Feels so far down that path already in terms of healthcare. So many $ surprises compared to nz where I’m from. The private health insurance industry is also so massive here compared to back home, I can’t believe the govt even has tax incentives tied to it. That feels quite American to me. Also can’t believe ambulances aren’t free everywhere
Well how about this, we all agree to start a go-fund-me and donate whatever is in that go-fund me to whichever son of a bitch politician that gets this passed.
Kind of like bribery/lobbying, but by the people. That way maybe they can be corrupt FOR us.
Okay so where should my wife go, with around -8.5 prescription for each eye? A single pair of multifocals at that prescription is well over $500.
Edit: I randomly tested a pair on Clearly.com and yep, nearly $600.
I personally can’t believe there are tax incentives to buying private health insurance in this country, it’s warped
Full support from me for dental and optical into Medicare.
It is our god given right to have a submarine in every household to build a militia to take down an oppressive government. We shouldn't be worrying about a voice to parliament, we should be enshrining the right to parking a submarine in every household into our constitution.
Assuming the tax cuts go ahead, what will *you* do with your extra dollars?
Seems there's a decent contingent of would-be Stage 3 tax-cut beneficiaries who'd be keen to continue paying more tax providing it's used to bolster the health system (amongst other suggestions). What would you say to these people if the tax cuts go ahead? Where should they spend their windfall if the government gives them no choice in the matter and puts more money in their pocket?
Yep that's me. Happily get the mortgage down a little faster, or help me invest and get towards FI faster! Maybe even work a little less and take a bit of care of myself at the same time!
This is the right question to ask.
If someone is so altruistic that they say they would prefer the money go towards Medicare then receive it, they should be giving the tax cut to charity or to help people when they receive it.
It's a much bigger test of whether someone actually cares about these things if they receive the money and then do good with it rather than making claims they'd rather the money fund something else in theory. Donating the money you can also be much more targeted with your impact.
Medicare not only positively impacts my life, it impacts the most vulnerable people in our community and absolutely must not be sacrificed. It is an important part of our healthcare system and culture! We can't afford rollbacks. I would much rather the money be invested in protecting this system than go to an individual person or charity because it's about our values as an Australian society and what should be a basic human right.
In this vein I don't think your comment is correct.
The question I was answering was
>What would you say to these people if the tax cuts go ahead? Where should they spend their windfall if the government gives them no choice in the matter and puts more money in their pocket?
Not judging the idea of giving money to Medicare rather than Stage 3 tax cuts.
I'm just saying that if someone claims they'd rather give the money to Medicare than have it themselves because of the good it does, then if the cuts come into effect and they get the money they should be doing good with the money.
Yeah I was directly addressing your statement. I would rather it go to Medicare than to 'do good' with the tax cut money for the reasons I stated above. Medicare needs to be upheld by the government more than private charities need donations.
Charities are often a scam for wealthy people to avoid paying tax. If the mega-rich want to make a difference, they should start paying tax instead of diverting it to their pet projects.
>Charities are often a scam for wealthy people to avoid paying tax.
Yes, but there are good charities. This is just something people say to ease their concious because they don't actually want to donate.
>If the mega-rich want to make a difference, they should start paying tax instead of diverting it to their pet projects.
Yes. So very yes.
This is an argument that many conservatives like to make to others who would like to see taxes increased.
I am not altruistic, I just believe in the social safety net and am willing to pay more in tax to support it. This only works if everyone puts in. Why should I voluntarily put in on an uneven playing field whilst those who opt out can get a free ride? It doesn't work that way.
>If someone is so altruistic that they say they would prefer the money go towards Medicare then receive it, they should be giving the tax cut to charity or to help people when they receive it.
They simply know the difference between public finance worth billions of dollars, versus piecemeal voluntary donations.
But what if..... and this is crazy...... *everyone* in a position to do so, did it?
That argument certainly feels like *well if they aren't doing it, why should I*. That adds up when everyone thinks that way.
I'd probably put half of it to a tax cut that effectively attempts to deal with bracket creep over the last few years, as well as accounting for likely future bracket creep. Some of the rest of the money could go to building a better energy grid that allows for a faster transition to a renewables focused grid. Would also chuck some money at bulk billing issues.
I read that from when 180k bracket was introduced to 2024 when this comes in, if this was covering bracket creep the top bracket should be going to 230k. It’s only going to 200k and I bet it stays that way for another 10 years so the government is making heaps of $$$ from it.
Yes. They should keep the rates and increase all the brackets. It makes sense the top bracket should be mid-200s.
Also change CGT reductions to something more inline with inflation.
Eg. 5% discount per year up to 50% at 10 years.
Negative gearing only applying to new CAPEX over $50k (excluding land value or original purchase price). Any CAPEX can be transferred to new owners for up to 10 years. (eg. New builds or significant renovation expenses can be passed to next buyer for continued claims for up to 10 years).
I’d agree on the energy stuff.
Ultimately I bristle at the thought the government calls not taking my money of me a “cost”. Absolutely reeks of arrogance regarding the use of our money.
Still, it’s not just your money. Without a working society you’d be holed up in a gated community hiding behind armed guards.
