The Budget cuts

svo347 · 11-05-2005, 05:02 PM

With all the hype , it looks like Higher wage earners will get a good deal .
Fairy nuff I get paid really well , But what about the strugglers out there, not much to help them IMHO....
Your view??...........

Psycho Chicken · 11-05-2005, 05:10 PM

Yay I score 6 bucks a week.....big whoop.

MickyB · 11-05-2005, 05:14 PM

I'd rather be taxed at 15% in the lowest bracket than 17%, simple as that for me. Isn't this a political thread though? (if not now, it will be very soon)

svo347 · 11-05-2005, 05:17 PM

Mate i dont give a rats *** about politics.. IM talking about giving the little bloke & his family out there an easier way to live...

MickyB · 11-05-2005, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by svo347

Mate i dont give a rats *** about politics.. IM talking about giving the little bloke & his family out there an easier way to live...

I know what you mean mate, but I don't see how you can reform the tax system by making it easier on lower income earners without it also having a positive impact upon higher earners.
They way our system works, with a sliding scale, it isn't really possible. Perhaps the answer lies in other areas, like welfare increases, and an increase in the low income rebate etc..
How do you propose the tax system is modified to help out low income earners without benefiting high income earners more?

Casper · 11-05-2005, 05:18 PM

Well, based on a sliding scale tax system like we have, any cut to low income earners will be of a greater benefit to high income earners anyhow so ANY tax cut will ALWAYS be of benifit to the higher earners.

I'm not a huge earner but any tax cut is a good thing. Even if you dont get a huge tax cut the roll on benifits are always there. If companies, as a whole, do not need to increase wages as much as the tax cut provides some pressure relief from wage claims, they do not have to increase costs etc. Also, with greater nett wages comes greater spending which (so long as its not eaten by inflation) will generally be of benifit to all (even if it only slightly reduces such things as second hand cars) etc.

ANY tax cut is a good one, if you earn more, its great, if you dont, its STILL a tax cut.

loxxr6 · 11-05-2005, 05:21 PM

So can someone summarise what they're doing ? What cuts are happening ?

svo347 · 11-05-2005, 05:23 PM

Fairy nuff Casper but according to the cuts its better to be a higher wager earner than it would be to be a low income earner.
It was actually stated on 7's news that higher income earners are twice better off than low earners.

EA2BA · 11-05-2005, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by svo347

Fairy nuff Casper but according to the cuts its better to be a higher wager earner than it would be to be a low income earner.
It was actually stated on 7's news that higher income earners are twice better off than low earners.

Whats that the news attacking a government policy or budget, well i never

Walkinshaw · 11-05-2005, 05:30 PM

Ofcourse higher income earners will be better off. If low income earners get an $x/week break, the higher earners get that $x off their income as well. If you don't think thats fair then I guess a scheme where by if you earn over $90k a year you don't get the tax break that the 0-$45k earners get. Highly un democratic....

The higher tax brackets have been stagnent for way too long. Its about time that the 48.5% bracket moved up, even @ $125k in 06/07 its just high enough. If it followed cpi the 48.5%bracket would be far higher than it currently is.

Casper · 11-05-2005, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walkinshaw

Ofcourse higher income earners will be better off. If low income earners get an $x/week break, the higher earners get that $x off their income as well. If you don't think thats fair then I guess a scheme where by if you earn over $90k a year you don't get the tax break that the 0-$45k earners get. Highly un democratic....

The higher tax brackets have been stagnent for way too long. Its about time that the 48.5% bracket moved up, even @ $125k in 06/07 its just high enough. If it followed cpi the 48.5%bracket would be far higher than it currently is.

I couldnt have said it better myself.
And no, I am not a $100K a year person, far from it.

Walkinshaw · 11-05-2005, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

And no, I am not a $100K a year person, far from it.

Ditto. like $90k from it.

