Talking Politics | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Talking Politics

Pretty sure a little tax policy called GST was supposed to be the meaningful tax reform that was desperately needed to clean up a whole heap of messy issues. All it did in the end was add another layer for the Government to gouge the punter with.

Simple fact that all governments will always spend and waste way more money than their income, because all they ever do is whack everything on the public credit card then promise they're gunna save us while we financially bleed out.
Don’t agree TM

We had one of the lowest indirect tax bases in the developed world before the GST and it placed a ridiculous burden on individual tax payers before it happened. There was also a much bigger cash economy then than there is now. GST was required tax reform, the rate needs to be higher imo.

Tax reform is not just about raising income it is also about a fairer basis for taxation. That in the part we need desperately
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Labor leaders are the ones who bagged out the Liberals for broken election promises.

Albo and Chalmers made it about integrity and keeping your world.

And then they do the same.
Libs broke promises that were in the public interest to keep eg "no cuts to health, not cuts to education and no cuts to the ABC"
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Haha
Reactions: 5 users
So what is Dutton going to do, break an election promise and support Labor's new tax cuts, or say no to millions of low paid Australians who will now receive a tax cut, those who were going to get zilch from the Liberals stage 3 tax cuts.

I'm going to really enjoy watching this play out.

yes what people don’t realise is that Stage 1 and 2 tax cuts that benefited the poorer earners were temporary and now have ceased.

stage 3 massively benefited the well off and they were to be permanent.

unbelievably sneaky and smart politics, pay off the poor for a few years so the rich then can enjoy the benefits forever.

I still can’t believe this never gets mentioned in all this
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 5 users
Libs broke promises that were in the public interest to keep eg "no cuts to health, not cuts to education and no cuts to the ABC"
Yeah the only problem was to paint themselves into a corner by saying they would keep the promise. They didn't have to do that. That was a result of jumping at shadows with the Shorten election loss in large part due to a scare campaign that he would tamper with tax breaks for the rich. The stage 3 as they stood had to go, no brainer, always had to go.

The Coalition are quick to break promises that don't affect their voter base, as per your argument, so why shouldn't the ALP, I'm serious, why would the ALP go out of their way to give a help a small minority of wealthy people who would be campaigning hard to oust them? Its politics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
yes what people don’t realise is that Stage 1 and 2 tax cuts that benefited the poorer earners were temporary and now have ceased.

stage 3 massively benefited the well off and they were to be permanent.

unbelievably sneaky and smart politics, pay off the poor for a few years so the rich then can enjoy the benefits forever.

I still can’t believe this never gets mentioned in all this
Spot on year of the tiger.

It's not mentioned in the below article but Jackie Lambie gave the Morrison Govt the final vote they needed to pass the stage 3 legislation, and then had the nerve last year to tell Labor that they should scrap the stage 3 tax cuts. All the heat that Labor is copping is on Lambie:mad:


Sorry, but Stages 1 and 2 did not make Stage 3 fairer. Only changing Stage 3 did that​

January 25, 2024 by Greg Jericho

"The total tax package designed by the Morrison government was not fair because Stage 3 was so clearly directed to giving money to those on high incomes. The new changes improve the entire package.
One of the more common lines being pushed by members of the business lobby and the opposition party is that changing Stage 3 is irresponsible because it was a part of a total package that includes Stages 1 and 2. According to this view if you include Stages 1 and 2 along with the old Stage 3 you would see a very fair and balanced package of tax cuts.

Senator Bridget McKenzie, for example, told Channel 10’s The Panel that “Stage 3 is obviously part of a tranche of changes over a period of time legislated back in 2019 to make our system fairer recognising that those that got the immediate benefit and the cumulative maximum benefit of those changes were absolutely those low to middle-income earners who got the major benefit”.

Similarly, former Treasurer Peter Costello for example told Nine Newspapers (of which he is the chair) that “You’ve got to remember they are part of a package and stage one and two have already been delivered. One and two were the parts of the tax cuts directed at low and middle-income earners. And this is the final part. If you take away the final part, it undoes the whole package”

Unfortunately for Senator McKenzie, Mr Costello and others who think this is a winning point, when you examine Stages 1 and 2 you see that they were not directed at low-middle income earners at all and they did not get in any way “the major benefit”, and when you add the old Stage 3 the entire package become extremely biased toward those on high incomes.

