be $6000, when it is said to be living under the poverty line if you earn under $20,000 per year.
Low Income earners get $60 to $240 tax cut and high income earners get $4,000, yes another true cock-up!High income earners will of course get a bigger tax cut in dollar terms as they pay more tax, simple maths. Looking at it from a percentage term is perhaps more relevant, I would dispute that many people earning around 60k a year are rich and yet they were near the top tax band. Long overdue step in the right direction with the correction of the top marginal rate.
Bigger tax breaks to higher income earners is a better idea than giving low to middle income earners the better end of the stick for 2 reasons off the top of my head
1- It motivates people people to work harder: who wants to do all those hours of overtime on average Joe's payrate to get into the top bracket only to have half of it taken away again? Most tradesman, truckdrivers, farmworkers and any other long hour-working employees are going to reap the rewards of this system.
2-Hard workers and highly paid professionals deserve a bit of a break from the tax system. Why should they have to foot the bill for the doll bludgers and the pensioners that were too stupid or ignorant to save for their future?
ghotib
11th-May-2005, 11:07 PM
Let's just clear up a little fuzziness that often gets into these discussions.
There is no direct relationship between hard work and high income. It's perfectly possible, and some would say highly desirable, for people to work their ****s into the ground for very low wages. It's also possible to be highly stressed while working your **** into the ground for very low wages.
Personally, I think the gummint has missed one action that would instantly boost the productivity and the well-being of the nation. Offer tax incentives to all companies that replace their telephone menu systems with human beings. Enough human beings that customers are no longer forced to wait 25 minutes to, say, query a phone bill.
After that they could outlaw all telemarketing and there'd still be jobs for students.
Ghoti
Rexer
12th-May-2005, 01:21 AM
The usual bleating comes out at whenever tax cuts for those of us on higher incomes are contemplated.
I'll share something with you all.
Last year I paid $75k in PAYE income tax alone. I paid another 10% on pretty much every $ I spent. I bought a block of land and paid another $20k in stamp duty on that. I travel >25000 km in my car every year and about half the petrol that I buy is actually tax.
I'm sure that others on here have similar stories to tell.
The government decides to alter the tax rates marginally, I'm still going to be paying about $70k in PAYE tax. I use effectively zero government services other than driving on the road.
Don't start telling me I'm getting such a fantastic deal.
wayneL
12th-May-2005, 01:44 AM
The usual bleating comes out at whenever tax cuts for those of us on higher incomes are contemplated.
I'll share something with you all.
Last year I paid $75k in PAYE income tax alone. I paid another 10% on pretty much every $ I spent. I bought a block of land and paid another $20k in stamp duty on that. I travel >25000 km in my car every year and about half the petrol that I buy is actually tax.
I'm sure that others on here have similar stories to tell.
The government decides to alter the tax rates marginally, I'm still going to be paying about $70k in PAYE tax. I use effectively zero government services other than driving on the road.
Don't start telling me I'm getting such a fantastic deal.
And this is exactly what our delightful media fails to mention, how much tax high income earners are paying in comparison to low income earners...the whole equation is never revealed.
....and to truncate a potentially extended rant, I'll leave it to others to pick up the baton here.
Cheers
krisbarry
12th-May-2005, 09:04 AM
Well last year I payed a total of $25,000 back to the ATO and my income was a $20,000. How did I end up paying so much back you ask?
Try....
HECS & Student Supplement Loan
(thought I should pay it off after having this debt for more than 10 years)
I think the tax cuts would have been better of spent on our Universities and Hospitals. Rather than jackin' up the HECS fees 25% and growing the public hospital waiting lists
Milk Man
12th-May-2005, 09:23 AM
Personally, I think the gummint has missed one action that would instantly boost the productivity and the well-being of the nation. Offer tax incentives to all companies that replace their telephone menu systems with human beings. Enough human beings that customers are no longer forced to wait 25 minutes to, say, query a phone bill.
Ghoti
that and not outsource their callcentres to India!
couldn't have put it better! and keep in mind that a lot of well off people draw income from their companies- who havn't brought a mention in the new tax scheme.
it would take a lot more to give low and middle income earners a bigger break anyway: there's probably 25 to get a 2 dollar cut for every fifty dollar cut. You can see what a huge difference that would make even if they got 10 dollars instead of 2! thats what labor does and thats why they always put the country into debt and the economy into recession.
mime
12th-May-2005, 01:50 PM
Well last year I payed a total of $25,000 back to the ATO and my income was a $20,000. How did I end up paying so much back you ask?
Try....
HECS & Student Supplement Loan
(thought I should pay it off after having this debt for more than 10 years)
I think the tax cuts would have been better of spent on our Universities and Hospitals. Rather than jackin' up the HECS fees 25% and growing the public hospital waiting lists
Why are you ****ty about paying for your education? Nothing is free in life.
I think Goth Whitlam we the last guy to offer free uni education and the impact on the economy. I hate it went people praise Goth as a hero when so many families went bankrupt because of his actions.
mime
12th-May-2005, 02:07 PM
BTW nice artical WaySolid it explains the tax cuts nicly.
krisbarry
12th-May-2005, 02:09 PM
You missed the point, I was simply stating that it is possible to pay lots of money back to the ATO and be relatively poor off. AND it is possible to be very wealthy and pay very little back to the ATO (people workin' the tax system in their favour) eg deductions, write-off, black market trade, under the counter wages, tax offsets. etc.
I never said uni should be free, I agree students should pay thier way in life too.
My argument lies with the fact that there was no need to raise HECS fees 25% (More than 5 times the CPI) When the government is sitting on a 9 Billion surplus. On a side note, there was no 25% increase in Austudy payments to offset the increased costs.