MITCHAY · 11-05-2005, 06:57 PM

No doubt thes tax cuts will be at the expense of something else. Rates will go up im guessing. As for taxing someone 47cents in the dollar thats BS. Most of these people went to uni to get degrees and study hard for their jobs only to get taxed half of what they earn. Why make them pay so much for? Just because they got off their *** to get into a good job and make a good life for themselves. And sure there are people who have certain circumstances which they cant do this but I bet most of these people are just lazy. These people who earn big buck also have families which some bairly see cause they are too busy. Whats BS is that we pay GST and on top of that income tax.

Casper · 11-05-2005, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

No doubt thes tax cuts will be at the expense of something else. Rates will go up im guessing.

Income tax is federal, rates are local government, neither are directly related.

DOC · 11-05-2005, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

As for taxing someone 47cents in the dollar thats BS. Most of these people went to uni to get degrees and study hard for their jobs only to get taxed half of what they earn. Why make them pay so much for? Just because they got off their *** to get into a good job and make a good life for themselves..

Some good points, i have been paying the top tax bracket for years now and it does hurt at times , i do put in many top end hours and yes to see half it go hurts, the flip side with lowering the top end we should see more money pumped back into the system through more investment or spending which should help everyone at every level, and i also agree that more needs to be done to help the lower end of the tax bracket but in saying that ( and i dont want to cause a fight ) i mean for those that are finding it hard not those who are just to lazy to get of thier bum.

DOC

svo347 · 11-05-2005, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walkinshaw

If you don't think thats fair then I guess a scheme where by if you earn over $90k a year you don't get the tax break that the 0-$45k earners get.

Plant Mechanic
Yes Above the $90 K

The MaDDeSTMaN · 11-05-2005, 05:47 PM

I know of a lot of single parents who will be affected by the changes to the single parent pension...

Psycho Chicken · 11-05-2005, 06:19 PM

I heard the single parent thing will only apply to people who get onto the pension after July 1st. So it won't have any impact until 2011.

gtfpv · 11-05-2005, 07:56 PM

im' a lower level high income earner not living any better than any one in my street . ( i borrowed every cent for the gt ) my wife works part time and we have two kids . in the last bugdet we recieved nothing in the way of family benifits part b or c only about $3 per week from part a . and before those budgets nothing either. whilst all the lower tax brackets got 600 /YR FOR CHILD PAYMENTS MY SISTER GETS 80/WK CHILD PAYMENT SHE IS MARRIED WITH 2 KIDS AS WELL HER HUSBAND EARNS NOT MUCH LESS THAN ME he also gets a company car and has weekends off i dont. this time my wife and i got a winfall of about $40 / wk the 1st time in yrs we got something.

MO · 11-05-2005, 07:58 PM

There is a way to fix the inequity of our current tax system....everybody from lowest to highest earner gets taxed at 15%,by doing this we can also get rid of gst and many other stupid taxes,this will give the feds more than the current system in revenue.

MickyB · 11-05-2005, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John McMaster

There is a way to fix the inequity of our current tax system....everybody from lowest to highest earner gets taxed at 15%,by doing this we can also get rid of gst and many other stupid taxes,this will give the feds more than the current system in revenue.

How would that fix it? It is only the first $6,000 that is exempt from any taxation, then after $6,000 the new rate will be 15%. All this would do is mean that high income earners would pay $15,000 of tax on a $100,000 salary, rather than about $32,000 like they do now. Under your proposal the 15% tax of the first $6,000 would amount to $900 dollars extra for the government to receive. The value of this extra $900 would be quickly offset by the losses in taxation from anyone who earns over $21,600 and moves up to the 30% bracket, and so on.

Walkinshaw · 11-05-2005, 08:02 PM

if a single tax is to be applied over all incomes 0-infinate, the rate will need to be arround 35-40% not 15%.

