Auto finance Loan Calculator: Car Loan Apr | Why Labor Right Away Owns Center Category Welfare

Very well put Bernard! we laughted out loud. Especially at: [People talked about "welfare" and "the dole". Now, of course, we speak delicately about "transfer payments" and "family payments". we mean, kindness gracious, no one earning $140,000 would similar to to be told they're on "welfare".]

Hey we use to know considerably a couple of "lazy surfers spending all day sitting on a beach, saved by stagnation benefits"! That lifestyle lasted reduction than a year for them: they got irritated and looked for ways of earning more allowance because they finally realised that many of the things they longed for were not going to advance to them on the dole!

Back in the great aged days, your mom would have received the Child Allowance payment, the non-means tested forerunner to Family Allowance, Family Payments and Family Tax Benefits.
The story of its renaming speaks volumes. It is right away effectively taxation comfort for people with children.
It used to be an allowance for (mostly) non-working mothers who instead had to rest on their husbands for housekeeping money.

The center category is bludging and fussy alright.

I haven't practical for my Seniors card because we don't need discounts. My honour gets in the way. In fact, we pick to pay full cost and leave a tip for great service. Why don't businesses only give the discounts to the impoverished and the age pensioners?
Likewise, we haven't practical for a non-means tested Carer Allowance because we don't need the allowance and we don't wish the con of the application routine and the assessments.

Where did our independence vanish to?

People living in McMansions who have been sanctimonious to be abounding are right away publicly proclaiming how bad they are. It's their own mistake for perplexing to keep up appearances.

Judging by the anger at the ALP because the are slicing off any family over $150k (about 15% of households) they would of been definitely crucified if they had attempted to cut it back further. The Herald Sun had more than 80% of people claiming they would be worse off beneath this bill and Abbott is running his "tougher on family groups than on limit insurance line" and off march it getting a great run on speak back and News Ltd papers, so only suppose if what they were sayng was obviously true!

Haha! "some of my most appropriate friends are money" - it's GOLD!

I agree. Well mentioned Bernard. we know the feeling of being incompetent for any assistance. In the mid-1990s we found myself singular with a HECS debt,the standard outgoings descend center income and youngster encouragement obligations that incited a in accord with salary in to a susbsitance salary and incompetent for all because we had it so easy (I used to call it the snuff out zone). Later, when my youngster changed in with me, we motionless we wouldn't contention to Centrelink's investigation of every item of my life to obtain a welfare that unequivocally wouldn't make ample disparity to my life. I'd pick to do it myself. we only longed for the Government to obtain out of my way and let me obtain on with it - still do. That might be asking a bit ample from our legislators who are, by definition, manage freaks.

Whitlam didn't pay for your Uni degree?

Dawkins introduced HECS between division one and division two of the second year.

I am a bit befuddled by the article, nonetheless we concluded with it. Are we discussing about INDIVIDUAL's earning over $100,000 per annum, or real domicile income?

At the beginning the essay states "What's a low income? Well, full-time adult median gain at the finish of 2010 were only beneath $69,000 pa. So let's consent households on over $100,000 a year don't validate as low income, however ample they may discuss it reporters they "don't feel rich" and "struggle to make ends meet"."

So, if the median gain were $69,000, wouldn't that make many households on over $100,000 a year (assuming two adults working full time).

But we consent the entire thing sucks. As a Married human with no young kids (and nothing on the way - ever, that we are formulation anyway) my spouse and we will go on to pay our taxes, to see others obtain handouts that we never validate for. we know a few people who got the $900 reward by the GFC 6 times. 6. They obviously went to Centrelink considering there had been a mistake and they were told no, that's correct.

At the danger of gap other debate or two…

…The CO taxation is going to be only other e.g. of this - we can see our domicile power bills, motor fuel and food prices will skyrocket, whilst the compensation will obtain handed to others. Tax and spend, taxation and spend. The supervision obtain to purchase votes with our hard eanred.

Is there any consternation why people take advantage of things similar to Negative gearing?

Hear Hear.

Worth adding a few thoughts on income-splitting in to the mix. Legal, but only existing to some. And that side of governing body gets the tiny business (the ones who CAN do income splitting) vote?

the UK open-minded party, pre social-democrats, advocated for a ‘social wage' for a long time. A in few instances forward-thinking thought that taken to its judicious close would eliminate poignant figures of descend income family groups from the entire PAYG and benefits/wage gap entirely. Dependend-spouse is only demeaning and doesn't simulate the governmental worth of a non-wage-earning partner, reflected as cost in the insurance as drastically MORE worth if you try and reinstate it with paid labour.

Some people only don't obtain numbers. Its not probable for 15% of the nation to consequence $150,000 or more, and those people BE poor. FEEL poor: oh puh-lease. Try living similar to the other 85%.

But in that $100,000 and up bracket, we keep anticipating co-workers who find the allowance to send BOTH kids to in isolation school, run two cars, take a legal holiday in Noosa. Feel Poor? Excuse me?

ABarker - "As a Married human with no young kids (and nothing on the way - ever, that we are formulation anyway) my spouse and we will go on to pay our taxes, to see others obtain handouts that we never validate for." So when my kids are profitable taxes to pay your pension, PBS bill, medical expenses etc in your aged age and your "families" grant to the public will have ended will you still be complaining?

GGM - This bill has a portion in it that will stop minor's getting more than $3k taxation giveaway out of trusts (there were roughly 200,000 such minors in the final financial year) that will head off a few income splitting.

Great essay Bernard. You have vocalized ample of what we have been considering on this subject. The "outraged entitlement" (or it entitled outrage?) beggars belief.

More than a couple of of the people sounding off have moreover taken advantage of the other amicable engineering extravagances (like initial home customer grants) and the whacky-world that was the refinancing loan approval routine of the final decade; to obtain themselves in to a financial location that relies on these welfare payments.

Not one of these people says "Maybe we can do without the second Foxtel box in the bedroom."

Maybe the means contrast needs to moreover be joined with an output review to serve weed out the leeches.

For e.g. (not that I'm picking on Rupert) a cranky examine of foxtel subscribers and FTB recipients. There is a immaculately great blurb free-to-air network (which we are already propping up) along with the ABC, thus Foxtel is an imprudence and may be deducted from the supervision payment. You don't have to obtain absolved of it; but the taxpayer doesn't have to pay for it either.

Whatever the solution, the welfare asset needs to be tightened up.

" the prevalent feeling is considerably the retreat of honour in self-reliance - a disaster to track down every singular welfare for that you're authorised is roughly a personal failing, carrying out the incorrect thing by your family, roughly unAustralian."

So true! And what we similar to most appropriate is the pomposity of people who for instance don't give to gift because "that's the government's job", own endless skill investments, then protest because their properties meant they don't validate is to dole.

What's happened to this country? Oh, we forgot. John Howard and Peter Costello.

Interesting square Bernard

I've long believed that that Howard knew only too well that he was laying the foundations for a constructional shortage by his pork-barrel illusion for endless taxation cuts and center category crusade - precisely because it would infer such a outrageous diplomatic stumbling inhibit for Labour over forthcoming decades

You have to recollect that many of the people fussy about these changes don't obviously have a domicile income of over 150K - have you beheld amongst all that has been created and talked about this in the media no one mentions only how couple of Australian households obviously have incomes over 150K - around 12% - many of that have incomes WELL over 150K and weren't getting family payments anyway

What the Toorak Taliban are pandering to here in dream not reality.

As usual, their plan is predicated on getting a entire garland of people whose domicile incomes are nothing similar to 150K - foaming at the mouth over how unjust this will be for them and their kids when (not expected for many of them) they finally over advance the probability and way up to be amongst this countries more affluent. We should take solace in the fact that this type of foolish regressive populism doesn't work scarcely as well down-under as it does in the USA

Now if we were to look at domicile incomes of reporters and media center administration generally, we might comprehend why this is such a bigger treat for them than it is for many Australians. It's their own socio mercantile category being targetedby these changes and it's obviously hard to write articles ban your own aas bludgers when you will be confronting them over a potion of pinot noir at cooking next weekend

This is why we believe the media has it's donkey in such a turn over cut backs to center category welfare when the reality is that only 2% of those who were obviously reception family payments previous to this bill will be significantly affected by these changes anyway.

I'm disabled, but am able to make flattering great allowance interjection to having skills and aptitudes that are in a few demand. we use taxis sincerely frequently, and customarily find myself having to urge my selection not to request for and use a cab benefaction card - the notion is that if you're authorised for a few benefit, then you must be a dope not to take advantage of it.

