Beoz

Awww Tom. Karl, Scott, Sunrise, Pink Batts. Not really relevant here.

However what is relevant is that many Liberal members and supporters are no longer interested in the content served up by the ABC and have made their feelings known, and since those people pay tax and are a large part of the overall population, these thoughts need to be taken seriously, and not diverted to a what if, what about him, what about that scenario as you are trying to do.

This is exactly why there are guidelines as to the way the ABC are to behave. The ABC needs to serve more people than it currently does. Even light right leaning people are no longer interested in the ABC and many in the centre as the content is too far left.

Let's hope the process changes the behaviour of the ABC so more can enjoy. That's all that's relevant here. Pink Batts as a decade old topic does not.

Amazulu

Not so straightforward as you are making out comrade

Just because a company is in the private sector does not mean that it will provide a decent product - just as not all government entities provide value for money for the taxpayer. There are plenty of companies all over the world that offer shit products, doesn't mean you are forced to use them, and if you are getting crap service, at least you can change to a competitor - not usually a choice you have with government services or departments. I personally wouldn't go anywhere near anything Optus offers - they are a muppet outfit. I pay for SBS through my taxes and am happy to get some value from my dollar

Nice try though

Beoz

Everyone (almost) is a winner. Well done Mr Average.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fede...21-p4zmuz.html

GarryP

Assuming Trunbull can't manage to lie his way to a win (which seems unlikely given the polls) then the overpaid end of town are unlikely to ever get their flat tax rake off. In fact by trying to force through the corrupt later stages of this warped little plan, Trunbull has given Shorten an easy stick to beat him with in the upcoming election. He doesn't have to claim that Trunbull is only for the rich - he just needs to point to the con he's tried to pull.

So not only is it a dirty little "rob from the poor to pay to the rich", it was strategically a stupid move.

Amazulu

Great news for me if these tax cuts can survive the next few years

Government has a spending, not revenue problem. Cut taxes, cut government interference in our lives. Everyone's a winner

Amazulu

Billy Boy Shorten will have to deal with the same senate as Turnbull with many of the cross bench senators conservative and right-wing

Good luck to him repealing legislated tax-cuts through that senate!

Beoz

The first part he already beats. It's easy because the dopey believe it even though it's another BS lie. The second part is harder. Firstly it doesn't exist, and secondly he needs to make it simple, otherwise the dopey won't understand it.

Most are getting pay cuts and the beauty of this is the me me me are generally dopey so they revert to what's in it for me.

Great move by the Libs and because we can afford it, timing is exceptional and will lead to greater economic growth.

Bye bye BS. Hello Albo. Albo wouldn't be too bad. No Melbourne Union history. That stuff is so ancient history.

old.sparkles

If most are getting pay cuts then how does that lead to economic growth?

If we assume that you meant tax cuts (hark at the pot) then for the poorer end of town, it will hardly lead to economic growth since the biggest winners will see only $10 a week, most of which wont be seen until 1 July, 2019.

The increase to the tax bracket from $87k to $90k only accounts for bracket creep, but will produce more immediate results - a whopping $2.30 a week to everyone earning $90k or over.
My understanding is, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no immediate affect for anyone earning below $87k but they will see a refund up to $530 next year.

And if these changes are meant to be to make people aspirational, I fail to see how. If people were capable of earning $200k I'm sure they would regardless of what tax bracket that put them in. If that money had been ploughed into schools, TAFE's or apprenticeships, it could have done so much more in my opinion. I can get by without an extra $2.30 a week but investment in peoples futures could have enabled some people to stay in education or go back to it.

The low earning end of town are not all me, me, me - that always seem to be the opposite end to me but that's just my view point.

Amazulu

Again, the Australian government has a spending problem not a revenue one. They are rolling in tax money. They can cut plenty without affecting services and infrastructure spending - they have too many passengers (aka civil servants), too much red tape, too much welfare and social spending. Cut a shitload of that and they can cut taxes as well as reducing debt and providing what they need to provide. Everyone's a winner

Beoz

Good pick up. Yes tax cuts.

Interesting you mention "aspirational". Along with giving the low and middle end a break sooner rather than later ($500 odd dollars shouldn't be coughed at if you are on a low income) long term there are incentives for aspirational folk who would like to try and earn more, and the benefit of earning more for all, is you pay more tax, helping out all, which could be used to plough into schools, TAFE's or apprenticeships amongst all the other things our tax provides.