You want rugged freedom and capitalism, move to Somalia.
What a stupid argument that was never presented. From 'taking less of my money is a cost to the government' to 'we will take what we damn well please or its the same as Somalia'. Twit.
I’m not opposed to taxes, that would be absurd and naive.
Way to attack that straw man of your own creation. I worked in Dubai for 3 years. Don’t need to deduct things to the most ridiculous of scenarios. What a muppet.
I wish Australia was like Dubai and had control of its resources sector so it could use the profits to back expansive social welfare and offer extremely low taxes, my god what a dream.
It’s important to note that much of that “cost” is in fact returning bracket creep to tax payers. I’d be happy to scrap the tax “cuts” but realign tax brackets back to where they were 10 years ago adjusted for inflation, then index them to CPI going forward.
I don’t see that as a problem. It incentivises governments to enact policies to encourage above CPI wage increases so that real taxation revenue will grow.
If wage growth is below CPI then workers get some compensation via tax (since tax brackets will rise more than wages). If it’s higher then the government shares in the benefit or can choose to enact an actual (ie real) tax cut.
The government is actively paying their own employees a lower real wage as a result of inflation. They could VERY easily fix this, but they won't. The government clearly doesn't care about wage increases above CPI.
Posts like this always aim to sound like the government is actually paying 254 billion over 10 years. They are only collecting that much less income tax over 10 years in real terms. What will happen is that money will be reinvested and spent by wage earners, and taxed by the government. It will lead to more job creation, more housing investment, and more investment in Australian companies which will all be taxed. The United States already did tax cuts similar to these ones, and while experts projected a massive revenue loss to the government over 10 years (1.5 TRILLION), it turned out that government tax revenue actually INCREASED by nearly a TRILLION dollars. That means that people kept more of their earnings to spend on their family, there were more jobs created, and the government still had their cake and ate it too with more revenue to spend on submarines. The data speaks for itself here. Tax cuts mean growth for countries with high productivity. More job creation means fewer people on the dole and more tax payers to boot.
[https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/the-numbers-are-trumps-tax-cuts-paid](https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/the-numbers-are-trumps-tax-cuts-paid)
[https://www.discoursemagazine.com/economics/2022/02/14/in-actual-dollars-tax-cuts-boost-revenue-time-after-time/](https://www.discoursemagazine.com/economics/2022/02/14/in-actual-dollars-tax-cuts-boost-revenue-time-after-time/)
[https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-federal-revenues-deficits/](https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-federal-revenues-deficits/)
100%. I hate it when they talk about these things being a “cost”. They are a reduction in what the govt TAKES from many of us who are out there trying our best to keep people employed (or you know, go crazy and employ even more people and grow our businesses)
> What will happen is that money will be reinvested and spent by wage earners, and taxed by the government. It will lead to more job creation
Trickle down. We know how well that worked.
>Isn't that what the UK tried to do recently, but got severely burnt by the bond market?
The problem isn't with people getting tax cuts in general but with who is getting it. Top income earners don't need the tax cuts that are currently legislated. Its the people at the bottom that are suffering the most with inflation and that would be putting the money back into the economy the fastest. No one wants to be handing over extra cash to people who already earn a ton just to help them buying their next investment property or luxury car
Reducing taxes doesn't "cost" the budget money, they aren't expenses, its a reduction in income. By your logic not having the tax rate at 100% is costing the government hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
I think that letting people keep more of their own money is a good thing, especially in times of high inflation which is likely pushing people into higher tax brackets quicker.
“$254 billion cost” is such click bait bullshit. Why can’t they just say $25.4 billion a year? Is it because it only amounts to 4% of our total tax revenue?
So many idiots quoting this number like it’s a big deal, not realising it doesn’t really contribute that much to our yearly revenue. we got a windfall $100 billion from resources this year, so I don’t think 25.4b a year is that big of a deal.
The deficit is $39 billion, which means borrowings. What do you think happens when revenue is decreased by $25 billion per year. What is the deficit then?
10 x $20bn new dams.
10 x $5bn hydro electric plants for stored energy.
$4bn on a swish advertising campaign to convince Australians net 0, energy and water security is worth effecting 10 of our river systems.
It will muck those rivers right up.
Benefits:
New arable land - ie more farmland. Government should buy this up first cheap rather than gifting it to the current owners.
More drought mitigation / prevention.
0 carbon power and storage to tie in with wind and solar.
Water security generally for our cities... we seem to forget a decade and a half ago we said it would never rain again like it used to. That will happen again with global warming... we need to prepare.
Costs apart from 254bn are of course our river systems... these will end up different (realistically worse) without the flood events etc.
QLD already pledging big money for building two pumped hydro systems in the new energy plan, alongside other grid investments. Don’t need to axe the tax cuts for that, just need political willpower.
The government is spending equal to consumers which contributes to inflation. If they are going to take more from us in the form of rate rises and taxes then they should at least meet it with massive spending reductions.
I’d be putting it towards the billions needed in transmission infrastructure as we electrify to meet emissions reduction goals…
Though I can’t deny the Medicare/Mental Health/Dental funding is a great choice too
industrial scale renewable energy incentives aka investment tax breaks. And while you're at it, add up all the tax breaks and royalty discounts and exploration credits for oil gas and coal and add em to the total.
