Beoz

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.

spuddyo

They also say that this change will save you about $350 p.a. in tax, however raising the threshold from 6K to 18K is a 12k increase, so not paying tax on that amount should save you about $3000. I think the tax rate may have increased at the same time to close the gap, and in doing so it will con people into thinking they are getting a good deal.

If you calculate the basic tax payable on $ 80,999 and then at $81,010 and compare, you will see that there's not much difference and the tax payments are quite well alligned.

Bermudashorts

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.

bcworld

Yes, it's all been rejigged...the net effect I think is that someone on $80k and above is no better off.

bcworld

http://www.exfin.com/australian-tax-rates

2011-12 $80k = $17,550 tax
2012-13 $80k = $17,547 tax

...enjoy the extra $3...oh wait...did someone say flood levy!

JoeBloggs80

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

Beoz

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.

Broad Shoulders

like all tax tiers, you only get charged the higher rate on the amount that you are over the threshold.

ie: if the tax rate is 30% for all earnings under $80k and it is 40% for those above then:

Someone who earns $90k pays 30% on the $80k amount and 40% on the remaining $10k, ie: it is not 40% on the entire $90k

(I know the tax brackets aren't real)

Bermudashorts

I have just put my salary into paycalculator and the new tax bands make a $4 difference. It was a $3 difference for Mr BS. I made it a $54 difference for someone on $85k. A year that is.

jad n rich

What they dont mention either, is the next 2 tax brackets have gone up.

15 c is now 19 c

30c is now 33c

Amazulu

Of all the things that are wrong about this carbon tax, this is the worst aspect of it. Everyone should have got this, so this just goes to show that the CT is just pure old socialist wealth redistribution - nothing more, nothing less.

The whole thing is a mess. As a higher income earner, no matter how 'energy efficient' I make my life, I can never benefit from the CT, just pay more. I'm fitting LED lighting, increasing my home's insulation, I've installed a heat-pump (okay, I did get a rebate for this), drive efficient cars etc. I've got no problem with doing all this, but don't then tell me that I have to pay more for the privilege. There's a crazy situation in NSW at the moment, where people are using less electricity, thereby reducing the load on power stations, yet they are having to pay much more for electricity because of this. It's nuts.

jad n rich

Agree.


The Howard Govt had recognised the crazy penalties on those who worked hard. Prior to them, Income tax eg, was something like 48% if your income was over about $68,000. There policies were to try and keep hard working, brainy aussies in australia instead of them going overseas.

But the avg aussies wanted the howard govt out, 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.

Broad Shoulders

...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!

jad n rich

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.

bcworld

Costello had a very easy ride.

I'm pretty sure he inherited a large budget deficit...but also an economy that was growing quickly & consistently for at least 4 years before they took office - he was never able to match that growth.

Decisions made in Beijing & elsewhere swelled his coffers and all he had to do was count the money! He never had to deal with the challenges of the GFC...he & Howard left office almost to the day when world stock markets peaked & it was all downhill from there...of course that means they are associated with the free & easy days of the mid-2000s.

He was definitely PM material though & that old coot should've stepped aside.