It's humiliating that people have become to feel so entitled to hand-outs. we wish our welfare spending to go to people in need, not to people in greed.

What we find particularly engaging is that, rsther than than resisting with the aged center category ethic of self-reliance, stream recipients of these payments frame their evidence as an prolongation of it. A feeling along these lines: "I work hard, we pay my taxes, and right away the supervision is revelation me that we don't even obtain anything back" is familiar on News Ltd explanation sections. It's a typical e.g. of perplexing to have your baked sweat bread and eat it too: they don't wish to be lumped with the archetypal hand out bludger, so they present themselves as not similarly but more honourable of supervision support, precisely BECAUSE they have great jobs and are not, therefore, the undeserving poor.

Meanwhile many people are claiming that there will no longer be an inducement to work hard, since the decreased taxation breaks slicing in at a specific income level. we say call their bluff, and see who takes their bat and round and goes home because a payrise may meant they might not validate for FTB A or what have you. My theory is: frequency anyone.

Also, an honest question. Has any Labor statesman obviously mentioned that a $150k income for a domicile is "rich"? Because an horrible lot of the stream debate seems bogged down in semantics over either $150k is abounding or not. Which is tangential to the subject of either such households ought to receive supervision handouts.

I giggle at all of this - the ones carrying out it difficult are the singles profitable all the taxation and getting no benefit - but still have the pleasures of profitable rent/mortgage, utilities, illness insurance etc,. AND NO TAX BREAKS OR FAMILY ASSISTANCE.

Where is the mercy for singles - they are not pushing the 4WD's similar to you see the ma band of soldiers pushing to tumble off their parent on the college run or segment of the latte set. If you're single, you're definately on the misery line - and this govt thinks your abounding - what crap. we am sure they can't wait for is to CO taxation and rate rises. Well completed j-U-LIAR.

Whatever their domicile total income, there are thousands of young families, particularly in the metro areas, that are profitable off miraculous mortgages on $400,000 - $600,000 houses purchased in the past 6-8 years. Ironically, these purchases, back then in the decade of living dangerously, are what is right away nutritious the economy. Come taxation time, when you're sitting opposite the table from the accountant and are asked if you wish to affirm the Locality Allowance, the Entrepreneur's Benefit, the Family Tax Benefit, Mature Aged Workers Offset, the Family Pharmaceutical blah blah etc etc, all of that you are authorised for, you find that by simply adage yes, you patrolman a great large rotund refund payment from the Australian Tax Office, completely disposable, as overtly warranted as the day is young. Isn't this what we voted for?

Hugh - What is the Locality Allowance? The Entreprenurs Tax cancel out (a silly Howard Govt invention) has been canned in this Budget, the Mature aged workers taxation cancel out is, not often enough, only existing to those over 55 and still working so in fact enlivening comparison people to work and not tkae the pension and the "family Pharmaceutical benefit" (in fact the medical expenses rebate) get's you 20c for every $1 you outlay over $1500 is to stream taxation year and this bill has only increased it to $2000 on medical expenses after the medicare and in isolation illness reabates have been taken in to account, so normally you have to have a few flattering major illness or dentist bill to obtain anything let alone a "big rotund refund cheque"

Lorry: singular people say what you have said, often. And then we speak to them 5 years after that when they are with an associate and have one child… and they giggle at their progressing attitude.

" So when my kids are profitable taxes to pay your pension, PBS bill, medical expenses etc in your aged age and your "families" grant to the public will have ended will you still be complaining?"

I'm not angry now, even even though my taxes are assisting to pay for your kids' education, your kids' illness care, your kids' ride etc. Ever thought of that?

Maybe we could have a Herald Sun front page featuring people who pay tax, minister to the on the whole wellbeing of our the public and are - shock! - flattering ample ok with carrying out that. There are a couple of of us, as it turns out, Australia hasn't completely incited in to a nation of seething self-obsessed greediness freaks only yet.

Totally consent with Matt McLeod re: people adage you're a dope not to take advantage of ANY benefit you can get, no matter how little you need it. we was lucky sufficient to obtain by Yasi without any damage - no residence damage, mental damage, friends or family suffering etc etc. However, because we had the teenager nuisance of no power for 48 hours exactly, we was authorised is to $1000 benefit. we had a outrageous dignified opposition to submitting an application this because after all, any person who saw the storm forthcoming and stocked the refrigerator up any way was an idiot, and no matter how ample anxiety shopping there was it did not increase up to wherever nearby $1000. But everybody mentioned it was dim-witted not to take it, giveaway allowance etc etc, desert this and that…so we practical for it (somehow managed to pass Centrelink's severe questioning…sarcasm) and donated it. we are unaware why being without power for 48 hours is worth $1000 but gee if you can obtain allowance for it…I theory you improved take it hey or people think you're an idiot!

Son of Foro - "Maybe we could have a Herald Sun front page featuring people who pay tax, minister to the on the whole wellbeing of our the public and are - shock! - flattering ample ok with carrying out that." we am very ample OK with that, we have worked full time since we left Uni at 22 (had a few segment time jobs previous to that) and we didn't have my initial youngster until we was 33, so for those 11 years my taxes were profitable for someone else's benefits, right away we go on to work, pay taxation and my spouse (who worked from 22 to 37 before having kids) receives about $8k in benefits per year. In a couple of years she wil return to work in a few ability and those benefits will reduce or disappear.

My progressing indicate was that all goes in a motorcycle at everybody at a few theatre will be a taxation payer and at other's they will be a target of benefits and by my spouse reception benefits right away we have been able to create future taxation payers that will encouragement our aging race ABarker included.

Hey Jimmy, Bernard wrote that "high-income earners make a unwavering preference to take handouts from government, notwithstanding their relations riches compared to many of the population." What I'm adage is that it needn't be a large unwavering (conscience?) decision. In the privacy of the office (like the list box) we all do what we like. A couple of hundred or a couple of thousand dollars in cash, coutesy of the Tax Office is a burly inducement.
The Remote Area Allowance (not Locality Allowance, sorry) is one for those in the regions (Zone A, B, C etc) and will hand you a couple of hundred. The Entrepreneurs Allowance is / was about $500 true up. You'd be shocked how simply an annual bill of $1500 bill for medical/pharma may be with ill young kids or oldies in a largish family. $150 a month? Easy!

Oh and my kids haven't proposed in attendance school, we live in a tiny town in farming victoria so we only have a couple of train routes to pass as public ride and we have in isolation illness insurance

Hugh, we am a putting in service accountant so we know how many people affirm the medical exp rebate, it's not a great suit and even if they were $1000 over it (ie wass $2500 out of slot exp right away $3k) they got $200 back, at your estimate of $150 per month they would obtain $60 back beneath the aged network and nothing back beneath the new one.
AS is to Entrepreneurs taxation offset, firstly it was only existing if your business turnover les than $75k (so sales of reduction than $1500 per week) and was 25% of your entreprise taxation guilt (pasing out between $50k turnover and $75k) so it was only unequivocally of benefit to service enterprises who didn't have many expenses or people who were income bursting but in any case this bill scrapped it so to me that is a parasite for this budget.
The Remote area allowance is for people who live in remote area's similar to rural area NT or WA so the immeasurable majority of people can't obtain this.

Howard has a lot to answer for starting this pitiable center category welfare trend. Receiving "welfare" in this nation is a special consideration not a right. We have become a nation of greedy, selfish, its all about me, McMansion loving, 2-3 cars, all that opens and shuts, have to have it now…in order to keep up with the Joneses.
In the words of Kennedy "its not what your nation can do for you , its what you can do for your country" - beginning living inside of your means similar to people on low incomes have to do.

Jimmy - if welfare is intermittent then we must be getting a lot of allowance in the future. we have been profitable taxation for full time practice since 15yrs, went to uni segment time (paid HECS too) and have never received any form of welfare or stagnation benefits in my life - my partner has completed the same but proposed full time practice at 17 and complicated segment time and never received welfare.

I am disgusted by people - all people on welfare. My domicile is a high earning domicile over $200k and am not claiming hardship, far from it - but we do intent to the extreme taxation and "levies" forced on us by this Marxist govt and the welfare character of this country. Trying to obtain forward in life and disciplining oneself for future benefit should be applauded not taxed.