Stage 1 increased the threshold for the 37% tax rate from $87,000 to $90,000 – this did nothing for those on low-middle incomes, given the current median full-time income is $83,200. Stage 1 also included the introduction of the low-middle income tax offset. That might have been “immediate” to use Senator McKenzie’s words, but it was also only temporary. It is no longer in place. Thus the only thing remaining from Stage 1 all goes to those earning above the median full-time income.

Stage 2 included changes that assisted those on low and middle incomes, such as the 32.5% threshold increase from $37,000 to $45,000. But it also included an increase of the 37% threshold again, this time to $120,000, which once again this part provided no benefit at all to low or middle-income earners.

As you can see below, the impact of Stage 1 (grey) and Stage 2 (blue) was largely even across the income ranges, and while those on $50,000 did benefit the most, that benefit was not greatly above that experienced by someone on $200,000.

Stage123old-600x497.png


The old Stage 3 however was very much directed at those on high incomes. It was not at all about providing some balance given Stage 1 and 2, but was purely ignoring those on low incomes and giving very little to those in the middle.

The new Stage 3 provides a much fairer total package when including Stages 1 and 2.

Stage123new-600x498.png


It only serves to highlight that the only way to improve Stage 3 was not to include Stage 1 and 2 but to change Stage 3 itself. And it is why we applaud the government’s changes."


 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Not a good start from Basil the clown. :rotfl1:rotfl2


"As he prepared for the press conference to begin - which remarkably was arranged to announce his intention to seek preselection for a seat in state politics with the Liberal Party - Zempilas opted to engage in some chit chat with gathered journalists.

You can judge for yourself, but it appeared Zempilas had a prepared question ready to go, along with what he considered a punchline to follow.

“Tennis is on tonight, isn’t it?” Zempilas asks to a man that can’t be seen in the clip.

“Ah, yeah, the female final,” the man replies.

Before the man has finished replying, Zempilas has already dropped his head to demonstrate his disappointment at the response before firing back: “It’s a reserves game, then.”

Zempilas, who had a brief stint playing in the West Australian Football League and spent much of his career covering footy, has widely been interpreted as comparing the women’s final to a secondary match, opposed to the main event of men’s tennis.

He tries to clarify what he means by adding “I say that having been there obviously”, possibly a nod to his broadcast career with the Seven Network, who used to hold the rights to the Australian Open.

Then comes the actual funny part of the clip.


As Zempilas is still talking, he is clearly informed by a crew member that his microphone is on and he’s being heard.

“OK, all right,” he says quickly and confidently before it all dawns on him what’s happened.

The father of three, including two girls, is last seen staring intently into the void wondering exactly what the fallout to his comments might be.


 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Not a good start from Basil the clown. :rotfl1:rotfl2


"As he prepared for the press conference to begin - which remarkably was arranged to announce his intention to seek preselection for a seat in state politics with the Liberal Party - Zempilas opted to engage in some chit chat with gathered journalists.

You can judge for yourself, but it appeared Zempilas had a prepared question ready to go, along with what he considered a punchline to follow.

“Tennis is on tonight, isn’t it?” Zempilas asks to a man that can’t be seen in the clip.

“Ah, yeah, the female final,” the man replies.

Before the man has finished replying, Zempilas has already dropped his head to demonstrate his disappointment at the response before firing back: “It’s a reserves game, then.”

Zempilas, who had a brief stint playing in the West Australian Football League and spent much of his career covering footy, has widely been interpreted as comparing the women’s final to a secondary match, opposed to the main event of men’s tennis.

He tries to clarify what he means by adding “I say that having been there obviously”, possibly a nod to his broadcast career with the Seven Network, who used to hold the rights to the Australian Open.

Then comes the actual funny part of the clip.


As Zempilas is still talking, he is clearly informed by a crew member that his microphone is on and he’s being heard.

“OK, all right,” he says quickly and confidently before it all dawns on him what’s happened.

The father of three, including two girls, is last seen staring intently into the void wondering exactly what the fallout to his comments might be.


Based on that, I assume his Liberal preselection has now been assured?
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
How does one benefit from inequality? Again, framing the argument to imply those in the 200k bracket are directly and deliberately at fault for those below it. And then you wonder why class warfare gets brought up by those you accuse of benefitting from inequality.

