Australia's Debt-To- GDP ratio is about 40%, on par with the progressive utopia states such as Norway and Sweden.

https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/public-debt-percentage-gdp

But here's the thing:  They have a GST of 20% or more...everyone chips in over there.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/consumption-tax-trends-19990979.htm

Our GST is 10%, the second lowest in the GST (Japan has increased their to 10%) same as  World economic powerhouses like Papua New Guinea.  With half our working age population not paying income tax, and paying virtually nothing in GST, we wonder why our debt is what it is

The Regressive Left in Australia want to reduce the debt.  Of course they do.  But as usual they want to expand spending and demand somebody else to pay for it. 

Sorry I must have been distracted by the greatest financial managers in the world giving away half a billion dollars to a foundation that didn't ask for the money.

“I’d like to state for the record that the foundation did not suggest or make any application for this funding. We were first informed of this opportunity to form a partnership with reef trust on the 9th of April this year,” Marsden told the hearing.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jul/30/malcolm-turnbull-present-when-443-million-dollars-offered-to-small-group-without-tender-inquiry-hears

So thats how they doubled the debt!!

FFS - how many Foundations and Grants have been approved by both parties over the years/decades.......
They are both guilty and at times both of much more.
The only thing I see over my times is that who's the preferred option of either major cancers.
One your chest high in quick sand, the other to your neck and more.
The one that got lampooned the other weekend is the latter.

1/2 a billion is not $3 million here or $5 million there.  Someone needs to go to jail for this.  Imagine you're sitting in your office one day and out of the blue the government gives you half a billion dollars.  Not only do they give it to you unsolicited your company doesn't even have much expertise in what they are giving you the money for.

The only explanation I read that was halfway plausible was the government had to get rid of the money as it was set aside for something by a certain time and they ran out of ideas.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/morrison-to-clock-up-a-fiscal-record-not-worth-a-guinness-book-entry-20190526-p51r9e.html


When Tony Abbott took office federal tax as a proportion of GDP was 21.3 per cent. Next year's budget surplus, the first in a decade, will be built upon a tax-to-GDP ratio of 23.3 per cent.

That increase, that 2 percentage point lift in the national tax take, is the biggest since the administration of Gough Whitlam. It is the largest of any Coalition government in records going back to the days when John Gorton was prime minister and Les Bury his treasurer.

Muz now resorting to posting anything in a desperate attempt to undermine the Coalitions economic management

Kinda like people who keep peddling the myth that they can manage an economy any better than the other side of the aisle.

-PB

The majority of folks think that.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

https://sebastiannickel.com/postingalink

I highly doubt that lol, an election result doesn't prove that point.

-PB

Why do you care? 

What matters is Who Pays For It.   Read all about Labors Lies here:

https://www.afr.com/news/policy/budget/high-earners-to-pay-more-tax-20190404-p51aqo

Higher paid taxpayers earning between $200,000 and $300,000 will pay an average tax rate that is triple that of lower income Australians and contribute tens of thousands of dollars more tax every year under the Morrison government's proposed personal tax cuts.New Treasury figures obtained by The Australian Financial Review debunk the widely believed and misleading claim by critics including Labor that a worker on $45,000 will pay the same 30 per cent tax rate as an executive earning $200,000.While the marginal rate for a tiny fraction of their incomes will be equal, the average tax rate faced by low-to-middle-income workers will be significantly lower than higher earners if the Coalition's proposed changes take full effect from July 2024.A person with a taxable income of $40,000 will face an average tax rate of 10.9 per cent, well below the 27.8 per cent average rate paid by a taxpayer earning $200,000 and the 34.2 per cent average rate imposed on a person earning $300,000.A worker paid $50,000 would contribute $7342 in income tax, while someone making $150,000 would pay $39,592.The government data excludes transfer and welfare payments, which make Australia's system even more progressive.

Advertisement

Separate analysis by Deloitte Access Economics shows average tax rates would fall across all income levels under the Coalition's plan, with the largest percentage falls for lower income earning groups."An economist would argue that the relevant numbers are percentage changes, not absolute dollars," Deloitte partner Chris Richardson said."People at the top end get bigger tax cuts because they pay many more dollars in tax.""Someone on $200,000 will pay 75 times as much tax as someone on $25,000."Those on $200,000 will pay 15 times as much tax as someone on $40,000."