You can't keep giving, giving and giving to those who are contributing the least without some type of driver to encourage some of those to move beyond the lower brackets. However they are being looked after short term whereas the wealthy are not.

Sometimes we tend to forget that those earning higher always pay more tax so when it comes down to giving a break, the higher earners are going to receive a higher break, not in percentage terms but in final value terms. Its the way it works and its fair for all.

old.sparkles

What are the incentives because I must have missed that?

I do know that a bog standard TAFE course is around $1200 (or at least here in SA), that trade skills can only be learnt if you have an employer on a formal apprenticeship, and the cost of Uni is around $5k semester.

People on low incomes, or Centrelink cannot afford these readily. Even if you assume they get the full $500 next year it doesn't really help. Rather than funding tax cuts now, more apprenticeships and more free courses could have helped get some people on the job ladder, which will lead hopefully to lower welfare spending.

Alternatively, better incentives to employers to provide permanent positions rather than the use of casual workers might help those working and earning lower incomes to at least plan for a future rather than living week to week.

GarryP

Actually funding more courses can actually make things worse. If there are lots of graduates of such courses who can do the job, new positions aren't going to magically appear. Rather the wages and conditions for those in such positions falls and employers take advantage.

So if say there were 1000 jobs and 980 people who could do them - each would be paid a living wage. Train 100 more and wages fall such that 1080 people are now not earning a living wage. You not only have less economic activity, you have more welfare costs.

To fix the problem you also need to expand the number of roles, and be a bit smarter about the training - what, where, how many, etc.

And in an age when automation can turn those 1000 jobs into 100 overnight - particularly in those jobs where you can do quick, cheap, training - you need a much bigger vision (bigger than political parties have).

Beoz

Budget 2018: Find out how much the tax cut will save you next year, and beyond - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Everyone one is a winner at some point giving those who wish to contribute more some time to work towards the incentive.


Something I did 25 years ago was to loan money which was paid back when I finished and started earning. It looks like that is still available today in NSW. Not sure about SA.

Commonwealth Student Loans

A large number of our TAFE NSW vocational and higher education courses are eligible for loans and we have a range of options to help you pay for your course. You may be eligible to access a Commonwealth loan under VET Student Loans if you are enrolling in Diploma, Advanced Diploma or Vocational Graduate Certificate qualifications, or FEE-HELP if you are enrolling in a Higher Education program (Associate or Bachelor degree). Students need to repay the loan when they reach a defined income level.

"Casual Workers" and "week to week" is a bit of a sound bite cliche we keep hearing peddled out right now, however you are right, better incentives for employers to employ is always a good thing and something that always interests the right type of government.

How about this? Company tax cuts? We already have them through for smaller businesses, and there is now a push to have them for all businesses. We don't know whether it will provide incentives for businesses to employ, however, we need to remain competitive rather than scare away foreign businesses, which is what's happening as we deemed as too expensive to operate and too expensive to employ, so really we don't have a choice.

Of course, if your only weapon as an opposition is this, then you are really clutching at straws. However, the me me me will love it.

https://theconversation.com/labor-ma...ls-money-98838

Beoz

However it never works that way in practice. You might have a 1000 accountancy jobs today, tomorrow you have 1200, all because the role has expanded there are more things in the market place required from accountants - history shows us that. And automation, which is very prevalent in accountancy, has done nothing to enforce your theory above.

old.sparkles

I've seen the information on the tax cuts before - I fail to see how that helps people earn more. The fact is, if I only earn $18.000 pa because there is only part time work available, and the competition for full time roles is high, or there aren't any currently, then seeing a tax cut for those on $38,000 doesn't change that. I'm fairly certain that it doesn't incentivise you to try and reach that level, because the higher income itself is incentive enough. In case you think that no-one earns as low as $18,000 - that would be 20 hours a week in a minimum wage job. Of course, the 2.4% increase in the minimum wage would see that rise to nearly 18,500 from 1st July, but still not enough to benefit from tax cuts because it's not enough to pay tax.

Yes there are loans available but as your own info shows, this is most often available for higher courses, and you still need to find the funds for the lower courses enabling you to access those.

I don't care if you think 'casual workers' and 'week to week' sound like sound bites because for the people I work with it is the reality. Casuals are only guaranteed a minimum of 4 hours work if they start a shift - if they are not rostered, or they get cancelled before the shift begins, they get nothing. Company tax cuts will not guarantee them permanent positions - not sure if anything will, but maybe a cash incentive would or covering a new employees super for the first year (I don't know - not my area of expertise).