Those who have wealth benefit from the fact that wealth creates more wealth. Similarly, those who earn very high salaries, like the 2.5% who earn over $200K, are already benefiting from the widening inequality in incomes which lead to their salary being so much more than the average and median.

But what really p!!sses me off is the talk of class warfare.

When Unions claim that execs, who are now paid way more in comparative terms than they were 50 years ago, are over paid. When people lobby for higher tax rates on those who earn a lot more. When people complain about wages not keeping up with inflation. When people claim that company profits are too high or not taxed enough or the tax is avoided. Whenever these sorts of arguments are made then it is called "class warfare"

But, when companies lobby for lower tax rates. When various groups argue for deregulation of the labour market so they can pay less. When companies threaten to move offshore for cheaper labour and less regulation. Apparently when the bosses lobby for changes to their benefit it is never class warfare, they never label that as class warfare.

Only when people who work for a living lobby for less inequality is it class warfare, when the well off lobby for their benefit suddenly it is not class warfare.

Says the guy who was lucky enough to be in a generation where house prices were 3x his wage. Imagine trying to buy a $600k house now on your current wage. Remembering that $600k is well below median price range. How excited would you then be to sell it?
Then you talk about early retirement perhaps?

My generation will hopefully get the chance to retire at 67 (provided no politician changes it before I get there!). You have experienced levels of opportunity that a lot of people in society today do not have. It's not your fault, and I don't blame you for taking advantage of the conditions you were presented - half your luck.

Your holier than thou, judgemental approach while glibly saying "oh they should just manage their money better" "oh they can sell their house". If they were your feet in those boots, I bet your attitude would change.

Read the whole post, you know, the bit where I say that the current level of house prices is ridiculous and needs to change.

Also, don't mislead - as I said, we bought for 5x my income, not 3x. Fiddling figures like this does you no credit.

I stand by having a lot more sympathy for those on low incomes where if they run into trouble they can no longer afford rent, bills etc and don't have a big over-priced asset they can sell. I also stand by my position that being in the highest 2.5% of wage earners means you have a lot less justification for complaining.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I stand by having a lot more sympathy for those on low incomes where if they run into trouble they can no longer afford rent, bills etc and don't have a big over-priced asset they can sell. I also stand by my position that being in the highest 2.5% of wage earners means you have a lot less justification for complaining.

DS
(y)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Those who have wealth benefit from the fact that wealth creates more wealth. .

DS

You're confusing wealth with salary. They are two different things.

And no one here is saying anyone in the 200k bracket deserves as much sympathy as someone on minimum wage is tough. All thats being said is that earning a higher than average salary doesn't make them a fatcat or rich. They have the same financial struggles when the economy is bad, and probably magnified more because their debt is a lot bigger.

But your "*smile* em, they make too much already" is pure ignorance and lacking in empathy.

Are really, bringing in the multi million dollar comp packages the CEOs are getting into the same discussion as someone in the 200k range just further shows your lack of understanding, and willingness to try to understand.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Not a good start from Basil the clown. :rotfl1:rotfl2


"As he prepared for the press conference to begin - which remarkably was arranged to announce his intention to seek preselection for a seat in state politics with the Liberal Party - Zempilas opted to engage in some chit chat with gathered journalists.

You can judge for yourself, but it appeared Zempilas had a prepared question ready to go, along with what he considered a punchline to follow.

“Tennis is on tonight, isn’t it?” Zempilas asks to a man that can’t be seen in the clip.

“Ah, yeah, the female final,” the man replies.

Before the man has finished replying, Zempilas has already dropped his head to demonstrate his disappointment at the response before firing back: “It’s a reserves game, then.”

Zempilas, who had a brief stint playing in the West Australian Football League and spent much of his career covering footy, has widely been interpreted as comparing the women’s final to a secondary match, opposed to the main event of men’s tennis.

He tries to clarify what he means by adding “I say that having been there obviously”, possibly a nod to his broadcast career with the Seven Network, who used to hold the rights to the Australian Open.

Then comes the actual funny part of the clip.


As Zempilas is still talking, he is clearly informed by a crew member that his microphone is on and he’s being heard.

“OK, all right,” he says quickly and confidently before it all dawns on him what’s happened.