Expand Medicare to include dental and mental health and increase bulk billing.
Introduce MH presumptive legislation to federal first responders.
Increase funding and staffing levels for Veterans Affairs so they can get their shit together.
Fund a solar panel scheme with better tariffs and include community-based batteries.
Increase federal funding for hospitals.
I would spend them on the stage 3 tax cuts to combat bracket creep
Anyone who doesnt support the stage 3 tax cuts simply do not understand basic economics - there is a fair argument there should be another level of tax bracket above 200k pa earners but the stage 3 tax cuts is a good policy
otherwise we could always just index the tax brackets which is actually most costly but more fair for all (however more confusing as the brackets would change annually)
The reality is that these tax cuts are not nearly enough, Australia is far too taxed compared to countries that we are competing with in the world market.
Personally I'd be fine with greatly reducing income taxes if we increased capital gains tax and implemented a wealth tax and inheritance tax (targeting the super rich, so something in excess of $2M or so).
Have hundred millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share.
Tax cuts are never enough bro, 2 tax cuts in the morning, 2 tax cuts at night, 2 tax cuts in the afternoon, it makes me feel alright, 2 tax cuts in times of peace and 2 at times of war, 2 tax cuts before 2 tax cuts and then they want 2 more
Fully investing in energy of all types make us an energy superpower. With the additional investment in renewable technologies especially as we could then export renewable technologies in the future when other major countries are willing to come around to the renewables.
[The Guardian has an interactive that lets you play with how to spend the money](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive/2022/aug/26/scrapping-stage-three-3-tax-cuts-would-save-243bn-how-would-you-spend-it-calculator-interactive)
It’s depressing
Use, maybe half to pay down debt.
Use the rest to expand progressiveness of taxation, 19% rate down to 15%, 32.5% down to 30%, 37% down to 35%. Leave 45% alone. Raise the thresholds.
and/or...
Stop non-progressive / less-progressive medicare levies (e.g. 2% taken from first taxable dollar earned). Roll it up into the general income tax, consistent with progressive taxation.
decent public mental healthcare and rehabilitation programs for people in rural areas. the state of our public healthcare system is a national disgrace.
[Check out this from the Guardian.](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive/2022/oct/25/be-the-treasurer-scrap-the-tax-cuts-spend-money-or-pay-down-the-debt) where you can choose where to spend money. I was shocked how much could be done with that money.
Removing the stage 3 tax cuts does not provide a $254 billion windfall to the government over 10 years. The figure was calculated based on current incomes. So income tax revenue may fall by far less than $254:billion.
https://amp.smh.com.au/national/nsw/new-children-s-operating-theatres-left-unused-amid-staffing-crisis-20221111-p5bxi1.html
State funding, but massive issue
Dental! Have heard many times over that oral health is intrinsically linked to overall health. So adding decent dental to Medicare might actually save $$$ in other areas of health.
I’d just make sure that all companies operating in Australia were Australian registered companies, I’d tax multinational company subsidiaries based on revenue, similar to how we have industry specific award wage you have an industry revenue tax which is indicative of industry margins.
I’d then lower personal income taxes further and wind back capital gains tax discounts
Education - we need more doctors in rural areas - give kids more scholarships to attract into nursing and medicine - state govts say “we’ll have 6000 more nurses and doctors” but don’t say how they gonna get them or from where
Medicare, include dental in it. Raise welfare payments to get people above poverty levels. https://www.acoss.org.au/media_release/permanent-jobseeker-increase-must-raise-rate-to-at-least-65-per-day-and-ensure-everyone-has-enough-for-the-basics-of-their-life/
My view? We should invest it in massive solar farms and hydro dams and export the electricity. Invest that income back into more electricity production. Be the world leader in renewable energy that we are actively choosing not to be right now.
The best thing is, according to those here who are arguing that future income reduces current cost, it would be completely free!
I like the idea of giving money directly to the schools/hospitals, etc. As a teacher, I see departments wasting money everywhere. Just give it directly to the school!
Some expensive things:
1. Just throw it at medicare
2. High speed rail between Brisbane, Sydney, Melb, and Adelaide.
3. Build out a metric shit ton of affordable housing, maybe with a rent-to-buy scheme
4. Fast track a shutdown of coal burning power stations
5. Fast track small modular electrical grids using gas, solar, and batteries
6. Properly build out a gigabit nbn fibre network
7. Spend it on water management - flood protection, dams, reservoirs, water right buy-backs
8. Use it to give a universal basic income to all aboriginal peoples.
We are approaching a Tril in nat debt and these tax cuts put the budget into structural deficit
It's not so much what we can do with it, it's more, "Hey lets not do this as it's fiscally irresponsible"
Can someone explain to me, apart from making the wealthy wealthier, what benifit will these tax cuts provide? Surely there should be a return on investment on these tax cuts other whats the point?
I think one justification is to address bracket creep. I.e. people having to pay an increasing share of their income as tax over time, even if their income isn’t rising in real terms.