MO · 11-05-2005, 08:13 PM

It gets fixed because you cant claim anything back from the taxman,you pay 15% and don't claim a thing.
That means that the Packers of Oz don't get away with paying nothing because of smart accountants.

gtfpv · 11-05-2005, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John McMaster

It gets fixed because you cant claim anything back from the taxman,you pay 15% and don't claim a thing.
That means that the Packers of Oz don't get away with paying nothing because of smart accountants.

this idea would probably work , and save a lot of arguments but the minimum wage would have to come up a bit and the maximum wage would have to come down a bit , closser gap that would be a fair system . maybe

MickyB · 11-05-2005, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John McMaster

It gets fixed because you cant claim anything back from the taxman,you pay 15% and don't claim a thing.
That means that the Packers of Oz don't get away with paying nothing because of smart accountants.

It would also make my qualifications useless, as we wouldn't need accountants, haha. I kind of get what your saying, but what about the honest hard working small business man who can't claim vehicle use, and legitimate business expenses. It sounds good in theory, but in reality there is no way it would work.

MO · 11-05-2005, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MickyB

It would also make my qualifications useless, as we wouldn't need accountants, haha. I kind of get what your saying, but what about the honest hard working small business man who can't claim vehicle use, and legitimate business expenses. It sounds good in theory, but in reality there is no way it would work.

I think it could, I'm not smart enough to go into detail(Keynesian economics) but a well qualified financial type put the theory forward on Aunty a few weeks back....it made sense.

Basically, from memory you can get rid of just about all other taxes using this system. The only problem I see,with very limited knowledge,is that the states miss out on their land taxes,stamp duties etc,but if everthing is taxed at 15%,this should balance out.

As for the first $6,000.00 being tax free that is out,all you earn is taxed at 15%.

MickyB · 11-05-2005, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John McMaster

I think it could, I'm not smart enough to go into detail(Keynesian economics) but a well qualified financial type put the theory forward on Aunty a few weeks back....it made sense.

Basically, from memory you can get rid of just about all other taxes using this system. The only problem I see,with very limited knowledge,is that the states miss out on their land taxes,stamp duties etc,but if everthing is taxed at 15%,this should balance out.

It is an interesting concept, but I just don't believe that if income tax is at 15% the government will recieve enough income to run the country the way we would like it. Unless you are talking about a consumption tax of 15% (GST) on everything we buy as well, I can't see the gov. going for something that will give them so little back.
Not having a dig at you, it just seemed a little too simple to tax people at 15% on their income, I am sure the boffin on Aunty has come up with a lot more detail to it that I am not aware of.

MO · 11-05-2005, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MickyB

It is an interesting concept, but I just don't believe that if income tax is at 15% the government will recieve enough income to run the country the way we would like it. Unless you are talking about a consumption tax of 15% (GST) on everything we buy as well, I can't see the gov. going for something that will give them so little back.
Not having a dig at you, it just seemed a little too simple to tax people at 15% on their income, I am sure the boffin on Aunty has come up with a lot more detail to it that I am not aware of.

Yes don't disagree there is a lot more detail than i am aware of or heard being a house husband,vac on trying to listen,but at the the time it made sense.

Walkinshaw · 11-05-2005, 08:31 PM

the packers of oz make up a very small componant of the tax!!

What benifit would 15% tax have for low income earners. NONE. It would be worse. Say you earnt $20k. Instead of having 6k tax free, now your taxed on your entire income!!

Your theory will only benifit the "wealthy".

gtfpv · 11-05-2005, 08:39 PM

a friend of mine once told me that he saw a documentary by some U.S. proffessor of economics about simplifying tax . he said that if everyone paid no income tax at all and and everything had a price that was indexed to inflation. and every transaction was electronic. ie cashless and we paid a 1% debit and transfer tax on every transaction then everyone would pay their share of tax and the country would raise more revenue than ever before the rich would pay more tax because they would hav more trasactions and buy more. sounded like a good idea . i wonder if that would work.