Children are not an forgive for handouts - if you multiply em, then you feed em. This relates to our "future" pensioners - save for your own early retirement and don't bottom feed off other taxation payers- take a few shortcoming right away and save as against to gamble, fume and fool around bingo. Learn a new words similar to discipline, danger and reward - you may be jovially surprised.

Lorry - we am inclusive public education, public hospitals, public transport, PBS, roads etc in benefits but if your domicile is earning more than $200k well you would be in about the tip 5-10% of income earning domicile in the nation so approbation you are doubtful to obtain any "welfare" but you are evidently in the minority and that is the cost you pay for living in a courteous forward-thinking society.

You might moreover be suprised to know that back in the real world of median or next median income saving to account your own early retirement isn't as easy as slicing out vices.

Well mentioned Bernard, interjection for this article!

If only there was a genuine transformation to speak of center category bludgers. Today tonight/ACA/7.30 where are you to do the exposes?

As a high income-earner, let me only say that we consequence my income wholly from the sweat of my brow - we have not benefited in the least from public roads, public illness care, the military force, firefighters etc, and furthermore…

Gee, it seems Australia has already become a welfare state.

Memo to Tony Abbott: Don't lead a people's revolt; lead a taxpayers' revolt.

All recipients of give payments and family payments are bludgers.
Get off my back.
You wish a McMansion? Save for it instead of borrowing.
Diddims can't means a legal holiday in Bali or a new TV? Shame!
You wish your kids to go to in isolation school? Pay your own way.
You can't means kids? Why didn't you consider that before you had them?
You can't means to live in Sydney? Move to W.A. or QLD. and consequence more in the resources and appetite industries.
Just stop whinging and whining.

Half of the DSP's and many of the long-term impoverished are bludgers too.
Soon, even age pensioners will consecrate bludgers. What happened to their superannuation?

Everyone but me is a bludger.

It's noteworthy that people earning over $200K whinge about how taxation is a disincentive to them earning over $200K. And let's not dont think about that aged chestnut, that the only way of proof you work hard is a pay parcel in surplus of $200K.

I don't comprehend the logic that "low income earners" only merit "welfare"(aka taxation return) because they don't make as ample money(nor pay as ample tax).

Is it my mistake that people are low income earners? Did we make them do that job? Am we privately accountable for forcing them to sojourn in their position? NO, of march not. THEY made those decisions.

Now don't obtain me wrong. I'm not about bashing those who work low income jobs, my complaint is with this regular perspective that only those who are bad do it tough. we privately make around $100K a year, but i'm not pushing around in porsche's, lighting cigars with $50 bills. $100K these days it flattering mediocre and is barely sufficient to purchase and pay a residence off.

You know what would help people similar to myself? The God damn supervision gripping their hands out of our pockets…. thats what. The harder we work, the more they take. How is that fair? Should we privately have to pay because others aren't creation as ample as me? Is it my mistake or shortcoming to organize and manage life preference of others?

And right away we advance to the gist of it. ALL welfare is wrong(except is to severely disabled, their carers and pensioners… in other words people not able to to work). Not center category welfare, not low income welfare… ALL welfare. In this home of Oz there are places in tears out for workers… vagrant and pleading, yet I'm meant to pay for people who can't be worried working? It's MY mistake they are too quiescent to go to where the jobs are and work? Why should we have to pay for that? Why can't they work these jobs, why must we pay for their laziness?

And thats unequivocally what annoys me. I'll mount shoulder to shoulder for any person who wants to work hard, but we exclude to agree to bludging.

In the words of Kennedy "its not what your nation can do for you , its what you can do for your country" - beginning living inside of your means similar to people on low incomes have to do.

Stop fussy about being a low income earner and make a few hard life decisions.

$80K+ Job Vacancies in the mining attention in Queensland and WA RIGHT NOW.

Anyone that wants to work and make more money… pick up the phone. Don't cry for more handouts. We know the work is there, so where the full of blood ruin are you?

Jimmy, if you are an accountant then you would know that the Remote Area Allowance relates to a very large area of Australia inclusive a few of the bigger informal cities - try Townsville for example. Now of course, you could say that a real Aussie battler in Townsville (on $100K) should say to the accountant - "no mate, we won't parasite the box is to Remote Area Allowance" and we would say, t'riffic. Plenty wouldn't.

Very well put Bernard! we laughted out loud. Especially at: People talked about "welfare" and "the dole". Now, of course, we speak delicately about "transfer payments" and "family payments". we mean, kindness gracious, no one earning $140,000 would similar to to be told they're on "welfare".

If someone pays $15,000 in taxation and gets $1000 back in rebates, how is that welfare?

It's a return of a very tiny portion of your money. You are not being given anything, rather… having reduction taken away from you.

The only way it could be welfare is if you recieve more allowance back then you pay. That means that you are a empty on others…. others who pay significantly more than they recieve back.

I'm examination Tony Abbott's bill respond debate right now.
Tony, it's not all about you, your spouse and your daughters.
Tony, you shouldn't plagiarise Bob Menzie's "forgotten people" ["forgotten families"].
Your two fingered typing is to TV headlines this afternoon was an annoyance to all people beneath the age of 70 years.

Great article- and humorous.

Read Tony's respond to the Budget and he is banging on about "legitimacy" again. We were robbed-he unequivocally is a bruise loser.

Will someone notify to him that if he loses the Grand Final, he doesn't obtain a luck at other one in the initial diversion of the new season.

Another critique of his debate is that he does't go wherever nearby the accountancy of the delivered Budget- because, of course, he (and Hockey) can't count.

But his debate is assertive (is it bullying?) as standard and will have Julia and Wayne in a total flap. Australians don't tire of the "biffo".

Yep bad Abbott on $220,000++ PA and his spouse functions perplexing to hug up to the Howard battlers. What a crock of crap! Just dog whistling about Julia not being tied together with kids once again = digusting person and he claims to be a "christian"

I have lived in this nation for many of my 68 years and have never felt so unhappy in the way the the public is streamer being led all the way by News Corp and their ilk in the media.I looks similar to Bob Brown is the only one to mount up to this weakling lawless crowd and discuss it it similar to it is.

I am starting to feel abashed to call myself an "Australian" what with all the greediness and rapacity that has invaded amicable discource similar to a tainted smell aided and abetted by a baying media pack.
Fairness and decency seems to have been left way at the back and we moreover censure the Howard years is to state the nation is in now.Keating was right when he said"when you change the supervision you change the country" Unfortunately Howard and his cronies changed our nation is to worse and we apprehension it will be a very long time before we see those improved days again.

The center category need words similar to "transfer payments" and "family payments" so they can still speak about "dole bludgers".

Another great square BK.

THETRUTHHURTS is the only non-bludger. If you're getting more information this summary and your shade name isn't THE TRUTHHURTS, then congratulations! You're a bludger!

" Is it my mistake or shortcoming to organize and manage life preference of others?"

You outlay the entirety of your post carrying out only that, so assumingly it is!

THETRUTHHURTS is my hero. He's such a overworked man. He functions hard. He's not a bludger and he's not on welfare. Heroism, thy name is THETRUTHHURTS

Groan… other detonate of inane, immature twitticisms from the one human peanut gallery. Oh well, I'll only return to carrying out what everybody else does and disregard them. we wish there was a inhibit symbol even though think of the time we'd all save not having to corkscrew past them.

First I'll only say we hate the income taxation system. we hate its pretensions of Robin Hood fairness, robbing infrequently from the abounding to give to the poor, but only as often robbing from the person who did not sinecure the right accountant. we hate its twice strike on all forms of pro-growth saving and investment, so that even the supervision borrows allowance abroad in low-tax union jurisdictions instead of from its own adults who would pay more taxation on the interest. we hate its funding of anti-growth residential skill scalping, and its innumerable little rewards and penalties for this and that … we despise the difficulty that causes many taxpayers to file their entire income around taxation minimization, grotesquely distorting the labour and funds markets. And we find the entire rarely manifest governing body of income taxation demeaning of us as a society: the way we oppose and nag over a couple of score dollars being eliminated to a few other person that could have been eliminated to me, me, me!

Having mentioned that, TTH is correct: it's not "welfare" if you're putting more in than you're taking out.

Howard would have elite simply to taxation people more evenly. Arguably, it would be fairer simply to have one prosaic income taxation joint on top of the tax-free threshold. But electorate cry blue kill in cold blood when any person suggests such a thing - they see the upper taxation brackets as an countenance of amicable probity rsther than than a means of raising the many income with the least suffering for everybody.