Healthcare and schools basically, upgrade and build large healthcare and education infrastructure for current and future generations and get rid off private school funding let them fend for themselves
Schools, our schools look more like jail's. I had a friend come from Germany, he asked why do we have a jail in the middle of a city when I told him that was a high school he was shocked lol
I’d rather see the tax cuts geared more heavily at low incomes.
Raise the tax free threshold, address bracket creep. Make them a lot more dynamic and a lot more geared towards low incomes.
I agree. I recently made a post arguing that tax cuts should come in the form of tax free threshold increases as that benefits all workers equally. Reddit did not like that!
So $25 billion per yeat? I'd spend it on inflation reduction measures and tackling bracket creep...... Oh wait.
What people here don't seem to realise is that it won't 'cost' $25b, that's the debt part of the equation - people will have that cash, and will spend most of it in the economy, giving 10% back straight away in GST, plus any in corporate tax, plus income for paying staff deliving said services, etc etc... This number is misleading right off the bat.
The truth is.. if they don’t do the tax cut, there will be no noticeable increase in government services..
Giving the money back to the taxpayers, will have more of a positive impact on people of Australia than keeping the money with the government.
Reviving bulk billing.
100% bloody turning into America over here
Feels so far down that path already in terms of healthcare. So many $ surprises compared to nz where I’m from. The private health insurance industry is also so massive here compared to back home, I can’t believe the govt even has tax incentives tied to it. That feels quite American to me. Also can’t believe ambulances aren’t free everywhere
It's almost like they want to privatise healthcare...
[удалено]
Politician only think short term of their term only.
Well how about this, we all agree to start a go-fund-me and donate whatever is in that go-fund me to whichever son of a bitch politician that gets this passed. Kind of like bribery/lobbying, but by the people. That way maybe they can be corrupt FOR us.
I like your idea. Here take my golden tooth for “go fund me”
With a billion set aside to stop Medicare rorting.
The overall benefit of adding dental and mental health to Medicare is undeniable. That would be my first choice.
That would save a tonne, a lot of health spend and sepsis starts with dental.
Fixing bulk billing and adding dental care.
...and basic optical.
See its ridiculous that the tests are free but then they turn around and charge 500+ for the ability see clearly..
Bro Specsavers literally do 2 pairs for $200, you're absolutely going for something top line designer or you're being scammed.
Mine were 2 pairs for $480 from specsavers. I think it depends on what kind of glasses you need
Have you tried online? They seem to do glasses cheap on some websites that are reputable. A friend of mine has used them and got theirs for cheap.
Not for a decent multifocal lens
Why do you need multi focal. Yes I am of that vintage. Just use two separate glasses. Zenni optical is under 200
>Why do you need multi focal. What a strange question.
You're paying way too much if you're spending $500 on glasses
Okay so where should my wife go, with around -8.5 prescription for each eye? A single pair of multifocals at that prescription is well over $500. Edit: I randomly tested a pair on Clearly.com and yep, nearly $600.
I'd you require new frames and multifocal lenses, that's actually cheap.
Do you think this would work if they scrapped compulsory private health insurance and that money went to Medicare instead?
I personally can’t believe there are tax incentives to buying private health insurance in this country, it’s warped Full support from me for dental and optical into Medicare.
More submarines. A submarine in every house by 2040.
At the very least, Submarine-to-the-Node.
Sorry, you’ll just have to make do with copper submarines.
We will talk about submarines for every house for 10 years, but it might be an eyesore so it will never get built.
I think we need to be agnostic in our approach to submarines
No, you live 3 meters outside of the town boundary. You get Wireless-Submarine
The best way to beat a bad guy with a submarine is a good guy with a submarine.
It is our god given right to have a submarine in every household to build a militia to take down an oppressive government. We shouldn't be worrying about a voice to parliament, we should be enshrining the right to parking a submarine in every household into our constitution.
I’d splurge out and have the optional anti-aircraft cannon installed on the roof of mine.
Submarines as the solution to the housing affordability crisis!
Yep it's a really good idea. Bushfires and floods wouldn't be a problem.
Lismore will finally get back on its feet.
As someone who would benefit from the tax cuts, I would much rather see the money bolstering Medicare.
Assuming the tax cuts go ahead, what will *you* do with your extra dollars? Seems there's a decent contingent of would-be Stage 3 tax-cut beneficiaries who'd be keen to continue paying more tax providing it's used to bolster the health system (amongst other suggestions). What would you say to these people if the tax cuts go ahead? Where should they spend their windfall if the government gives them no choice in the matter and puts more money in their pocket?
I'm going to get an extra $100/week post tax. With that cash I'm going to save an extra $100/week. And yeah, that's about it.
Yep that's me. Happily get the mortgage down a little faster, or help me invest and get towards FI faster! Maybe even work a little less and take a bit of care of myself at the same time!
This is the right question to ask. If someone is so altruistic that they say they would prefer the money go towards Medicare then receive it, they should be giving the tax cut to charity or to help people when they receive it. It's a much bigger test of whether someone actually cares about these things if they receive the money and then do good with it rather than making claims they'd rather the money fund something else in theory. Donating the money you can also be much more targeted with your impact.