The father of three, including two girls, is last seen staring intently into the void wondering exactly what the fallout to his comments might be.


Is his name Zempilas or Fawlty? Couple to many head knocks during his seniors WAFL career maybe.
 
If you read the reports on the background negotiations the decision was only just taken and happened quite quickly.
Yeah right, they just decided to change things yesterday when it'd been suggested they were going to do this before the election and regularly over the last 18 months.. Musta been the meedjia that gave them the brilliant idea in the first place.
Keeping promises that are already legislation means that you cannot alter any legislation, which doesn’t make sense. That’s what governments do.
Going to an election denying that you are going to change certain specific sections of legislation and continuously denying for a further 18 months or more is not good or bad government it's lying, bordering on compulsive lying to the voters. That's what governments absolutely should not do.
I do agree that this decision should have been made earlier, mainly because it was so blindingly obvious that it needed to be made

Sorry I don’t know who Jimmy Choo is.
That's Elbowskneesy's little mate with all the money.
 
Don’t agree TM

We had one of the lowest indirect tax bases in the developed world before the GST and it placed a ridiculous burden on individual tax payers before it happened. There was also a much bigger cash economy then than there is now. GST was required tax reform, the rate needs to be higher imo.

Tax reform is not just about raising income it is also about a fairer basis for taxation. That in the part we need desperately
Still got some cash economy out there so it didn't have anywhere near the effect that it was supposed to.
Did very little to reduce the individual tax burden, either through reducing personal income tax which constant inflationary bracket creep ensures governments retain the massive cash flow.
Added an extra tax on tax as the GST is added on top of the various outrageously high state and federal taxes that are already placed on consumables like fuel, booze, durries etc.
Didn't do much to reduce the individual State tax revenue's that were supposed to be eased by the Federal lump sum distribution of all the GST shekels. States kept their existing revenue streams then found more n more ways to short change Joe Public by doubling down their spending on *smile* n blowing up their budgets every year.

Happy to agree with ya that we desperately need some " decent " tax reform. But there's no chance in hell it'll happen within what's left of my life time. Doubt it'll ever happen though.
 
Yeah right, they just decided to change things yesterday when it'd been suggested they were going to do this before the election and regularly over the last 18 months.. Musta been the meedjia that gave them the brilliant idea in the first place.

Going to an election denying that you are going to change certain specific sections of legislation and continuously denying for a further 18 months or more is not good or bad government it's lying, bordering on compulsive lying to the voters. That's what governments absolutely should not do.

That's Elbowskneesy's little mate with all the money.
It has been well reported that the cabinet decision was only just taken last week. Stop listening to Dutton. There was clearly a lot of debate in the party room about it but I am glad they have made the right decision and they have listened to reason and done what good flexible governments should do.

My comments on the stupidity of this obsession on election promises especially in the relation to the economy being dynamic have been made earlier

Oh, you mean the prime minister and the treasurer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Still got some cash economy out there so it didn't have anywhere near the effect that it was supposed to.
Did very little to reduce the individual tax burden, either through reducing personal income tax which constant inflationary bracket creep ensures governments retain the massive cash flow.
Added an extra tax on tax as the GST is added on top of the various outrageously high state and federal taxes that are already placed on consumables like fuel, booze, durries etc.
Didn't do much to reduce the individual State tax revenue's that were supposed to be eased by the Federal lump sum distribution of all the GST shekels. States kept their existing revenue streams then found more n more ways to short change Joe Public by doubling down their spending on *smile* n blowing up their budgets every year.

Happy to agree with ya that we desperately need some " decent " tax reform. But there's no chance in hell it'll happen within what's left of my life time. Doubt it'll ever happen though.
the cash economy is still there but way smaller than it was

Excises on alcohol, fuel and tobacco are a whole different subject

Imagine what personal income tax rates would be if we didn’t have a GST?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Make our population shrink to bring down house prices (on average). Supply side will mainly mean more urban sprawl, destruction of nature, more pinches on shared infrastructure and services and isn’t going to keep up with the current levels of immigration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The rate of urban sprawl blows my mind. This has been identified as a big environmental problem, and also some social problems, for 30 or 40 years, most reasonable people agree we have to do things differently, that its unsustainable for a lot of reasons, but governments don't seem to be able to do anything about it. Its accelerating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users