So Howard compromised, effectively obscure the taxation rate for a few taxpayers who were already profitable the tip two taxation brackets whilst ancillary dependents at home. And of course, at a few indicate this negotiate became a arrange of diplomatic festival game: if you can potentially fire down 5 borderline seats in a row, then you win a Barbie doll, a Teddy bear, or an increase to family taxation benefit XYZ.

Abbott likes to make the indicate that "middle category welfare" is a inapplicable designation for taxation concessions. And he's right up to a point, but his intrigue for parental leave goes way over that point.

There's a widespread parable that abounding people don't pay any tax. we think it's truer to say that a few people at all income levels are able to reduce their taxation to very low levels, using mostly bona fide taxation lurks but with a little bit of rascal here and there. For e.g. residential speculating/scalping is very renouned via the center classes, partly because it is taxpayer subsidized, whereas all other forms of investment are heavily taxed and in many cases twice taxed. Tony Abbott's parental leave intrigue would primarily give back taxation that parents have paid in new years, but in a few cases it would give back taxation that they haven't paid at all. If you're given more by the taxpayer than you put in, then that is welfare.

" Even as not long ago as yesterday, economists were "stunned" when the Australian manage to buy strew - 21,000 jobs in April vs. consensus forecasts of +17,000 being added.

Treasurer Swan was dumbfounded too, because we aren't going to see +4% GDP expansion in an manage to buy shedding labour on the East Coast.

Budget forecasts for GDP expansion in FY 12 are fanciful"

A surplus return in FY12/13 is unfit unless Swan increases taxes substantially.

Surely all you Liberal supporters should be good fortune the day that this warding off to index the turning point for means contrast to CPI as an opportunity to ramp up these payments next time your lot is in power? But bring on angry about our taxation system, that we appear to stop the final guys claimed to have reformed.

Australia - a state of entitlement.

What we think Costello would have favourite to do if they had had manage of the Senate at the time he was reforming tax, was to deliver a aloft level of GST and bigger income taxation cuts.

All of the greatest distortions in our taxation network are in the income tax. There are other tiny taxes that result in more pro-rata levels of exaggeration (such as state insurance taxation that KPMG estimated is to Henry Review to be costing Australians $1.80 for every $1.00 of income it raises), but for perfect scale of mangling the marketplace manage to buy in labour, capital, and products and services, income taxation is the great gorilla on our backs. It's similar to running a automobile with the engine on one side, the brakes on the other side, and the steering network turning one circle to the left as it turns other circle to the right.

Costello knew that cleaning up the muddle would be impossible. Even with manage of the Senate that came later, there are so many electorate who are more meddlesome in how ample taxation the Joneses are profitable than how ample they themselves are paying, that it would have been self-murder to washed it up.

Better simply to request across-the board taxation cuts, so that these distortions steadily decrease in to irrelevance. For example, Keating had unsuccessful spectacularly to shave the wings of skill disastrous gearing in his ephemeral endeavor to solitary confinement let income. Costello took a ample more pointed step towards achieving the same thing, by changeable the taxation weight from income taxation to GST. Over time he would have one after another this transition, and those barbarous distortions would have only steadily faded away.

Surely you realize that being regressive means never having to be conform to on anything. Therefore they can run an endless promotion deriding "welfare waste" then criticize their opposition for creation teenager cutbacks targeting those who need welfare the least - family groups who consequence more than 85% of all other Australians

Of march one only has to note the amicable Darwinism/biological determinism implied in many of their arguments in encouragement of center category welfare to comprehend why the Toorak Taliban think the Government should be doling out cash to Audi drivers whilst violence the underclass openly around the head with sticks to obtain them job ready and off welfare all together.

Zeig heil baby!!

Free Country - They had manage of the Senate is to final term if he unequivocally longed for to do what you suggest he could of completed it, certainly you are not suggesting he mentioned "You know what this would be a great thought and there is nothing to stop me getting the legislation by but we aren't reforming taxation right right away so oh well we won't do it"

Amen on both counts. Taxation has become so politicised, and the choosing by casting votes proletariat so conditioned to pork-barrelling, that no supervision has had or will foreseeably have the courage to plunge into it on a scrupulous basis.

Well they did, actually, so we oversimplified. During their final years, once the finish of the bequest net debt was in sight, they significantly marked down income taxation rates - diluting the belongings of taxation distortions, disastrous gearing, and the omnivorous diplomatic pressure for supposed "middle category welfare".

I appear to recollect they had the opportunity for taxation reform, Free Country. The impending passing of the Howard Government was without doubt to everybody (except Howard). What improved luck to obtain your legislation through, result in there's no tomorrow!

Howard would have elite simply to taxation people more evenly. Arguably, it would be fairer simply to have one prosaic income taxation joint on top of the tax-free threshold. But electorate cry blue kill in cold blood when any person suggests such a thing"they see the upper taxation brackets as an countenance of amicable probity rsther than than a means of raising the many income with the least suffering for everybody.

More accurately, they realize that story has shown time and time once again - and currently is once more to varying degrees opposite the horse opera world - that the bigger you enable the gap between abounding and bad to grow, the worse off the public is.

A lot of historians certainly make that claim, DrSmithy, whilst creation excuses is to thorough disaster of the comrade project. And the cost of having an underclass with no income at all is certainly ample aloft than that of providing simple support. But the experimental evidence on the punitive use of very high taxation rates on the abounding shows that the retreat is true: you gather reduction tax, not more, and the disparity has to advance out of the pockets of the reduction mobile working class, one way or another.

A lot of historians certainly make that claim, DrSmithy, whilst creation excuses is to thorough disaster of the comrade project.

I'm a little confounded at what aptitude "the comrade project" has to the discussion.

But the experimental evidence on the punitive use of very high taxation rates on the abounding shows that the retreat is true: you gather reduction tax, not more, and the disparity has to advance out of the pockets of the reduction mobile working class, one way or another.

I'm shocked you made it by that section without using the words "Laffer Curve".

Please denote a few "empirical evidence" that high taxation rates and low taxation rates are always accompanied by low taxation takes and high taxation takes, respectively.

(I theory all those moneyed countries with high taxation rates and the most appropriate standards of living in the world are only a figment of our combined imaginations.)

Interesting to see the inform currently that found Asutralia was one of the lowest taxed countries in the developed world.

DrSmithy - Of march I'm discussing about the Laffer curve. Exhibit A is UK taxation profits before and after 1979, when Thatcher, amid other things, marked down the tip borderline rate from 83 per cent to 60 per cent. Between 1978 and 1983, you can see taxation income doubled, and one after another to way up steeply thereafter. In 1988, the tip borderline rate was marked down serve to 40 per cent, and you can see once once again from 1987 to 1991, taxation income increased by 30 per cent and one after another to way up sustainably.

Exhibit B, on permitting a larger spread of riches generally, is China beneath Deng Xiaoping, the many underrated statesman of the 20th century in my view. Deng's giveaway marketplace reforms delicately removed the mercantile from the political, so we have the nearest thing to a laboratory experiment display that economics, not democracy, plays the leading purpose in enhancing the welfare of all citizens. There are still many people in China who are badly poor, but you would have to do exercices with the data to avoid concluding that even the lowest are forever improved off beneath Deng than they were beneath Mao, even those that didn't starve literally to death.

Sorry, we left out the UK taxation data: guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/tax-receipts-1963

(read "… became improved off beneath Deng and his successors". Deng of march died in 1997 but reforms go on on the trail he established.)

Looking at the posting times of explanation in this thread, we can't help wondering how many people are posting on the bosses' time. In other words, hidden from their employers.

What a lot of holier-than-thou pitiable *envious* whingers many of you are.

Free - As reduction than 5% of taxpayers consequence more than $150k and our tip taxation rate of 46.5% doesn't flog in until $180k (which would meant probably 98% of taxpayers are only profitable 38.5%) does your e.g. of the UK obviously compare?

Sorry that should be "98% of taxpayers are profitable reduction than 38.5% as their tip rate."

I mentioned "among other things"; the tip taxation rate was only an indication of a taxation system of administration that was normally directed at amicable probity rsther than than compelling revenue, growth, and real wages. Thatcher made wide-ranging reforms inclusive thespian reductions of the income and corporate taxation burden. Hawke, Keating and Howard did something similar in Australia.