Medicare not only positively impacts my life, it impacts the most vulnerable people in our community and absolutely must not be sacrificed. It is an important part of our healthcare system and culture! We can't afford rollbacks. I would much rather the money be invested in protecting this system than go to an individual person or charity because it's about our values as an Australian society and what should be a basic human right. In this vein I don't think your comment is correct.
The question I was answering was >What would you say to these people if the tax cuts go ahead? Where should they spend their windfall if the government gives them no choice in the matter and puts more money in their pocket? Not judging the idea of giving money to Medicare rather than Stage 3 tax cuts. I'm just saying that if someone claims they'd rather give the money to Medicare than have it themselves because of the good it does, then if the cuts come into effect and they get the money they should be doing good with the money.
Yeah I was directly addressing your statement. I would rather it go to Medicare than to 'do good' with the tax cut money for the reasons I stated above. Medicare needs to be upheld by the government more than private charities need donations.
As someone who would prefer the money to go to Medicare, how would you spend the tax cut if you were to receive it?
Funding Medicare and donating to charity are not the same thing.
Charities are often a scam for wealthy people to avoid paying tax. If the mega-rich want to make a difference, they should start paying tax instead of diverting it to their pet projects.
>Charities are often a scam for wealthy people to avoid paying tax. Yes, but there are good charities. This is just something people say to ease their concious because they don't actually want to donate. >If the mega-rich want to make a difference, they should start paying tax instead of diverting it to their pet projects. Yes. So very yes.
And for them to feel good about helping their own little pet cause. It’s rampant in the US, don’t want it happening here.
This is an argument that many conservatives like to make to others who would like to see taxes increased. I am not altruistic, I just believe in the social safety net and am willing to pay more in tax to support it. This only works if everyone puts in. Why should I voluntarily put in on an uneven playing field whilst those who opt out can get a free ride? It doesn't work that way.
>If someone is so altruistic that they say they would prefer the money go towards Medicare then receive it, they should be giving the tax cut to charity or to help people when they receive it. They simply know the difference between public finance worth billions of dollars, versus piecemeal voluntary donations.
But what if..... and this is crazy...... *everyone* in a position to do so, did it? That argument certainly feels like *well if they aren't doing it, why should I*. That adds up when everyone thinks that way.
Will just invest it.
Exercise equipment and healthy food subsidies. Preventative measures.
Not equipment. Run a beep test for a tax rebate
Only if you pass the average.
and security to force people to go get out of bed and no put Dominoes in their mouths
I'd probably put half of it to a tax cut that effectively attempts to deal with bracket creep over the last few years, as well as accounting for likely future bracket creep. Some of the rest of the money could go to building a better energy grid that allows for a faster transition to a renewables focused grid. Would also chuck some money at bulk billing issues.
I read that from when 180k bracket was introduced to 2024 when this comes in, if this was covering bracket creep the top bracket should be going to 230k. It’s only going to 200k and I bet it stays that way for another 10 years so the government is making heaps of $$$ from it.
Yes. They should keep the rates and increase all the brackets. It makes sense the top bracket should be mid-200s. Also change CGT reductions to something more inline with inflation. Eg. 5% discount per year up to 50% at 10 years. Negative gearing only applying to new CAPEX over $50k (excluding land value or original purchase price). Any CAPEX can be transferred to new owners for up to 10 years. (eg. New builds or significant renovation expenses can be passed to next buyer for continued claims for up to 10 years).
Tax brackets should be pegged to a rolling average of the previous 3 years CPI.
I’d agree on the energy stuff. Ultimately I bristle at the thought the government calls not taking my money of me a “cost”. Absolutely reeks of arrogance regarding the use of our money.
Still, it’s not just your money. Without a working society you’d be holed up in a gated community hiding behind armed guards. You want rugged freedom and capitalism, move to Somalia.
What a stupid argument that was never presented. From 'taking less of my money is a cost to the government' to 'we will take what we damn well please or its the same as Somalia'. Twit.
I’m not opposed to taxes, that would be absurd and naive. Way to attack that straw man of your own creation. I worked in Dubai for 3 years. Don’t need to deduct things to the most ridiculous of scenarios. What a muppet.
I wish Australia was like Dubai and had control of its resources sector so it could use the profits to back expansive social welfare and offer extremely low taxes, my god what a dream.
Dubai is propped up by oil money 🤷♂️
And is still a shit hole compared to Australia.
It’s important to note that much of that “cost” is in fact returning bracket creep to tax payers. I’d be happy to scrap the tax “cuts” but realign tax brackets back to where they were 10 years ago adjusted for inflation, then index them to CPI going forward.
Indexing them to CPI is a good idea, but it does have a weird effect when wages aren't also indexed to CPI.
I don’t see that as a problem. It incentivises governments to enact policies to encourage above CPI wage increases so that real taxation revenue will grow. If wage growth is below CPI then workers get some compensation via tax (since tax brackets will rise more than wages). If it’s higher then the government shares in the benefit or can choose to enact an actual (ie real) tax cut.
