Jump to content


Photo

Federal Budget


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#31 Raelene

Raelene

    Part of the Furniture

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,206 posts

Posted 12 May 2006 - 12:30 AM

QUOTE (Little Poppett @ May 11 2006, 11:33 PM)
Fine Melhoneybee ...then all those people earning high salaries will stop earning them and stop paying the high taxes- then what will happen to those low income earners??

Don't forget the cost of private health cover that high income earners need to pay which takes away from need to use public hospitals

Imagine if those high income earners stopped earning those incomes and stopped paying private health insurance.... imagine the hospital waiting list and the amount of bitching there would be over that - its bad enough as it is now

#32 Mrs M

Mrs M

    Whispering Sweet Nothings...

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,958 posts

Posted 12 May 2006 - 10:24 AM

Absolutely not wanting to start anything I swear.

Court - you say you have a tight budget, am I right in assuming you and hubby are in the higher tax bracket?

Why is it that different to another couple in a lower tax bracket with the same mortgage and one child, two cars etc.

Same circumstances just different incomes.

is that making sense? And it's just a question not an attack or a jibe just something i'm curious of.


You earn more, you buy more? You earn more you owe more? You earn more, you have more financial responsibilities?


Anyone in the same situation (Sheri) feel free to answer.

If you would prefer my inbox is open.



Benjamin Seth 25/09/03 ~ Luke and Bec 23/04/05 ~ Bianca Kate 10/01/06

#33 *Michelle*

*Michelle*

    Jacks mummy

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,743 posts

Posted 12 May 2006 - 10:34 AM

OHHH Sheri is rich... ohmy.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif tongue.gif
IPB Image


<a href="http://lilypie.com/"><img src="http://lb4f.lilypie....om/SMiVp10.png" width="400" height="80" border="0" alt="Lilypie Fourth Birthday tickers" /></a>



#34 *Michelle*

*Michelle*

    Jacks mummy

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,743 posts

Posted 12 May 2006 - 10:43 AM

My sister is a chatered account and her hubby is a mechanical engineer so they are earnign pretty big money compared to me.Adam and I probably combined earn what my sister does in a week.She doesnt live a high life.They have a nice home.I think it is a preconvieved notion that high income earners live an extravagant lifestyle.They just have different priorities and different expenses.
Adam and I are low income earners but i imagine there are people out there earnign less than us that must be envious of what we have and wish they were the sme.

Everyone is different and everyone earns different amounts doesnt mean they have a money pile sitting in the corner whilst all of us struggle.I have heard so many people here and IRL complain that the high income earners are geting such a big tax break.But to me it makes sense they pay a hell of a lot more.My dad is a coal miner and pays more in tax a year than what I earn so of course he would get a higher tax cut.If i was to get a $150 a week tax cut i would pay nothing in tax(as I dont pay that much)then what would happen to our country.If we were all treated the same and all given the same tax cut we wouldnt collect any taxes.
Then I heard someone at work say the high income earners shouldnt get a tax cut just middle and low but i dont think that is fair.My dad and sister work hard why should nt they be entitled to what we get.Most of us had a chance to get an eduaction and go further and get bigger paying jobs btu i know i never even tried so I cant be mad at anyone other than myself that I have a low income..
IPB Image


<a href="http://lilypie.com/"><img src="http://lb4f.lilypie....om/SMiVp10.png" width="400" height="80" border="0" alt="Lilypie Fourth Birthday tickers" /></a>



#35 Erasing the digi footprint

Erasing the digi footprint

    muchacha feliz en la tierra

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,743 posts

Posted 12 May 2006 - 10:51 AM

QUOTE (Mrs M @ May 12 2006, 10:24 AM)
Absolutely not wanting to start anything I swear.

Court - you say you have a tight budget, am I right in assuming you and hubby are in the higher tax bracket?

Why is it that different to another couple in a lower tax bracket with the same mortgage and one child, two cars etc.

Same circumstances just different incomes.

is that making sense? And it's just a question not an attack or a jibe just something i'm curious of.


You earn more, you buy more? You earn more you owe more? You earn more, you have more financial responsibilities?


Anyone in the same situation (Sheri) feel free to answer.

If you would prefer my inbox is open.

Bingo Bec!!

That is exactly what I am trying to say- that no matter what your income/tax level, people still have responsibilities within those means.

Just because someone is a higher income earner doesn't necessary mean they are living the high life, and not all those on a lower income necessarily struggling.

Yes, we do earn high incomes and are in the higest bracket (soon to be second highest on July 1st) but we live within those salaries as well (ie $3000 a month mortgage for starters, $75 a day childcare after the CCCB)

I am certainly not saying that we are strugglers but that we too deserve some tax relief just as much as any other tax payer.

I am pleased to see EVERYONE get a tax a break but get a bit defensive when people say things like 'as usual the rich getting richer' and such things as it is just not the case. It is all relative...


Anyway- I think you said it the best in your post (as always!! smile.gif )

#36 CharlieLexie

CharlieLexie

    To love and be loved is to feel the sun from both sides

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,261 posts

Posted 12 May 2006 - 11:12 AM

QUOTE (Anita @ May 11 2006, 10:27 AM)
I thought there was a new thing that you could claim your out of pocket expenses on childcare in your tax return? Or was the just a nice media spin to make it sound like that's what was hapening? dry.gif

Yes you do I think Anita, that's true.