Here's a Congress Joint Economic Committee paper from 1996 evaluating the belongings of Reagan's taxation cuts from the same period: house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

Of march I'm discussing about the Laffer curve.

And do you have a few evidence ancillary your avowal that Australia's taxation rates are on the incorrect side of it ?

Exhibit A is UK taxation profits before and after 1979, when Thatcher, amid other things, marked down the tip borderline rate from 83 per cent to 60 per cent. Between 1978 and 1983, you can see taxation income doubled, and one after another to way up steeply thereafter. In 1988, the tip borderline rate was marked down serve to 40 per cent, and you can see once once again from 1987 to 1991, taxation income increased by 30 per cent and one after another to way up sustainably.

One e.g. does not a rule make.

There are far too many pages on the web debunking the Laffer Curve, but the easiest e.g. is to look at the USA during '90s, when Bush we and Clinton lifted taxes (which, dead against to the supply-siders cries of armageddon, lifted taxation revenue). Then look in to the 2000s, when Bush II forsaken taxes.

The indicate here is that taxation policy doesn't have wherever nearby the repercussions that a few people similar to to demand it does.

Ah. So people are oppressed, imprisoned, censored and murdered, but at least are no longer very hungry to death. A coherent win for trickle-down economics.

I know your type, DrSmithy, and we know that you will take every denouncement of the Laffer Curve, no matter how flimsy, inclusive but not paltry to cases of the Laffer optimal having to be recalibrated, as evidence of debunking the entire model. The many important e.g. cited once again and once again is the poorly-supported parable that Reagan's Laffer-based taxation cuts did not have the desired effect, a affirm that is itself debunked in the 1996 JEC paper we related on top of (( house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm ))

Unfortunately, estimates of (Economic Recovery Tax Act 1981) by the Democrat-controlled CBO one after another to uncover descending taxation payment by upper income taxpayers, even after real IRS data had become existing display a overload of income taxation payments by abundant taxpayers …
Since 1984 the JEC has supposing factual information about the repercussions of the taxation cuts of the 1980s … These data uncover that after the high borderline taxation rates of 1981 were cut, taxation payments and the share of the taxation weight borne by the tip 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the tip 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 commission indicate increase.

As for your import that high quality of life in China did not significantly upgrade after Mao's death and Deng's mercantile renaissance, that may be the many illiterate thing anyone's ever mentioned in these columns.

[Moderator: this comment has been somewhat edited. Please avoid any personal jibes against other commenters]
Freecountry:

What the great weight of experimental evidence obviously shows is that the singular many important reason in moving mercantile expansion is DEMAND - ensuring your working and center classes feel assured and have the ability to spend, thus pushing IT

Contrary to the supply-side psycho-babble peddled by our neo-feudal overlords and their mindlessly agreeable but ever aspirational serfs, funds of course flows were ever it sees a nice multiple of low danger and a healthy profit. Pretty ample in any case of either it has to ultimately pay a couple of % more or reduction in taxes on those profilts

The GFC wasn't caused by a insufficient of funds but by the fact that the entities who owned and tranquil funds globally had something of a anxiety assault - they stopped lending and investing because demand-side indicators showed a default promising distinction adrift in an sea of endless risk.

From a more prejudiced perspective, when there is a insufficient of surplus demand wanting to sated in any particular vertical marketplace here in Oz, funds will of course upsurge elsewhere, often overseas, especially if larger rewards on special discount there than they are here in Australia. This is the major misconception in the notion that greasing the pockets of the wealthy causes it to drip down to the plebs

If you unequivocally wish to see what happens when a Government massively cuts taxes for wealthy in office of mercantile expansion as a core lumber of it's mercantile policy, we suggest you go take a train tour around Ireland

Over time the singular greatest and many conform to motorist of demand in this nation is domicile and consumer spending- and it is this spending that is the singular greatest author of jobs in this country.

Not the goodwill of the mining barons who cyclically deposit large in office of distinction and create a couple of new jobs in the process. Australia is a services formed manage to buy - service industries account for roughly three-quarters of our national output and only beneath 4 out of every 5 jobs.

I am not even going to address your groundless avowal that there was a few send interdependence between mercantile expansion in the UK and taxation cuts is to rich. If you do a little investigate you'll find it had ample more to do with changes in race growth, larger access to European markets and universal mercantile expansion that only happened to be going on at the same time - Or have you in the centre lost that both the USA and UK plumbed the inlet of a sinful retrogression during the late 70s?

Very couple of wealthy people in Britain ever paid those very high taxation rates any way - they simply changed their allowance by Guernsey and other in the centre placed taxation havens. Whether they invested in the UK was a function of their projected ROI, not what rate of taxation they might ultimately pay on those profits. As any person who obviously has allowance well knows, taxation minimisation is the easy segment of all this. So greatfully note that having a few hint as to what you're discussing about will no doubt infer willing to help in future.

If the GFC has taught us anything in all its that if you give a tiny organisation of exceedingly wealthy people larger unregulated access to capital, either in the form of outrageous taxation cuts or access to other people's pension funds, they will constantly be tempted take ever increasingly larger danger in office of profit, creation world manage to buy reduction firm in the process.

The simplest and many efficient way of ensuring mercantile expansion and fortitude are putting in place policies that give the masses, the working and center classes, larger ability to devour and thus expostulate the demand that funds is inextricably drawn to similar to a arthropod in to the flame. This neo regressive notion that supervision policy should always target the interests of the couple of to be able to serve the many is the greatest crock of dog since Pope Pius XII asked the voices in his head if the Assumption of Mary obviously happened

The experimental evidence is undeniable - the legendary fire breathing monster of supply-side spell economics has been well and indeed slain. All that waste is the lane of several centuries before those regressive mercantile fundamentalists are dragged kicking and screaming in to the new millennium and forced to stop worshipping fake profits

Free - Could you respond to DrSmithy subject of "And do you have a few evidence ancillary your avowal that Australia's taxation rates are on the incorrect side of it ?" Because to me effectively having a tip borderline rate of only 38.5% in addition to the inform expelled currently adage we are amid the lowest taxed countires in the developed world would indicate that we aren't.

I didn't obviously make that claim, but we will now. A great treat of that income taxation goes not to profitable for public goods, but to funding all the transfers and "middle category welfare" that Mr Keane has been discussing about. If you reduce the transfers, then you reduce the level of taxation indispensable to account those transfers. That's the initial reason.

The second reason is, as we mentioned at 9:12 and 11:04, Australia's income taxation is a spaghetti soup of rentseeking and taxation dodges, and cleaning these up one by one is politically impossible. However, shortening those income taxation rates and replacing them with broader, more efficient, and in my viewpoint fairer taxes, would intermix those distortions until they steadily discolor away.

Third, GST is an substitute chronicle of income taxation (strictly speaking, it has the same reason burden), and any evaluation of income taxation that doesn't take that in to account is deceptive. By slashing the income taxation rates at all brackets, and raising the GST rate to make up the difference, you would find that the real cost of living goes down, even for those people whose income was already next the tax-free threshold. The reason for this apparent antithesis is that those people who may think they are not profitable income tax, obviously are profitable it: they pay it in the cost of all the products and services they purchase that somebody warranted income in the march of producing. That is to say, if you purchase anything inside of Australia, the income taxation of everybody who constructed and rubbed it is built in to the price.

You may intuitively think GST creates the bad poorer and income taxation doesn't, but you would be wrong. According to investigate is to Henry Tax Review, every dollar of income taxation income expenses the Australian consumer about 15 cents more than every dollar of GST revenue. Please see the inset Box 1.1 at the bottom of this page:
taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/FinalReport.aspx?doc=html/publications/papers/Final_Report_Part_1/chapter_1.htm

The "denoucements" primarily serve to give solid examples.

The real reason the Laffer Curve is invalid may be seen simply by seeking at it. Outside of a classroom, it has conjunction detailed nor prescriptive capabilities, because there's no way of revelation where you currently are, where the "optimum" is, or even what the beam on the axes are .

The many important e.g. cited once again and once again is the poorly-supported parable that Reagan's Laffer-based taxation cuts did not have the desired effect, a affirm that is itself debunked in the 1996 JEC paper we related on top of (( house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm ))

Ah, yes, Reagan. The human who initial put America on it's stream march of mercantile and amicable self-destruction.

You might have a indicate if that's what I'd said.