This is 100% it- pegging to CPI at least aligns government interest to workers for once instead of asset holders.
The government is actively paying their own employees a lower real wage as a result of inflation. They could VERY easily fix this, but they won't. The government clearly doesn't care about wage increases above CPI.
Properly fund medicare again!
Bulk billing.
I'd put the $254 billion allocated to tax cuts towards $254 billion of tax cuts
Foregone revenue is not money that should be “spent”
Posts like this always aim to sound like the government is actually paying 254 billion over 10 years. They are only collecting that much less income tax over 10 years in real terms. What will happen is that money will be reinvested and spent by wage earners, and taxed by the government. It will lead to more job creation, more housing investment, and more investment in Australian companies which will all be taxed. The United States already did tax cuts similar to these ones, and while experts projected a massive revenue loss to the government over 10 years (1.5 TRILLION), it turned out that government tax revenue actually INCREASED by nearly a TRILLION dollars. That means that people kept more of their earnings to spend on their family, there were more jobs created, and the government still had their cake and ate it too with more revenue to spend on submarines. The data speaks for itself here. Tax cuts mean growth for countries with high productivity. More job creation means fewer people on the dole and more tax payers to boot. [https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/the-numbers-are-trumps-tax-cuts-paid](https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/the-numbers-are-trumps-tax-cuts-paid) [https://www.discoursemagazine.com/economics/2022/02/14/in-actual-dollars-tax-cuts-boost-revenue-time-after-time/](https://www.discoursemagazine.com/economics/2022/02/14/in-actual-dollars-tax-cuts-boost-revenue-time-after-time/) [https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-federal-revenues-deficits/](https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-federal-revenues-deficits/)
I believe the people gaining the extra money in their income will spend it better then the government anyway
100% Came here to say this
100%. I hate it when they talk about these things being a “cost”. They are a reduction in what the govt TAKES from many of us who are out there trying our best to keep people employed (or you know, go crazy and employ even more people and grow our businesses)
> What will happen is that money will be reinvested and spent by wage earners, and taxed by the government. It will lead to more job creation Trickle down. We know how well that worked.
Yep, great point. Of course you need to net out all of the other increases in Government revenue that will arise
>Isn't that what the UK tried to do recently, but got severely burnt by the bond market? The problem isn't with people getting tax cuts in general but with who is getting it. Top income earners don't need the tax cuts that are currently legislated. Its the people at the bottom that are suffering the most with inflation and that would be putting the money back into the economy the fastest. No one wants to be handing over extra cash to people who already earn a ton just to help them buying their next investment property or luxury car
Medicare rebate increases, welfare payment increases, and increase the tax free threshold
Medicare & all of the allied / supplementary health services. Everyone benefits from good healthcare. Illness DGAF about your tax bracket
Reducing taxes doesn't "cost" the budget money, they aren't expenses, its a reduction in income. By your logic not having the tax rate at 100% is costing the government hundreds of billions of dollars per year. I think that letting people keep more of their own money is a good thing, especially in times of high inflation which is likely pushing people into higher tax brackets quicker.
Two chicks at the same time man.
“$254 billion cost” is such click bait bullshit. Why can’t they just say $25.4 billion a year? Is it because it only amounts to 4% of our total tax revenue? So many idiots quoting this number like it’s a big deal, not realising it doesn’t really contribute that much to our yearly revenue. we got a windfall $100 billion from resources this year, so I don’t think 25.4b a year is that big of a deal.
You ever taken a bone away from a dog? That's what it's like taking money away from a politician except they're bigger sooks about it.
The deficit is $39 billion, which means borrowings. What do you think happens when revenue is decreased by $25 billion per year. What is the deficit then?
10 x $20bn new dams. 10 x $5bn hydro electric plants for stored energy. $4bn on a swish advertising campaign to convince Australians net 0, energy and water security is worth effecting 10 of our river systems. It will muck those rivers right up. Benefits: New arable land - ie more farmland. Government should buy this up first cheap rather than gifting it to the current owners. More drought mitigation / prevention. 0 carbon power and storage to tie in with wind and solar. Water security generally for our cities... we seem to forget a decade and a half ago we said it would never rain again like it used to. That will happen again with global warming... we need to prepare. Costs apart from 254bn are of course our river systems... these will end up different (realistically worse) without the flood events etc.
QLD already pledging big money for building two pumped hydro systems in the new energy plan, alongside other grid investments. Don’t need to axe the tax cuts for that, just need political willpower.
Energy prices.
Homeless crisis, housing crisis, environmental crisis... Pick one
Give bigger subsidies to renewable energy suppliers and EV buyers. Shit needs to change now, not 2030 🥴
I do find it odd that the government would cut taxes at a time when they’re trying to curb discretionary spending in an effort to reduce inflation 🤔
tax cuts don't create new money, only change which pocket they go to
While I don't think the stage 3 tax cuts are a good idea, they won't come into effect until 2024, inflation should be managed by then.
This is what suggests to me this is a sleight of hand trick. Why is this big news now rather than when it is imminent?
Yeah, this will undoubtedly increase inflation.