But, you have to spend it to get it back. I guess I was more looking at immediate fee relief, rather than relief come tax time IYKWIM?
IPB Image

#37 shazburger

shazburger

    Centurion

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,715 posts

Posted 12 May 2006 - 11:59 AM

I felt as if the government kicked us in the teeth for being DIWNK...
don't get me wring it is great for the families but what about some relief for us... i cannot help that i am infertile!!! Maybe they could have cut our tax bracket from 30% to 25% and helped out so many more people....

#38 melhoneybee

melhoneybee

    Frequent Poster

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 880 posts

Posted 12 May 2006 - 03:16 PM

QUOTE (Raelene @ May 12 2006, 12:30 AM)
Don't forget the cost of private health cover that high income earners need to pay which takes away from need to use public hospitals

Imagine if those high income earners stopped earning those incomes and stopped paying private health insurance.... imagine the hospital waiting list and the amount of bitching there would be over that - its bad enough as it is now

people earning an average income of just over 50k also have private health insurance-maybe we should be thanking them before those on over 150k as Little Poppett pointed out above. We earn a decent income and would get stung by the government surcharge on it if we didn't have insurance-it is middle australia that pays the majority of money into private health insurance rather than just high income earners.

All i am saying is that yes everyone deserves tax relief, but shouldnt the majority of that go to those at the bottom of society rather than the top? The magnitude of tax cuts to the most affluent is large compared with poor people.
In sydney a recent survey found that the workers most likely to drive to work were poor people who lived out west but worked in areas not easily accessible to public transport. The $10 a week they get back will barely cover the increase in their petrol costs this year. Bagging me out to make yourself feel better won't change the fact that a lot of people in australia live below the poverty line, and an extra $10 in their pockets means a lot more to them than an extra $10 in my pocket.
]

#39 Duckette

Duckette

    Not around these days, for those interested

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,687 posts

Posted 12 May 2006 - 06:44 PM

QUOTE (melhoneybee @ May 12 2006, 12:16 PM)
people earning an average income of just over 50k also have private health insurance-maybe we should be thanking them before those on over 150k as Little Poppett pointed out above. We earn a decent income and would get stung by the government surcharge on it if we didn't have insurance-it is middle australia that pays the majority of money into private health insurance rather than just high income earners.

All i am saying is that yes everyone deserves tax relief, but shouldnt the majority of that go to those at the bottom of society rather than the top? The magnitude of tax cuts to the most affluent is large compared with poor people.
In sydney a recent survey found that the workers most likely to drive to work were poor people who lived out west but worked in areas not easily accessible to public transport. The $10 a week they get back will barely cover the increase in their petrol costs this year. Bagging me out to make yourself feel better won't change the fact that a lot of people in australia live below the poverty line, and an extra $10 in their pockets means a lot more to them than an extra $10 in my pocket.

I think that the point you are missing is that it is all RELATIVE!

We aren't classed as high income earners but are just above what you seem to be calling 'middle australia'. We too are hit with the medicare level and have the highest cover for our private health insurance - but this is our CHOICE. We definately aren't well off and sometimes we do infact struggle.

That being said I don't get that much support for the government for anything unsure.gif, we don't use public hospitals and I don't get a health care card or benefit card.

As I said (before the ramblings) it is all relative, those that earn a lower income in most cases are eligable for more support from the government wink.gif

#40 melhoneybee

melhoneybee

    Frequent Poster

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 880 posts

Posted 13 May 2006 - 10:30 AM

let's not forget that this is not the first budget that has delivered high tax cuts for the most affluent. There has been regular substantial tax adjustments at the high end of the tax scales every year for the last 5 years.
Explain to me how it is fair and equitable for someone on twice my income to receive not twice the amount back in their pockets, but 10 times the amount.

I think even those in here who benefit the most from the tax cuts at the top end would find it hard to explain how much a person with an income of $1million a year really needs an extra $450 a week in their pocket when the health system is falling apart, and the education system is not much better. Thank god i have private health insurance, but i feel for those who can't afford it, and can't trust the public system which is being starved of money now.
]

#41 hubby33

hubby33

    Member

  • frequent poster
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts

Posted 13 May 2006 - 12:07 PM

The main issue with giving the lower or middle income earners a tax break is the high cost. This year the shifting of the tax bracket from $21600 to $25000 gave everyone the $10 a week tax cut. There are some 10M people employed in Australia so if even 70% of people who are employed are earning over 25K the cost for moving the bottom tax bracket to $25K is a huge $70M a week - or $3.6bn a year.

Alternatively, the cost of moving the top tax bracket from from cutting in at $95K to $150K and reducing the rate to 45c is much lower. Say you are earning $150K this change gives you an extra $75 a week tax break (you also get the $10 as above, plus other breaks in the other marginal tax rates). If 2% of employeed people are earning $150K then the total cost of this change is only $15M a week or $0.78bn a year. While the tax break looks very high it doesn't cost the government all that much compared to the changes of the lower end of the tax regime.

The govt also hopes that changing the top end of the tax regime will reduce the attractiveness of dodging tax and hopefully more people earning higher salaries will actually pay tax. If you try to give too much back to 'middle Australia' not only will it cost too much but it removes incentives to work harder/earn more. Not too long ago if you were earning $65K you were paying 48.5c in the dollar tax for every bit of overtime, extra work you did (plus HECS repayments). So why would you bother? Suddenly you're earning less on an hourly rate than someone doing far less stressful and difficult work... the new tax system at least gives some incentive to earn more (but I don't know many who are trying to earn less).




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users