It's true that measuring the Laffer curvature is an imprecise scholarship and it's familiar to err precisely where the optimal is. To jump from there to claiming it's a figment of the imagination reminds me of "creation scientists" claiming that every mistake ever made in palaeontology is proof that evolution is a hoax. If volume of viewpoint on the internet is what you call evidence, then the moon alighting was a hoax, Elvis is alive, and Obama is a unfamiliar spy.

Or, alternatively, you use that allowance to do utilitarian things similar to erect infrastructure and teach people.

This is not an evidence that taxation is too high, merely that it is inefficient.

Let's put a few figures on this. How ample are you proposing income taxes should be marked down ? How ample would the GST must be increased to casing the funding shortfall ?

You may intuitively think GST creates the bad poorer and income taxation doesn't, but you would be wrong.

No, the principal complaint is because it's a regressive taxation it allows the abounding to become richer still, since the relations repercussions of a GST increase for them is ample smaller, and an income taxation reduction is ample larger.

I observe the Henry Review recommends two income taxation levels, as well.

It's true that measuring the Laffer curvature is an imprecise scholarship and it's familiar to err precisely where the optimal is.

An "inexact science" ? That's got to go down as one of the understatements of the year.

To jump from there to claiming it's a figment of the imagination reminds me of "creation scientists" claiming that every mistake ever made in palaeontology is proof that evolution is a hoax.

I didn't say it was a figment of the imagination, we mentioned it was invalid for outline or prophecy in any real-world scenario.

This is not an evidence that taxation is too high, merely that it is inefficient.

Let's put a few figures on this. How ample are you proposing income taxes should be marked down ? How ample would the GST must be increased to casing the funding shortfall ?

This is probably politically impossible, but in an ideal world we would propose something roughly similar to this:
- twice the GST to 20 per cent;
- put together investment income taxation (eg bank interest, rent) at a prosaic 20 per cent;
- reduce corporate taxation to 20 per cent, inclusive income distributed as dividends, and with a tax-free turning point on profits up to a few cost-of-capital benchmark such as the 10-year supervision union rate;
- exclude share dividends (already taxed as corporate income);
- expunge funds gains taxation (which double-taxes business and share investment, whilst simply giving skill investors a reason to purchase and never sell, creation skill not available and thus unaffordable);
- set the income tax-free turning point at a statistical misery line (which varies with the composition of a household) from year to year;
- taxation all personal income at a prosaic 35 per cent on top of that misery line … no ifs, no buts, no other rebates, no sweeteners;
- reinstate things similar to preparation and illness rebates with flat-rate service vouchers for all Australians in any case of income level - eg the illness insurance document equals the Medicare premium but may be put towards in isolation healthcare instead; the preparation document equals the fee for public drill but may be put towards in isolation drill instead.

I similar to that. Especially the reasoning at the back the funds gains on property. we hadn't deliberate that perspective before.

Sounds similar to an overwhelming network if you're abounding or scarcely rich, since you'll not only pay reduction taxation on your salary, but dramatically reduction taxation on your other instruments of income and riches creation (dividends, property, rent, corporate income, etc)

Less so if you're not, however, since you'll be profitable more income taxation and more GST as well.

Some very rapid unwashed comparisons, presumption a "poverty line" of $25,000:

Income $45k
Current income tax: 4650 + 8000*.30 = 7050
vs
Proposed prosaic tax: 20000*.35 = 7000

Income $60k
Current income tax: 4650 + 23000*.3 = 11550
vs
Proposed prosaic tax: 35000*.35 = 12250

Income $110k
Current income tax: 17550 + 30000*.37 = 28650
vs
Proposed prosaic tax: 85000*.35 = 29750

Income $150k
Current income tax: 17550 + 70000*.37 = 43450
vs
Proposed prosaic tax: 125000 * .35 = 43750

Income $200k
Current income tax: 54550 + 20000*.45 = 63450
vs
Proposed prosaic tax: 175000*.35 = 61250

Income $400k
Current income tax: 54550 + 20000*.45 = 153550
vs
Proposed prosaic tax: 375000*.35 = 131250

Broadly speaking, you are proposing ~95% of the race pay more tax, so the ~5% earning over $150k pay less.

Dr Smithy in addition to we are doubling the amount we pay in GST, and the wealthy are usually the ones benefiting the many from Capital Gains.

As an accountant even though it sounds a great network becuase taxation returns will become more complicated, having to heed between the assorted variety of income so more work for acccountants.

Another complaint is that removing funds gains taxation will urge on moot wake up similar to skill flipping and not productive financial parasitism similar to high frequency trading.

CGT should be brutally high initially and tail off (significantly, in the long term) to urge on long-term, value-based investing.

Buy a batch and sell it a couple of seconds after that ? Your CGT should be something similar to 90%.
Buy a batch and sell it 10 years after that ? Your CGT should be more similar to 10%.

The complaint with that Dr Smithy is that there won't be any "investors" any more, any person carrying out temporary exchange would become "traders", that would bring the contract onto income rsther than than capital.

You're creation the familiar mistake of presumption that the many manifest form of taxation is the one that has the greatest outcome on your net cost of living and ability to obtain ahead. Individual income taxation (including funds gains tax) comprises only 38 per cent of all taxation income in Australia, or 47 per cent of sovereign taxation revenue. In general, consumers pay the lot, one way or another.

The cost of living would advance down significantly beneath my unfolding compared with the status quo. Individual income taxes (including funds gains tax) consist of only 38 per cent of total taxation income in Australia, or 47 per cent of sovereign taxation revenue. The rest - company tax, motor van taxes, fuel excises, and so on - are all paid by the consumer, because companies must either make a distinction net of taxation by selling the things we live on, or else go out of business.

There's moreover a difficulty and arbitrariness cost, that means not only do we as consumers pay is to other taxes the supervision collects; we moreover pay for a lot of income that it doesn't collect, because companies and people concentration a lot of their efforts on taxation minimization, instead of providing us improved products and services at a descend cost. This is called deadweight loss, and it may be marked down by creation the network easier and cleaner.

So bring the 35 per cent down to 34 or 33 per cent if it creates people feel better, but the outcome of this would be very tiny compared to how ample the cost of living would be slashed beneath a simpler, more efficient taxation system.

Free - How would this reduce taxation minisation, put the prosaic rate at wherever on top of 30% and any person earning on top of the misery line and next $80k has an increased inducement to find deductions or to beginning trade as a company or a certitude with a corporate heir instead of as a sole merchant or partnership and if the prosaic rate is 35% andyone earning reduction than $180k has flattering ample the smae incentive.

OK, so bring it down to 20 per cent. Actually, that's even better. Make all taxation rates 20 per cent, in any case of that type of tax, then there'd be no indicate in taxpayers perplexing to barter one type of taxation guilt for other because they'd all be homogeneous at the margins. The on top of figures probably gather too ample taxation (I don't have the means to model them, I'm only throwing figures in the air) so 20 per cent is better. At that rate, scraping around seeking for deductions is a waste of time.

I am struggling to see how such a massive cut to taxation income will leave sufficient allowance to run the country.

Not to speak of the outrageous increase in speed in increase the riches gap it will sponsor.

I'm with you Dr Smithy, you'd have any person earning beneath $16k having no impact, between $16k and $25k getting a tiny advatange, those between, $25k and $56k profitable more income taxation and those on top of $56k improved off and the large earners dranatically so. Plus no CGT and a 1/3 tumble in company taxation rate, we can't see doubling GST and increased disposable income generating sufficient to casing the massive drop.

Remember we were discussing about the Laffer curve? As the taxation weight decreases and becomes more uniformly distributed, more mercantile actions become feasible, so the sum national income increases. As you said, the expect summit of the Laffer curvature is hard to predict, but you concluded that the materialisation does exist. Also, as we said, a lot of the taxation income is not used for public products but to casing all the not essential transfers, deductions, rebates ($30 billion for family taxation benefits), correspondence costs, cheating that gets around the correspondence system, legal taxation minimization that is economically homogeneous to cheating, and so on.

GST, on the other hand, is ample harder to avoid, and causes very little deadweight loss or distortion, so different income taxes, when you twice the GST rate you do roughly twice the GST revenue, that was 14 per cent of all taxation income (17 per cent of sovereign taxation revenue) in 2009/10.

And we keep on adage this but you appear to be ignoring it: income taxes, together with the surplus expenses of complexity, are built in to the cost of all that you or we buy, and all the supervision buys, so every dollar would go serve and you wouldn't need as many dollars to pay for a sanatorium bed or a classroom or anything else.