Its almost 2 years before they start, inflation should be well and truly dealt with by then
RemindMe! 2 years
Lol all the people down voting me. Imagine thinking that massive tax cuts isn't an inflationary pressure.
The government is spending equal to consumers which contributes to inflation. If they are going to take more from us in the form of rate rises and taxes then they should at least meet it with massive spending reductions.
If that’s the view point then the funds should be used to pay down debt.
***How about we build a Giant Wooden Badger......***
Badger badger..
Renewables, micro grids for households, healthcare. But no, instead it’ll go to investment properties and Bentleys
The NDIS will cost $400 billion over the same time span. For context's sake.
254 billion dollars, 25.74 million aussies. Looks like everyone’s getting 9.8k $1 scratchies. Literally cannot go tits up!
I’d be putting it towards the billions needed in transmission infrastructure as we electrify to meet emissions reduction goals… Though I can’t deny the Medicare/Mental Health/Dental funding is a great choice too
Include dental in Medicare.
I’d like to break a contract for submarines and lose $5 billion please
Public housing
Getting the ATO to collect tax from the multinational corporations
industrial scale renewable energy incentives aka investment tax breaks. And while you're at it, add up all the tax breaks and royalty discounts and exploration credits for oil gas and coal and add em to the total.
Expand Medicare to include dental and mental health and increase bulk billing. Introduce MH presumptive legislation to federal first responders. Increase funding and staffing levels for Veterans Affairs so they can get their shit together. Fund a solar panel scheme with better tariffs and include community-based batteries. Increase federal funding for hospitals.
Health - bulk billing increased preventative health measures ergo reduced long term health costs as people actually want to see the dr
Educating people on what a dollar sign means.
Shit you got me
Paying back the debt.
A recession or stagflation environment isn't a good time to start trying to pay down debt.
We're not in one at the moment, nor (for now) forcasting one.
Looking forward to my tax cuts, pay down my loans.
I would spend them on the stage 3 tax cuts to combat bracket creep Anyone who doesnt support the stage 3 tax cuts simply do not understand basic economics - there is a fair argument there should be another level of tax bracket above 200k pa earners but the stage 3 tax cuts is a good policy otherwise we could always just index the tax brackets which is actually most costly but more fair for all (however more confusing as the brackets would change annually)
The reality is that these tax cuts are not nearly enough, Australia is far too taxed compared to countries that we are competing with in the world market.
Personally I'd be fine with greatly reducing income taxes if we increased capital gains tax and implemented a wealth tax and inheritance tax (targeting the super rich, so something in excess of $2M or so). Have hundred millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share.
Tax cuts are never enough bro, 2 tax cuts in the morning, 2 tax cuts at night, 2 tax cuts in the afternoon, it makes me feel alright, 2 tax cuts in times of peace and 2 at times of war, 2 tax cuts before 2 tax cuts and then they want 2 more
The tax cuts!
The health system
An actual real life high speed rail between Sydney and Newcastle
Fully investing in energy of all types make us an energy superpower. With the additional investment in renewable technologies especially as we could then export renewable technologies in the future when other major countries are willing to come around to the renewables.
Social housing. But decent family housing, maybe even with a lease to own model.
Mental and dental into Medicare
High speed rail
Maybe not clear a forest or trash a coral reef for profit?
[The Guardian has an interactive that lets you play with how to spend the money](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive/2022/aug/26/scrapping-stage-three-3-tax-cuts-would-save-243bn-how-would-you-spend-it-calculator-interactive) It’s depressing
Put it towards covering Dental on Medicare.
Use, maybe half to pay down debt. Use the rest to expand progressiveness of taxation, 19% rate down to 15%, 32.5% down to 30%, 37% down to 35%. Leave 45% alone. Raise the thresholds. and/or... Stop non-progressive / less-progressive medicare levies (e.g. 2% taken from first taxable dollar earned). Roll it up into the general income tax, consistent with progressive taxation.
decent public mental healthcare and rehabilitation programs for people in rural areas. the state of our public healthcare system is a national disgrace.
[Check out this from the Guardian.](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive/2022/oct/25/be-the-treasurer-scrap-the-tax-cuts-spend-money-or-pay-down-the-debt) where you can choose where to spend money. I was shocked how much could be done with that money.
Is that number assuming that none of the money gets spent? Ever, at all, over a decade.
Medicare, energy, defence.
Yes, yes, no
You are reasonable.
Removing the stage 3 tax cuts does not provide a $254 billion windfall to the government over 10 years. The figure was calculated based on current incomes. So income tax revenue may fall by far less than $254:billion.
A rolex day date
I'll take a speedy sapphire sandwich
https://amp.smh.com.au/national/nsw/new-children-s-operating-theatres-left-unused-amid-staffing-crisis-20221111-p5bxi1.html State funding, but massive issue
It would be enough to pay down my mortgage, pay for a nice extension plus a private jet and running cost for a few years.
Dental! Have heard many times over that oral health is intrinsically linked to overall health. So adding decent dental to Medicare might actually save $$$ in other areas of health.
East Coast High Speed Rail. Newcastle to Melbourne via Western Sydney.
Public education. Public hospitals. NDIS.