Australian National University economic and social researcher Ben Phillips said income tax cuts were required because wage growth would continue to push workers into higher tax thresholds."We have been on a completely unsustainable upward trajectory of tax increases since about 2010 and if that were to continue we would be at record tax rates by about 2025," Dr Phillips said."As a result of most of the tax being paid by high income people, they in a nominal dollar sense get the biggest tax cuts but their average tax rates won't be much different."Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said the lower taxes for 13 million Australians would maintain "a highly progressive tax system".“In fact, someone earning $45,000 will pay $5667 in tax, compared to someone earning $200,000 who will pay $55,592 in tax," he said.“Australians will face a very clear choice at this election, a choice between Bill Shorten and his $200 billion of higher taxes or the Morrison Government and our lower taxes."ANU's Mr Phillips said allowing for bracket creep the Coalition's tax changes did little to change the average tax rates, but would slightly favour the top 10 per cent of income earners."Labor may do a little more at the bottom end," Dr Phillips said.The Morrison government's shift to a flatter personal tax system so 94 per cent of taxpayers face a top marginal rate of 30 per cent would boost the incentive to work, reduce bracket creep and cut tax avoidance, economists said.Labor finance spokesman Jim Chalmers said a worker on $35,000 would receive $255 a year in tax relief under the Coalition, compared to $11,000 for a person earning $200,000.Labor is promising larger income tax cuts for people earning up to at least $90,000 and has ruled out tax cuts for higher income earners.Under Labor the top marginal tax rate would hit 49 per cent including the 2 per cent Medicare levy and a 2 per cent budget repair levy for people earning over $180,000.All taxpayer groups would receive income tax cuts under the Coalition's $300 billion income tax plan over a decade.A person earning $150,00 would pay $6540 less in tax and their average tax rate would drop to 26.4 per cent, from 30.8 per cent in 2017-18 before the Coalition's phased in tax cuts began, according to Treasury.A worker receiving $80,000 would save $1955 as their average rate drops to 21.5 per cent, from 23.9 per cent.Deloitte's analysis shows that when average weekly full-time earnings reach almost $100,000 in 2024-25, the largest percentage fall in the average tax rate will be for people earning $25,000.Their average tax rate will be slashed by 30 per cent.A person earning $50,000 will pay an average tax rate that is 16 per cent lower.A $100,000 earner would have their average tax rate cut by 12 per cent.A person $200,000 would benefit from an 18 per cent lower average tax rate, due to the top tax threshold being lifted from $180,000 to $200,000.Those earning $300,000 would have their average tax rate trimmed by 11 per cent and a $400,000 earner would receive a 7.6 per cent cut.The government proposes just three marginal tax rates above the tax-free threshold from July 2024: a 19 per cent rate for those earning between $18,201 and $45,000; a 30 per cent rate for incomes up to $200,000;and 45 per cent for higher earnings.Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has said the top 1 per cent of taxpayers would pay 17 per cent of the total personal income tax intake in 2024-25, up from 16.7 per cent last year.The top 5 per cent of taxpayers would continue to contribute one-third of personal tax collections.

What about three in a row?

Three elections voting against poor opposition leaders? 

Like any other back to back term government?

Colour me shocked.

-PB

you can only beat whoever you're up against.

What's your point?

As a taxpayer in the highest bracket of 45 cents in the dollar I have no issue with paying more.  The fact that I'm getting an $11000 tax cut while so many good causes go unfunded disgusts me.

And yes I can donate that money, which I probably will, but my contribution is a drop in the ocean compared o the 10's of billions the government will lose in tax revenue in the years ahead in a race to the bottom.

Yep in the same boat and couldn't have said it better (except that its 47.5c). As you said that's irrelevant as if it was a bit more it wouldn't make me magically quit my job.

Labor has just ensured that they will lose the next election by putting another inner city hard left chardonnay socialist in charge.    

A party in massive denial as to why they lost the last election & a blatant refusal to reflect on this.   

They've done shitloads of  polls that show the public believes the Liberals are better economic managers than Labor.  

But surely if you and all other "drops in the ocean" were to pool all of your excess resources and capital this would add up to a vast sum that could be redistributed to make a real difference in society.  It's the same argument climate enthusiasts use to justify spending billions on climate policies, that even though our emissions are a "drop in the ocean" comparably speaking, if all the smallish emitters bandy together we can achieve a real reduction in climate change.

Well aren't you the big Virtue Signaler. You guys love that. Well, why don't you take that $11,000 and give it to won of those non funded programs to make you feel better? Bet you won't though!

BTW, you say that the LNP do not fund many worthwhile things and you guys were harping on about Education and Health.

The Libs increase their funding by about 61% over the last 6 years.

Sure could Russ or I could just be a selfish narcissistic prick who says "fuck you" to the scummers who obviously don't have the same wherewithal, drive and ambition as me.

Because, fuck everyone else, I'm alright Jack.

Oh and to make up for the $100 + billion they're going to lose over the next few years more than 10 million taxpayers will have to cough up $11 000 as a donation.  And in what world do you live that you think this would ever happen?

Really the solution is as plain as the nose on your face.  Tax high achievers less to reward the entrapenteurs of society and perpetuate the myth of trickle down economics.  And when there's a shortfall of funds ...... cut services.

It's win win because I have more money  due to tax cuts so I'll be fine.  The less well off will be 'incentivised' (love that word) to get a better paying job to pay for their chemotherapy.  Plus because a lot of them can't afford it they won't be clogging up the system.

Oh I'm with all and so considerate. Now I feel so good!

Look, all of you guys can pool your hard earned and do whatever you like with it. But I bet you won't be donating $11,000. I bet you will go on a holiday instead.

The LNP does btw fund many worthwhile things. They are not as heartless as you portray. But they also need to run a competitive economy which you seem to forget.

All the polls that were just proven wrong?

-PB

So what do you personally think the tax rates should be for those on high incomes?  How would you feel about a tax rate that was 70, 80 even 90 per cent for income above $200k?  Would you happily pay this, on the basis that your basic economic needs were met for and the excess produce of your labour will “trickle up” to benefit society?  I’m really keen to hear your thoughts to this question.

45 cents in the dollar over $180k and under $400k.

55 cents in the dollar anything over that.

That seems fair to me.  

Not sure why you think I would would plump for 70, 80 or 90% but if it suits your narrative of a champagne socialist don't let me stop you.

The polls proved that they underestimated public support for the Liberal party, yet those same polls frequently show that the public believes the LNP are better economic managers than Labor.  Accounting for this margin of error, its possible that the actual approval rates are even higher than what the polls indicate.

Well the perception of fairness is subjective.  For some 55% is too high and they would either refuse to work or avoid paying tax. For others 55% isnt enough and would cause many good causes to go unfunded, which would be disgusting.  There’s no reason why if you didn’t feel like you were paying enough tax you could voluntarily contribute more.  No one ever does though.  Ever.