Does it affect you?

I'm rather pissed that i'm losing $800 a year more on account of our leaders being useless.

My understanding is you only pay 1% of what you earn above the 80k threshold. You would only pay $800+ if you were earning $160k+

Let me rephrase: I'm pissed off that the government is taxing me more than others on account of my income (on top of what they already do).

Well shit. My condolences to your $800. You'll really miss that $800 out of your $160,000.

Would you rather that $800 was taken off someone earning $16,000 a year?

Thought for 150k it was $1500 and for 80k it was $800.

-PB

I'm not asking what voters should or shouldn't decide, too many sheeple affected by media bias.

I'm asking your opinion.

-PB

It depends on the circumstances. If it's ultimately going to make the economy stronger and better than it might be worth doing. The carbon tax was a lie AND weakened the country, and did nothing for the environment. If we think the sin of the lie is greater than it's benefits than we can replace the government next election. Personally don't think this tax is ever going to see the light of day or is even being seriously considered, just setting the bar low so they come out looking like white knights on budget night.

It all goes back to the 2007 election actually, when Howard offered the big tax cuts and Labor said me too.

The rational people at the time were saying "can the Government actually afford this? Surely this is just cynical politics?" but they were drowned out by the majority saying "weeeee tax cuts!!!"

Now the people who were celebrating in 2007 are now whinging now, even though the tax "hike" is still less then the tax "cut" they received in 2007, so go figure...

Edited by RJL25: 30/4/2014 09:45:42 PM

So if the carbon tax was a lie and weakened the country you mean to suggest that it isn't working. If it isn't working then why are our electricity bills higher? Either it is working and the government is falsely claiming that it isn't in order to appease the mining companies. Or alternatively it isn't working and the electricity companies have been blatantly profiteering off us while the government stands idly by pretending like there's nothing wrong with this.

So this raises the question; which is it? And how can you possibly defend it?

Typical Afro twisting the argument. F*ck you man you always do this and then try and make other people look like assholes.

I'm pissed off because we're getting taxed extra, we elect a government to manage our money not take more when they realise they've been cavalier. Personally I could do a lot with that money. Why should I cough up for the mistakes of our leadership?

I'm saying they shouldn't be in this position in the first place where they need to tax 80k+ earners more. It's not about me or how much I earn. However I guess it's all well and good if you're unaffected right? So much easier to attack those who earn more for being selfish with their big $$$ :roll:

Edited by benelsmore: 30/4/2014 10:16:52 PM

Income tax is the lowest it's been in Australian history, and they want to raise taxes to a lower point than they were BEFORE the previous tax cuts in both 2005 and 2008. And yet here you are going "OH NOES!!! DON'T LET THEM TAKE MY PRECIOUS DOLLARZ!"

Just think of Rudd's $900 as simply a loan.

Do you have anything useful to say rather than personal jibes or is that expecting too much from you?

You'd likely sing a different tune if it was your money being absorbed to cover the governments arse but you ignored that point entirely..... typical :roll:

Haha well played but I didn't get that donation either :evil:

So what you're saying is that if they couldn't afford to give tax cuts then they shouldn't have. And once they decrease income tax they (they, in this case, being an entirely different government) aren't allowed to increase it again. Ever.

I don't think they're increasing tax for the right reasons is what i'm saying. I think they're doing it because of mis-management. I have no confidence that they'll manage to put the economy in surplus. They'll find excuses to spend it on more shit that benefits a small group of people.

So your issue isn't with the tax increase, your issue is with their mismanagement of funds. That would be an issue if you were being taxed 10% or 50%.

Yes, being taxed to cover for mis-managed funds.

Higher wage earners are always the first to cop tax increases, they have more to give. Such is life. This just pisses me off because I don't buy the 'surplus' claims even slightly.

If you're paying 33 percent income tax, you'll hardly notice an extra $800 over the course of a year.

I fall into the category where i will have to pay this levy. It's not that bad.

Well that's because the surplus claims are now going to be an extra couple of years, possibly even a decade now.

-PB

Lets face it, in 4 years people earning 80k+ will be up for more money.

Not if we elect Nixon's head. He promises to cut taxes to the rich and use the poor as a cheep source of teeth for aquarium gravel.

[youtube]L8vmOGalpxA[/youtube]

The audit's key recommendations

Raise age pension age to 70 by 2053
Include family home in new means test from 2027
Raise superannuation preservation age to 62 by 2027
Slow roll-out of National Disability Insurance Scheme
Up to $15 co-payment to visit doctor and access Medicare services
Require wealthy Australians to have private health insurance and drop rebate
Increase co-payments for taxpayer-funded PBS-covered medicines
Open pharmacy sector to competition, such as from supermarkets
Allow states to impose personal income tax surcharge, offset by reduction in federal rates
Scrap Family Tax Benefit Part B and a new means test for Part A with maximum rate of payment reducing from at $48,837
Lower paid parental leave scheme salary cap to average week earnings (currently $57,460) and use savings for expanded child care payments
States to be responsible for all schools policy and allocating funding
Uni students to pay more for degrees and lower HELP repayment threshold to minimum wage
New benchmark to lower growth in minimum wage so it is equal to 44 per cent of average weekly earnings
Force young single jobseekers to relocate or lose welfare benefit
Reduce number of government bodies
Privatise Australia Post, NBN Co, Defence Housing, Snowy Hydro among other government-owned enterprises
Abolish the Australia Network

-PB

I have no idea how cheap/expensive degrees currently are in context, so have no idea whether increasing the cost is a good thing or not. And while I don't think the threshold repayment should be minimum wage, I do like the idea of decreasing it from its current value. I know a few people who have had the chance for a few pay upgrades over the years but have said no to it because they would go over the HELP threshold - it should be lower so more people are encouraged to pay the loan off IMO.

Edited by pv4: 2/5/2014 08:26:56 AM

Well my dual degree cost me roughly 48k

-PB

How does that compare to other countries?

If you get a salary of 50k+ immediately after graduating, does it seem reasonable that (I know it doesn't work like this) technically you can pay it off within a year from the amount you get paid? Does that mean it's a pretty good price as is, or is it too high currently?

I genuinely have no answers to these questions, I am heaps interested in peoples opinions though.

Don't know in regards to other countries but I do know in the US for example, that they effectively send you the bill every week or fortnight and you have to pay up much like any other bill (electricity etc) and if you don't pay well you get shunted hard.

At least in Australia HELP repayments get taken out automatically once you are above the threshold and is done in a way that doesn't impact on you too heavily, that and you can always make voluntary contributions.

If you earn't 50k and had that kind of 48k debt, paying it off in a year would be impossible due to Gross Income being a lower than the debt, not to mention every other every day cost that its involved in just being alive (food, water, rent, electricity etc).

I don't think lowering the threshold to minimum wage is a great way of going about it.

-PB

It's a libertarian wet dream...

Every man for himself, work your arse off and get ya white picket fence.

Living the American Australian dream.

-PB