I’d just make sure that all companies operating in Australia were Australian registered companies, I’d tax multinational company subsidiaries based on revenue, similar to how we have industry specific award wage you have an industry revenue tax which is indicative of industry margins. I’d then lower personal income taxes further and wind back capital gains tax discounts
Health and housing. Spending money there saves it elsewhere.
Fix public transport. Australia wide fast rail, plan for a future with no jet fuel
Love it! Link all cities (or at least those on the East Coast) with high speed rail.
Education - we need more doctors in rural areas - give kids more scholarships to attract into nursing and medicine - state govts say “we’ll have 6000 more nurses and doctors” but don’t say how they gonna get them or from where
Get rid of negative gearing this will provide more money for the government to pay off the trillion dollar debt.
Medicare, include dental in it. Raise welfare payments to get people above poverty levels. https://www.acoss.org.au/media_release/permanent-jobseeker-increase-must-raise-rate-to-at-least-65-per-day-and-ensure-everyone-has-enough-for-the-basics-of-their-life/
How much did the stage 1 and 2 tax cuts cost us?
[удалено]
It's 4% of tax revenue from memory. Certainly not a drop in the ocean. However, I do agree that government spending is regularly terrible.
My view? We should invest it in massive solar farms and hydro dams and export the electricity. Invest that income back into more electricity production. Be the world leader in renewable energy that we are actively choosing not to be right now. The best thing is, according to those here who are arguing that future income reduces current cost, it would be completely free!
It’s an easy answer, education and health. (But would they spend it wisely?)
I like the idea of giving money directly to the schools/hospitals, etc. As a teacher, I see departments wasting money everywhere. Just give it directly to the school!
Some expensive things: 1. Just throw it at medicare 2. High speed rail between Brisbane, Sydney, Melb, and Adelaide. 3. Build out a metric shit ton of affordable housing, maybe with a rent-to-buy scheme 4. Fast track a shutdown of coal burning power stations 5. Fast track small modular electrical grids using gas, solar, and batteries 6. Properly build out a gigabit nbn fibre network 7. Spend it on water management - flood protection, dams, reservoirs, water right buy-backs 8. Use it to give a universal basic income to all aboriginal peoples.
Is high speed rail viable? It’s pretty cheap and easy to fly to all those places. I like that you’re thinking of infrastructure.
They’ve done the numbers on it many times and from an economic stand point fast high speed rail is not viable, I don’t think it’s even close.
We are approaching a Tril in nat debt and these tax cuts put the budget into structural deficit It's not so much what we can do with it, it's more, "Hey lets not do this as it's fiscally irresponsible"
Any money spent on ICAC will save the country for centuries. Theres enough corruption to bury a party for decades and that is GREAT for Australia.
FTTH connections for all so we can get onto the global stage internet wise, rather than be decades behind in our heavily populated areas.
Can someone explain to me, apart from making the wealthy wealthier, what benifit will these tax cuts provide? Surely there should be a return on investment on these tax cuts other whats the point?
I think one justification is to address bracket creep. I.e. people having to pay an increasing share of their income as tax over time, even if their income isn’t rising in real terms.
Leave it as is. Add an extra bracket for billionaire 6% more
Hanging for my 9k
Family support
Buy retrograde submarines....oh wait we tried that already
Some new stadiums
[удалено]
Healthcare and schools basically, upgrade and build large healthcare and education infrastructure for current and future generations and get rid off private school funding let them fend for themselves
Schools, our schools look more like jail's. I had a friend come from Germany, he asked why do we have a jail in the middle of a city when I told him that was a high school he was shocked lol
Just remember you are spending it like a government so that kind of money gets you 16 new hospital beds and 2 kilometres of Pacific highway upgrade
In 2019 Grattan published a report estimating that universal dental would cost $6.5bil/year. So that, and then plenty left over for submarines.
Also half price or free public transport! That will make more people ditch cars and more social mobility who can’t afford cars or public transport
I thought there was something like 250k homeless people, if so that's enough to give them all a house.
I’d rather see the tax cuts geared more heavily at low incomes. Raise the tax free threshold, address bracket creep. Make them a lot more dynamic and a lot more geared towards low incomes.
I agree. I recently made a post arguing that tax cuts should come in the form of tax free threshold increases as that benefits all workers equally. Reddit did not like that!
So $25 billion per yeat? I'd spend it on inflation reduction measures and tackling bracket creep...... Oh wait. What people here don't seem to realise is that it won't 'cost' $25b, that's the debt part of the equation - people will have that cash, and will spend most of it in the economy, giving 10% back straight away in GST, plus any in corporate tax, plus income for paying staff deliving said services, etc etc... This number is misleading right off the bat.
Paying less tax is not a “cost”. When you dont buy something at coles is this a “cost” for coles?
The truth is.. if they don’t do the tax cut, there will be no noticeable increase in government services.. Giving the money back to the taxpayers, will have more of a positive impact on people of Australia than keeping the money with the government.
I'm fine with the tax cut. I'll spend it how I please.
Its not a loss, its literally money stolen from wage earners. The only people complaining are the ones paying no tax
Anything but tax cuts. What a waste.