The reason you're struggling is because it's a energetic model in that any change to one thing has an outcome on all other things. When you change taxes, it's roughly incomprehensible to say this taxpayer is improved off by $100 and that taxpayer is improved off by $100. It's similar to asking either a birthday baked sweat bread would cost more or reduction once GST comes in.

As for this craving with the "wealth gap" … in general, high high quality taxation remodel brings down the cost of living relations to everybody's income. If you become 20 per cent improved off, what is it to you if the Joneses become 30 per cent improved off? That's the type of small-minded enviousness that creates taxation remodel so difficult politically and keeps everybody, inclusive the poor, poorer than they should be in a nation similar to this.

Remember we were discussing about the Laffer curve?

Yes. we moreover recollect you didn't supply an even remotely credible evidence that Australia's existing taxation take was on the incorrect side, nor any way of reckoning out where it currently is, nor any way of reckoning out where it should be.

As the taxation weight decreases and becomes more uniformly distributed, more mercantile actions become feasible, so the sum national income increases.

That sounds similar to an evidence that taxes should always be lowered, and never raised.

This is typical trickle-down economics bullshit. "If only the abounding owners have more money, they'll spread it around". No, they won't. They'll purchase other residence and a couple of cars to go in it, pay themselves a outrageous reward for being awesome, and pay their employees the same amount they do right away (or outsource the jobs to other nation to save money).

It's moreover a regressive tax, that is why it shouldn't be too high.

Further, you have already argued that cost of living - ie: the things GST is charged - will go down. Clearly doubling the GST isn't going to twice the income subsequent from it if the cost of living drops by, say, 50%.

Ie: more hospitals beds and classrooms could be paid for with the same amount of taxation revenue.

No, I'm struggling with it because you're discussing especially about massive reductions in taxation income and very hazily about how that omitted allowance won't be compulsory anymore.

As for this craving with the "wealth gap" ... in general, high high quality taxation remodel brings down the cost of living relations to everybody's income. If you become 20 per cent improved off, what is it to you if the Joneses become 30 per cent improved off?

Because it's more similar to we become 1% improved off and the Murdochs and Packers become 1000% improved off.

A large riches gap is a bad thing. It leads to amicable unstable and contempt is to poor. Shrinking public services and privatisation of essential services. That's why the countries with the highest standards of living have comparatively tiny riches gaps.

I've only outlayed two years living in America. we have no fascination in seeing Australia finish up similar to that.

That's the type of small-minded enviousness that creates taxation remodel so difficult politically and keeps everybody, inclusive the poor, poorer than they should be in a nation similar to this.

It's not about envy, it's about fairness.

Free - If we was to consequence the Average salary of $69k and had kids and my spouse warranted about $5k working segment time currently we would pay $14,250 taxation and would be authorised for FTB segment A B, beneath your proposal we would pay $13,800 in taxation and lose the FTB (in my case around $8k a year), so my being improved off would be completely contingent on corporations passing on their taxation decreases to the consumer rsther than than only stepping up their profits and that decrease would have to be larger than the analogous increase in GST revenue.

You state that particular income taxation creates up 47% of taxation revenue, we pretence that doesn't include company taxation income that you moreover wish to cut back by a third, but even if it did we need a little more evidence that the cuts will obviously increase total taxation money coming in than the Laffer curvature you don't even know where Australia sits on.

I find this yet other case of your fanciful world not meshing with reality.

Corporations don't select to pass on any cost saving to consumers; that would be irrational. What happens is that more contest enters the field, so corporations don't have a choice: they either pass on many of the taxation saving or they lose the contest to a few other corporation that can means to undercut them. This isn't only a theory; it's precisely what did come about as, amid other things, the Australian corporate taxation rate was lowered from 49 per cent in 1987 to 30 per cent in 2001.

" It's not about envy, it's about fairness."

Somehow we suspect that for you, it will always be about "fairness" until James Packer is forced to line up at the supermarket with you, this week's specials catalogue in hand, and delicately gather the fuel calendar so that he can means to expostulate his kids to the childcare centre opposite town in his Toyota 4WD, before rushing late to the office to strive his way to the next housing loan payment and hope the physical phenomenon doesn't obtain cut off.

What you don't conclude is that if your dream of "fairness" ever came to delight to the extent that you stopped complaining, allowance would be rendered worthless. Striving to consequence more allowance would do nobody any good, so people would stop trying. You could always try to be the cause of them with nationalism and noble-looking posters in the town square featuring hammers and sickles and musclebound working men, but nobody would care. They would no longer work to obtain ahead; they would work only to stay out of trouble with the celebration that arises to guide them. So you'd have to beginning disapproval those people as mercantile saboteurs, put together a few hard labour camps to teach them what work is …

That's great to know, we am sure Coles and Woolworths will pass on any taxation extra savings fully in case IGA takes all their marketplace share.
Even if they did pass on all the extra savings of the $74k in salary and wages the couple in my e.g. consequence the lose about $14k in taxation and about $31k in housing loan repayments (on $400k at 6.75%) so we are down to $29k in disposable income. Ignoring the fact that expenses such as rates and utilities probably won't tumble beneath the new system of administration and presumption they outlay every cent of their disposable income the couple would require a 27.5% tumble in prices only to break even from losing $8k in FTB, frequency seems likely.

Companies would moreover must be able to increase profits by 50% to make up is to loss of Coporate taxation income and you still haven't demonstrated That Australia sits in a location on the laffer curvature that means dropping taxation rates will increase taxation take.

Jimmy, you wish me to model precisely what the figures should be and precisely how ample income would be collected, either it would be sufficient to pay for hospitals and schools, etc … we can't do it. How many times do we have to say "dynamic model" … every non-static changes every other variable. That's moreover the same reason why the opposition cannot be expected to present an alternate budget; only the supervision has the resources to model it. (The Coalition attempted something similar to that once from opposition in 1992; that is precisely once more than Labor have attempted it.)

No we don't wish the expect model but if you are going to propose these massive changes you need to have a few understanding of the real world impacts and that not all responds in the behaviour theory dictates.
The fact that beneath your proposal the immeasurable majority of particular taxation payers would have to rest on substantial cost decreases to be able to be improved off whilst high income earners make out similar to bandits and there is major doubts over either the govt's taxation take would be able to be confirmed should be sufficient for you to think, "Maybe this is isn't the greatest idea"
I am not asking for detailed modelling only that it passes a couple of simple tests of logic.

Your ad-hominem tongue is predicted and boring.

Indeed. Which is evidently why nobody currently bothers to work any harder and upgrade their life.

You could always try to be the cause of them with nationalism and noble-looking posters in the town square featuring hammers and sickles and musclebound working men, but nobody would care. They would no longer work to obtain ahead; they would work only to stay out of trouble with the celebration that arises to guide them. So you'd have to beginning disapproval those people as mercantile saboteurs, put together a few hard labour camps to teach them what work is ...

Your ad-hominem tongue is, once more, predicted and boring.

A motive amounting to more than "trust me" and "lower taxes are always better" would certainly be a poignant improvement.

Given the suit of taxation paid by aloft income earners, your suggestions would probably tumble the taxation income related to (personal and corporate) income tax, in addition to CGT, by something on the order of 30-40%. That's a lot of allowance to have to make back up from a aloft GST (on cheaper goods, don't forget) and effectiveness improvements. Even when your objective is so unambitious as to merely tie in stream services.

Well anyway, you asked for a few ballpark figures to express the more broad points we was creation about income taxation complexity, "middle category welfare", and the mean-minded enviousness that characterizes taxation debate and blocks reform. So we gave you a few off-the-cuff figures as requested, and you did a nice job of illustrating the rest of my point.

There are two ways of seeking at tax. The pragmatic college looks to gather revenue, with the least all-round suffering for everybody (especially those who can't means to pay much) and the least intrusion to the running } performing of the mercantile system. Then there's what we call the amicable probity school, for whom the taxation network is primarily a apparatus for redressing the iniquities that arise arbitrarily in a cruel free-market economy, and nobody unequivocally has a right to the gains they've made using someone else's sweat and tears.

If we belong to the pragmatic college and you belong to the social-justice school, then we'll never see eye to eye. But morality aside, story shows that the pragmatic approach - if it's accompanied by a decent welfare safety net - causes real salary expansion and living standard increase even at the bottom of the scale, whereas the amicable probity approach, if taken too far, in the immeasurable majority of cases causes decomposition and misery.