My second argument is with the crises faced in our public hospital system. Longer waiting queues, poor instruments/equipment, lack of doctors and nurses. I work in one, so I know full well the filfth that linger within.
Rexer
12th-May-2005, 03:28 PM
Well last year I payed a total of $25,000 back to the ATO and my income was a $20,000. How did I end up paying so much back you ask?
Try....
HECS & Student Supplement Loan
(thought I should pay it off after having this debt for more than 10 years)
I think the tax cuts would have been better of spent on our Universities and Hospitals. Rather than jackin' up the HECS fees 25% and growing the public hospital waiting lists
Well, for a start Barry, you're actually paying back *loans* by the sounds of it associated with your education.
And, if my memory serves me correctly if you only earn $20k per year you are well under the threshold for actually *having* to pay your HECS back. So you've made those payments entirely voluntarily.
For one year.
That's not tax.
I'm going to be paying $70k per year (at least) in PAYE tax for the next 30 years.
That's an entirely different beast and I don't find your argument particularly persuasive!
Best
R
Rexer
12th-May-2005, 03:35 PM
You missed the point, I was simply stating that it is possible to pay lots of money back to the ATO and be relatively poor off. AND it is possible to be very wealthy and pay very little back to the ATO (people workin' the tax system in their favour) eg deductions, write-off, black market trade, under the counter wages, tax offsets. etc.
I never said uni should be free, I agree students should pay thier way in life too.
My argument lies with the fact that there was no need to raise HECS fees 25% (More than 5 times the CPI) When the government is sitting on a 9 Billion surplus. On a side note, there was no 25% increase in Austudy payments to offset the increased costs.
My second argument is with the crises faced in our public hospital system. Longer waiting queues, poor instruments/equipment, lack of doctors and nurses. I work in one, so I know full well the filfth that linger within.
Barry,
as you would know funding public hospitals are a *state* government function and actually have *nothing* to do with the federal budget.
R
tech/a
12th-May-2005, 03:45 PM
Politics!!!!!!!!
Just get down and do it.
Pay the tax or dance with it.
Peoples whinging,wining,postulating and hypothosising wont change a damned thing.
Tax is a cost of Living OR cost of Doing business it is smart to minimise BOTH!
Rexer
12th-May-2005, 04:01 PM
Politics!!!!!!!!
Just get down and do it.
Pay the tax or dance with it.
Peoples whinging,wining,postulating and hypothosising wont change a damned thing.
Tax is a cost of Living OR cost of Doing business it is smart to minimise BOTH!
Exactly.
mime
12th-May-2005, 04:40 PM
My second argument is with the crises faced in our public hospital system. Longer waiting queues, poor instruments/equipment, lack of doctors and nurses. I work in one, so I know full well the filfth that linger within.
Something is wrong. How could uni students be so ignorant of governments responsibilities and obligations? They are supposed to be the most educated people around. So often I hear many young students blaming the federal government about heath, education ect when they are the states responsibilty.
As stated health is a state responsiblity not federal.
I was shocked when Labor wanted to take money from private schools to give to public schools when they don't really have to power to do it.
Another thing. The federal govt is raising the fees to push people out of overflowing uni's and into TAFE and trades.
Milk Man
12th-May-2005, 05:21 PM
Another thing. The federal govt is raising the fees to push people out of overflowing uni's and into TAFE and trades.
tried to get a plumber lately? can't get one for weeks! yet try to find someone to write a ten page essay on the description of the smell coming from the busted septic is comparatively easy.
Smurf1976
12th-May-2005, 06:39 PM
The way government wastes money is shocking.
I have first hand experience of a situation where government decided that the latest management fad ought to take precedence over a highly skilled group of tradesmen. That fad was "outsourcing" and the plan was to replace this group of people with contractors. Never mind that the contract (cheapest quote which was totally unsuitable anyway) was THREE TIMES the cost of doing it in house (including the cost of the building they were in etc.).
Ideology must prevail and the skilled people must be lost in favour of a bunch of temporary contractors. Or so the goverment thinks anyway. Thankfully the plan was scrapped when an election was called but other very similar proposals went ahead. Now there are problems because even though the expenditure has been greatly increased since outsourcing of those functions (so we pay MORE after the government sacks its own workers), the public is complaining that the work is not being done. That and the fact that what used to last 10 years is now lucky to last literally 6 months due to the contractors ALWAYS being able to find some new way to cut corners. Of course I don't blame the contractors, their responsibility is to themselves but the bottom line is that outsourcing costs a fortune when government is the customer and we all pay, pay, pay for this nonsense.
And in the process of all this outsourcing we have effectively abandoned the public sector training of skilled trades people which used to occur on a very large scale. Another loss for which we are all now starting to pay.
I have no real objection to paying taxes but I object to handing my money over to the various overcharging / underperforming contractors which the various governments (state and federal) employ to do the actual work for which we are paying. If it's cheaper to employ the people directly, which is often the case when all the costs are included, then that's what should be done. The way for the government to help the private sector is not by directly providing work but rather by getting its own work done cost effectively and using this to reduce taxes.
Rant over. :)
bvbfan
12th-May-2005, 08:00 PM
I remember the Libs sold some government property during the 2nd term in Canberra for about $170million and leased it back from the new owner at $190million for 9-10years I think it was
Thats a smart move (of course I don't know what the maintainence costs were)
Oh and on this talk on petrol
We must be the only country in the world where there is a tax on a tax
The government don't want pump prices to go down too much for fear of losing the GST revenue
At 1.00 a litre your paying 9c in GST on top of the excise tax already around 50c
Only way to stop the whinging is to have a flat tax rate
IMO about 30% and increase the GST component, end up being a user pays system for goods and services
Of course I'm not an actuary so I dont have figures for any of the tax revenue so my figures may be way off the mark
