Originally Posted by Beoz (Post 10149518)

Just have to get something off my chest.

Driving in the car yesterday a commercial came on the radio about changes to the tax system and how those under $85000 or whatever figure it is have their tax free threshold increased to $18000 or something.

What bugged me the most was the way it is presented. "Hey earn under this amount and you can save yourself ........ ".

Now I understand that people such as nurses, school teachers, policeman, and essential services are absolutely necassary and some of these may not be earning about $85000. And there's plenty of other people under $85000 doing other jobs but isn't that the reason behind a sliding tax system.

And sure ... this has been brought in to offest the harm that may be inflicted by the carbon tax, but why should it just apply to those under $85000. It's going to p*** off a few of those on $90,000

How about calling it an Essential Services tax break or something similar. Seriously - encouraging people to earn as little as they can to save a bit of tax is just wrong. It really doesn't inspire the rest of us over this amount.

This labor government really doesn't encourage people to go out and be successful. The penalties are just getting too high if you are.

Rant over.

Originally Posted by Bermudashorts (Post 10149525)

The taxfree threshold is increasing for everyone is my understanding, not just people on $85k? I am sure they are recouping it elsewhere for the higher tax payers of course.

Originally Posted by Bermudashorts (Post 10149525)

The taxfree threshold is increasing for everyone is my understanding, not just people on $85k? I am sure they are recouping it elsewhere for the higher tax payers of course.

Originally Posted by Beoz (Post 10149567)

OK .... well maybe I misuderstood the sales pitch in the radio commercial but there was distinct emphasis that those below 85k will be having a great time and those above can continue to be screwed.

Originally Posted by JoeBloggs80 (Post 10149563)

So does it make no difference or is it an evil communist policy? :confused:

Originally Posted by Beoz (Post 10149518)

Just have to get something off my chest.

Driving in the car yesterday a commercial came on the radio about changes to the tax system and how those under $85000 or whatever figure it is have their tax free threshold increased to $18000 or something.

What bugged me the most was the way it is presented. "Hey earn under this amount and you can save yourself ........ ".

Now I understand that people such as nurses, school teachers, policeman, and essential services are absolutely necassary and some of these may not be earning about $85000. And there's plenty of other people under $85000 doing other jobs but isn't that the reason behind a sliding tax system.

And sure ... this has been brought in to offest the harm that may be inflicted by the carbon tax, but why should it just apply to those under $85000. It's going to p*** off a few of those on $90,000

How about calling it an Essential Services tax break or something similar. Seriously - encouraging people to earn as little as they can to save a bit of tax is just wrong. It really doesn't inspire the rest of us over this amount.

This labor government really doesn't encourage people to go out and be successful. The penalties are just getting too high if you are.

Rant over.

Originally Posted by Beoz (Post 10149518)

Just have to get something off my chest.

Driving in the car yesterday a commercial came on the radio about changes to the tax system and how those under $85000 or whatever figure it is have their tax free threshold increased to $18000 or something.

What bugged me the most was the way it is presented. "Hey earn under this amount and you can save yourself ........ ".

Now I understand that people such as nurses, school teachers, policeman, and essential services are absolutely necassary and some of these may not be earning about $85000. And there's plenty of other people under $85000 doing other jobs but isn't that the reason behind a sliding tax system.

And sure ... this has been brought in to offest the harm that may be inflicted by the carbon tax, but why should it just apply to those under $85000. It's going to p*** off a few of those on $90,000

How about calling it an Essential Services tax break or something similar. Seriously - encouraging people to earn as little as they can to save a bit of tax is just wrong. It really doesn't inspire the rest of us over this amount.

This labor government really doesn't encourage people to go out and be successful. The penalties are just getting too high if you are.

Rant over.

Originally Posted by Beoz (Post 10149518)

This labor government really doesn't encourage people to go out and be successful. The penalties are just getting too high if you are.

Rant over.

Originally Posted by jad n rich (Post 10149687)

Agree.

But the avg aussies wanted the howard govt out:eek:, take Costello, brilliant financial manager, the aussies didnt like him.

Instead they fell for rudds spin like a tart on the end of Shane Warnes phone.

Originally Posted by Broad Shoulders (Post 10149697)

...actually, the Aussies didn't get a chance to vote for Costello. Howard was the reason why the Libs were voted out. He refused to step down and did not put in place a succession plan, hence why we got Brendon Nelson as the next Lib leader!

Originally Posted by jad n rich (Post 10149727)

I know we never got to vote for him, but there were enough polls to suggest Costello was not at all popular with the public.

I found it quite interesting, Costello did a very good job of managing the economy, people disliked him.

Rudd comes along with his stupid catchphrases, working families, fair go, shake of the sauce bottle............. and they suck him up.

Originally Posted by Beoz (Post 10149518)

What bugged me the most was the way it is presented. "Hey earn under this amount and you can save yourself ........ "...encouraging people to earn as little as they can to save a bit of tax is just wrong. .

Originally Posted by lapin_windstar (Post 10149815)

But that is not how the system works and I don't think that is the message in the ads, is it?

Originally Posted by jad n rich (Post 10149727)

Rudd comes along with his stupid catchphrases, working families, fair go, shake of the sauce bottle............. and they suck him up.