No, you only gave ballpark figures for _half_ of the equation. You mentioned nothing meaningful about how the other side of it would be balanced.

If we belong to the pragmatic college and you belong to the social-justice school, then we'll never see eye to eye. But morality aside, story shows that the pragmatic approach"if it's accompanied by a decent welfare safety net"causes real salary expansion and living standard increase even at the bottom of the scale, whereas the amicable probity approach, if taken too far, in the immeasurable majority of cases causes decomposition and misery.

Who mentioned anything about going "too far" ? How far *is* "too far" ? There are countries with much, ample aloft taxation than Australia.

In favoured figures, no, but if you're considering in favoured figures then the entire debate will never make clarity to you. Sustainable long-term improvements in real income, real cost of living, and real standard of living, are the only things that matter in mercantile policy.

Anyway, what would be an e.g. of a taxation network you prefer. Perhaps one of the liberal-socialist Nordic countries? According to Wikipedia, Finland has mostly prosaic income taxes at metropolitan level (structurally, homogeneous to our states) surfaced up by a forward-thinking state taxation (by "state" they meant central/national government) and VAT (GST) of 23 per cent.

Sweden has a prosaic state (central) payroll taxation of 31.42 per cent and pension (superannuation) levy of 7 per cent, metropolitan income taxes around 25 per cent on top of a few tax-free threshold, and state income taxes with brackets of 0, 10, and 25 per cent, bringing the highest borderline send income taxation rate to around 50 per cent depending on your metropolitan tax, or 88 per cent inclusive payroll tax. It's scold to include payroll taxation as income tax, because they are equivalent.

But that moreover creates the lowest total rate around 38 per cent, so the spread from lowest to highest in Sweden is around 50 commission points, not very different from Australia. Oh, and their VAT rate is 25 per cent. And they supply all sorts of benefits to everybody, for e.g. they do not means assessment their exceedingly inexhaustible healthcare; they don't go around fussy similar to Australians about their abounding nearby resident reception the same state benefit for preparation and illness caring that they do.

" The pragmatic college looks to gather revenue, with the least all-round suffering for everybody (especially those who can't means to pay much) and the least intrusion to the running } performing of the mercantile system.Then there's what we call the amicable probity school, for whom the taxation network is primarily a apparatus for redressing the iniquities that arise arbitrarily in a cruel free-market economy, and nobody unequivocally has a right to the gains they've made using someone else's sweat and tears."
And yet you propose a intrigue that in that you make massive taxation cuts with no judicious basement is to evidence that income will be confirmed let alone increased and leaves the bulk of the race worse off so conjunction college is satisfied.

Jimmy, there's an general outlook of the Henry taxation review here (( taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/FinalReport.aspx?doc=html/Publications/Papers/Final_Report_Part_1/index.htm )). It's very readable, not requiring dilettante knowledge. The newspapers unequivocally should have serialized tools of this summary instead of gracing us with their endless opinions on it.

For someone who argues as ample as you do, you should be far more familiar with it than you obviously are, especially after all the links and citations I've given you during our past discussions on taxation. Links that you either disregard or, at most, skim-read only sufficient to nitpick. Do a few task if you wish me to outlay any more time on you.

For a detailed look at why a few taxes enable capability expansion (and thus income growth) whilst others conceal it, see this KPMG review that was consecrated by the Henry Review:
(( ))

For a detailed look at why a few taxes enable capability expansion (and thus income growth) whilst others conceal it, see this KPMG review that was consecrated by the Henry Review:
(( taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/html/commissioned_work/downloads/KPMG_Econtech_Efficiency%20of%20Taxes_Final_Report.pdf ))

Free - we am not arguing that "some taxes enable capability expansion (and thus income growth) whilst others conceal it" but for you to dispute that we should have a prosaic rate of taxation at 20% and tumble off FTB when the taxation on the median income earner is already only only on top of 20% will lead to everybody being improved off doesn't wash. The high income earners will be improved off and the median income earner will need a 30% or more tumble in prices only to break even.
Given that logically there are more than 50% of people next the median going to 20% will meant an increase in taxation for most, in addition to they lose the FTB in addition to there is an increase in GST but you expect us to certitude you that there will be a massive tumble in prices?
You have pointed to prevous cuts in taxation consequent in increased income but look at the rates they are forthcoming down from "the Australian corporate taxation rate was lowered from 49 per cent in 1987 to 30 per cent in 2001." "UK taxation profits before and after 1979, when Thatcher, amid other things, marked down the tip borderline rate from 83 per cent to 60 per cent" We have already changed along way down the "Laffer curve" do you unequivocally think that a serve pierce will still result in aloft receipts?

No. The aloft taxation profits would advance from aloft GST. The on the whole income from personal and corporate income taxation would decrease, that along with the marked down difficulty burden, is the reason why the cost of products and services would advance down.

Would income taxation advance down precisely as ample as GST comes up, creation it income neutral? we doubt it, that would be only too ample of a fluke, and as we mentioned we don't have the means to model it. The bill would have to go in to temporary shortage to account the investment in major taxation reform, that is a estimable fact for deficit.

In time, we believe the lower, cleaner, more conform to income taxation would enable GDP expansion to accelerate, causing income from GST and all the other taxes to blossom faster than they did before. At a few point, income would far transcend that of the status quo. How long would it take to do that? we have no idea. More than one year; reduction than 10 years.

And of course, you don't only turn the entire taxation network on its head overnight. You tract a roadmap to do it over several years with incremental changes, and lots of multivariate number-crunching to make sure you don't harm people during the transition.

So let's for arguments sake say prices came down 20% (which given that net distinction will only increase 10% for corporations is probably on the high side), the GST increase would be 60% ($10 on $100 compared with $16 on $80), the consumer would right away be profitable $96 instead of $110 or a 13% reduction.
The immeasurable majority are right away profitable more taxation (after the loss of FTB is accounted for), leading to reduction disposable income thus reduction spending and a reject in GST income but the high income earners are profitable so ample reduction taxation that the total taxation take is down and we will have to in to temporary shortage and probably marked down investment in infrastructure.

You're ignoring 90 per cent of what we mentioned inclusive where we mentioned shortage above, once once again you've abandoned the novel we cited, you're still presumption in a line interaction between taxation rates and taxation revenue, you're ignoring the outcome of removing deadweight losses, and normally only wasting time.

And other thing you're ignoring: rates of pay and prices of products and services are all flexible. As long as changes to taxation are evidently signalled well in advance and easy for people to understand, prices and wages are able to adjust accordingly, and the easing of the corporate taxation weight enables employers to respond.

I keep perplexing to make this point: there are no prearranged reference quantities in economics. Everything affects all else, so uncomplicated in a line calculations are meaningless. Even the Henry Review did not endeavor to break the figures on its recommendations. They only summarized broad objectives, that could be modelled in height if the supervision showed any interest, that it didn't.

Easing the corporate taxation rates does enable the cost of products to go down or wages to go up or a mixture of both but as we have mentioned countless times (far from ignoring it) the measures you are advocating require a substantial jump in wages or tumble in prices. Whichever way you bones it currently many people pay reduction tha 20% taxation and receive benefits that will be cut beneath your scheme.
Given that corporate Australia is more meddlesome in it's shareholders than anything else at least a protion of the taxation decrease will be used to increase profits. The banks, coles and Wollies, Electricity Companies, Fuel companies, Telstra Councils etc do not have the contest to force a tumble in prices nor the desire to increase wages. Plus farmers are cost takers rsther than than cost setters so the simple "costs of living" will not be effected to any great deal.

Yes all belongings all else, we insincere that in the 20% cost reduction (again not ignoring) a businesses profit's are roughly 1/3 their turnover and that they would pass on half the send taxation reduction (ie marked down the sales cost by 15%) and the other 5% reduction would advance from upsurge by savings.

I am not presumption a in a line attribute between taxes and taxation income but if you decrease the majority of the population's disposable income and are still relying on increased income from GST (as per your post at 11.27) you are going to advance up short.

I moreover mentioned your reference to a shortage but moreover insincere that (especially considering the shortage dislike in stream society) going in to serve shortage to account massive infrastructure investment would be ruled out

Auto finance Loan Calculator

viernes, 3 de junio de 2011

Car Loan Apr | Why Labor Right Away Owns Center Category Welfare

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario