Surprising group fighting ‘stage 3’ tax cuts revealed in new survey
A surprising group of people who are fighting monster “stage three” tax cuts has been revealed.



October 2, 2022
News.com.au




Almost twice as many Australians want the “stage 3” income tax cuts scrapped as those who want to keep them, a new survey suggests.

The Australia Institute has released a poll which found 41 per cent of people support the Albanese government repealing the tax cuts, compared with 22 per cent who are opposed.

The progressive think tank enlisted pollster Dyanata to conduct a “nationally representative” online survey of 1409 voters over three days in early September.

Nearly half – 46 per cent – of the people surveyed identified that the cuts would benefit high income earners the most.

Forty-three per cent of respondents who identified as Labor voters supported the cuts being ditched.

The stage 3 tax cuts are the third in a series of cuts introduced by the former Coalition government after the first two tranches offered targeted tax relief to low and middle income taxpayers.

The Labor government has come under political pressure to backflip on its election commitment to keep the stage 3 cuts in place, given the economic storm gripping the country.

The cuts will kick in from July 2024 and abolish the entire 38 per cent tax bracket, meaning everyone earning between $45,000 to $200,000 will pay only 30 cents of every dollar they earn.


The policy means about 95 per cent of Australians will face a marginal tax rate of no more than 30 per cent as well as the 2 per cent Medicare levy.


Critics say the stage 3 cuts, which will cost the federal budget more than $20bn a year and an estimated $243bn over a decade, are not affordable or equitable.

The Australia Institute’s poll found 61 per cent of Australians thought adapting economic policy to suit changing circumstances was more important than keeping an election promise.

Asked what they thought was better for the nation’s long-term interests, 60 per cent of the respondents chose “increased spending on government services like health and education” compared with 15 per cent who selected proceeding with the tax cuts.

The poll showed high income Australians were more aware of the stage 3 cuts and more likely to support their repeal than lower income earners.

Of the respondents who identified as Greens voters, 54 per cent wanted the cuts scrapped, compared with 46 per cent of independent voters, 35 per cent of Coalition voters and 19 per cent of One Nation voters.

The Australia Institute executive director Richard Denniss said more than one third of the survey’s respondents said they were still making up their minds.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has maintained that Labor won’t change or ditch the cuts.

Dr Denniss said this “indicated the debate is there to be won or lost, based on the economic evidence and on what is fair”.

“Voters expect responsible management of the economy,” he said.

“The fact is the economic conditions of 2022 and budget projections over the forward estimates are vastly different to when these tax cuts for high income earners were first announced by Scott Morrison in 2018.”

Jim Chalmers has stared down calls to scrap or amend the stage 3 cuts as he prepares to deliver his first budget later this month.

The Treasurer told ABC 730 last Thursday: “Our position on the tax cuts hasn’t changed, our policy is as it has been”.

“We do need to make sure that the money that we invest in the budget, from the budget, in the Australian people and in their economy, does get maximum bang for buck,” he said.

Dr Chalmers told reporters at Parliament House last Wednesday he had no reason to remove the cuts at this stage.

“Even if we took some of the steps that people have been urging us to do on stage 3 tax cuts, that would not change the inflationary environment that we confront right now,” he said.

“I think the public conversation sometimes doesn’t quite understand that.”

aquascoot wrote on Oct 4^th, 2022 at 5:23am:



earning about 200k to 500 k  ?

Those would be mostly the managing directors of companies.
From what I've seen of any companies I look at or have worked for
they are all badly run by bean counters and in many cases
those companies sack their best workers leaving the place top heavy with managers.
I can't understand how many companies are even still in business.

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 4^th, 2022 at 8:19am:



Being in the medical field is a license to print money.
Same for lawyers.
Locksmiths?  roofers? electricians? plumbers? - nah.

I asked an electrician once why he was working for wages for a company -
he said that when he ran a private business he spent
more time chasing bad debts from loser customers than making money doing jobs.

Roofers electricians plumbers mechanics

All do useful work

If you give more money to the people at the bottom
They will spend it on tattoos
Mag wheels
Alcohol and drugs
Dominos and McDonald's

You're probably making them more unhealthy

If you give it to pensioners
It will go down the throat of a poker machine
Or to a Norwegian Cruise company

Far better to give it to the movers and shakers and wealth creators

aquascoot wrote on Oct 4^th, 2022 at 5:23am:


Incorrect. We're talking income taxes. Tax cuts for the rich don't add any extra spending to the economy.

Quote:


Read up:

https://saveourschools.com.au/funding/labor-should-scrap-the-stage-3-tax-cuts-fo...

Tax cuts for the poor are another matter. They spend a greater portion of tax cuts on essential goods and services, which adds to the economy.

Tax cuts for the rich only increase their savings. If governments keep those tax dollars, they spend that money on the kind of things that, as you say, pull people up.

I know you'll say fat public servants don't pull anybody up, but most government spending goes to the private sector. Most services - health, public housing, child care, employment, vocational education and financial services like superannuation - are outsourced to private contractors, so this is not a question of public versus private.

It's a question of economic investment in innovators, entreprenuers and go-getters. In short, the people who have an awesome vibe.

You?

A thousand pensioners with $100 do more for the economy than one grifter given a million dollars to put into tax havens and shelters .....  social security is a reliable underpinning of economic activity .... greed-centred venture capital is not..... it simply evades the economy in various ways to secure a quick grab at the dollars.

Movers and shakers - they move their political mates to give them more and more while shaking the tree for every apple they can get.... and off it goes to the Bahamas or similar or into a 'business cost' developing their fine mansion................ no tax.

Incorrect thinking yet again

Sure 1000 pensioners can spend more money at ALDI and that creates an increase in the economy

But if you divert that money instead to the right person
He might just start a chip manufacturer
Or some other capital expensive Hi-Tech business
Which is what all the rich countries eventually realise

If you want a Samsung or a Hyundai or a BMW
A caterpillar or a IKEA or a Sony or an apple
You need concentrated capital in the hands of the right people


We had the perfect example of this recently in Queensland
A young man from the western suburbs developed the first rapid antigen test during the pandemic
He tried to set up a business manufacturing these in the suburbs
But due to the restrictive lack of government support
He was induced to go to Texas where he has become a billionaire
And set up a massive plant in Austin
And now exports the rapid antigen tests back to Australia where you get to pay for them

It would have been much more sensible to have supported this fine individual properly in the beginning and the country would be in a better economic situation

Karnal wrote on Oct 4^th, 2022 at 1:16pm:



correct.

there is only so much capital to be invested.

if governments invest it into gonski (which saw our international education rankings fall in direct proportion to the increase in funding)
if they invest it in the NDIS
if they invest it in covid payments
if they invest it in cash splashes for pensioners
if they invest it in subs
if they invest it in dysfunctional public hospitals

then there is less capital to invest in the productive parts of the economy.

reducing taxation may help 'starve the beast"   the beast being government and free up precious cash for our more deserving ventures