Originally Posted by knockoff nige (Post 10150004)

When she says the Australian people will be compensated for price hikes, she admits she believes there will be hikes. But who exactly benefits? Families on average incomes. Who funds it? Single people on above average wages.

Originally Posted by Dreamy (Post 10151074)

.. and families on above average incomes.

Those who earn above average have always propped up lower income earners.

Originally Posted by carolinephillips (Post 10151138)

Yes, but it is hitting those who earn just above average really hard, not just the wealthy. Our income is going to take a serious beating, especially with the changes to the medicare/private health scheme.

Originally Posted by jad n rich (Post 10151177)

Amusing really, already we sit at night with one light on

Originally Posted by knockoff nige (Post 10150004)

The Labour government want you earning an average wage and be married with kids. Strange when the prime minister tries to convince us all that its perfectly normal to not be married (her way out of approving gay marriage).

As much as I dislike Tony Abbott, I'm through dealing with a bullshitter for prime minister.

When she says the Australian people will be compensated for price hikes, she admits she believes there will be hikes. But who exactly benefits? Families on average incomes. Who funds it? Single people on above average wages.

It's all ****ed up!

Originally Posted by Broad Shoulders (Post 10151204)

...except the Opposition's Paid Parental Leave plan is no different to the Carbon Tax. It is a tax that will be imposed on companies that will be forced to pass on to the consumer in the form of price hikes. Don't be fooled into thinking you are getting a completely different product by changing party. It's the same BS repackaged and marketed as something totally different.

Originally Posted by knockoff nige (Post 10151205)

Explain

Originally Posted by Broad Shoulders (Post 10151214)

...well the Opposition's plan to fund the paid parental leave scheme is to impose an extra 1.5% tax increase on businesses, regardless of how well they perform. The Carbon Tax effects on businesses at least can be managed and potentially reduced based on any company's decreasing production of carbon. The 1.5% levy (as the Libs call it, not a tax of course!!!!) is exactly that!

Originally Posted by knockoff nige (Post 10151236)

I can't see that being as expensive as this carbon tax as these top 500 companies have been given license to steal seeing as the Australian government overvalues the price on carbon.

Originally Posted by lapin_windstar (Post 10151334)

huh?

Originally Posted by jad n rich (Post 10151177)

On 100k After tax and all the penalites for being 'rich' a family would probably be better off earning 50k and getting all the welfare/tax benefits/perks that go with that income.

Originally Posted by Broad Shoulders (Post 10151204)

...except the Opposition's Paid Parental Leave plan is no different to the Carbon Tax. It is a tax that will be imposed on companies that will be forced to pass on to the consumer in the form of price hikes. Don't be fooled into thinking you are getting a completely different product by changing party. It's the same BS repackaged and marketed as something totally different.

Originally Posted by knockoff nige (Post 10151338)

It's the most expensive in the world.

But the real problem is the fact that there is little happening to actually fix the environment. A tax doesn't fix the worlds problems. It just moves money around. Where's the incentive for companies to change to greener alternatives when all they have to do is charge more?

Originally Posted by lapin_windstar (Post 10151484)

1) But how do you simultaneously argue that it's going to be ruinously expensive because of the high tax imposed on the emitters but also that it's a "licence to steal" given to the emitters by the government?

2) The incentive to change to greener alternatives in production is that the emitter won't have to pay so much carbon tax if they do. Not complicated, surely?

Originally Posted by lapin_windstar (Post 10151484)

2) The incentive to change to greener alternatives in production is that the emitter won't have to pay so much carbon tax if they do. Not complicated, surely?

Originally Posted by anawanahuanana (Post 10151489)

But why should they care how much tax they pay if they just recoup it from further down the line. Surely it's cheaper for them just to up their prices instead of investing on renewable alternatives?
The money the govt. makes from the tax then gets pushed back on all but the "high income earners" to pay for their out of pocket costs, so no incentive there for the general population to reduce their energy use etc. In fact the only people, according to the government, who will be out of pocket due to the carbon tax are the wealthy and do you really think they care that much if their electricity bill goes up by 50 bucks a quarter?
It's hardly a revolutionary scheme but the govt makes out it'll save the planet.....:confused:

Originally Posted by Broad Shoulders (Post 10151501)

...simply because the cleverer companies will begin to twig that by cutting their carbon emissions they cut their costs. Any company CEO worth his salt looks at ways to cut costs to increase profitability. Sooner or later one company will realise that if they cut their emissions and therefore cut their tax costs they can be cheaper to market than those who choose to simply up their consumer price.

Originally Posted by knockoff nige (Post 10151503)

But they'll put the prices up anyway

Originally Posted by Broad Shoulders (Post 10151505)

not the clever ones. Market economics is full of companies who look to compete on price alone, this is yet another example of it. The way companies compete on price is by having a lower cost structure than others. How can companies achieve this under the carbon tax? By lowering their emissions. It's not rocket surgery ;)

Originally Posted by knockoff nige (Post 10151487)

2) That's not an incentive when the cost of this gets passed onto you and me.

Originally Posted by anawanahuanana (Post 10151489)

But why should they care how much tax they pay if they just recoup it from further down the line.

Originally Posted by lapin_windstar (Post 10151507)

They're in a competitive environment. They can't just blindly pass it onto their customers without losing sales to the first competitor that produces in a more efficient, tax-minimising way or losing sales to substitute/alternative products.