this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
72 points (97.4% liked)

World News

39149 readers
3935 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] danl 7 points 10 months ago

This article’s a week old. The relief has been announced in tax bracket adjustments that roll back the Stage 3 cuts that were essentially going to remove the third bracket (primarily benefiting those earning >$135,000)

ABC story

What are the new stage 3 tax cut brackets?

Here's how the proposed plan looks at a glance:

Earn up to $18,200 – pay no tax

Pay a 16 per cent tax rate on each dollar earned between $18,201-$45,000

Pay a 30 per cent tax rate on each dollar earned between $45,001-$135,000

Pay a 37 per cent tax rate on each dollar earned between $135,001 — $190,000

Pay a 45 per cent tax rate on each dollar earned above $190,000

What were they going to be?

Here's what the previous plan looked like at a glance:

Earn up to $18,200 – pay no tax

Pay a 19 per cent tax rate on each dollar earned between $18,201-$45,000

Pay a 30 per cent tax rate on each dollar earned between $45,001-$200,000

Pay a 45 per cent tax rate on each dollar earned above $200,000

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If we can find ways to put extra dollars in people’s pockets, particularly those low and middle-income earners who are doing it tough, then we’re prepared to do so.

God I hope its in the from of cash transfer. Just give people money, it's fuckinf easy ans economically sound. In fact more evidence is coming forward that's the best thing to do.

The hosuing is a problem not because of lack of money but because of artificially depressed supply. Buy land and reduction it. LVT. Stop the limit on floor level. So many things can be done, just increase supply. The only thing that happens in Australia is supply is kept low and demand is kept high with immigration, just means the land owners make more money.

Not having Australia Day is just stupid. Come on.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Big sums of one-off money are a great spectacle, but they have negative short-term impacts (likely to cause another spike to inflation) and negligible long-term benefits as once the funds are spent it’s just a return to the status-quo.

A more aggressive tax-cut for the lowest band, as well as a boost to services offered to those same people (rent assistance, dietary stipends to promote healthier foods etc.) funded by the top-end of town are the best long-term solution- but they don’t cause anywhere near the same level of media ‘splash’ as a “free” $1K would.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't mean one off payments.

Tax cuts I can get behind. The other things I do not agree with. Like I said economists are pushing more and more for cash transfers not for payments on behalf of others. That's just saying some economist miles away knows how a person needs to spend their money better than them. If you give them cash individuals can spent it on what they need to spend it on, not what you think they need to spend it on.

A lot of things your propose are just market distortion which isn't good.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What you call ‘market distortions’ are at times the only other means of getting additional money into the hands of low income earners.

If someone’s already paying $0 in income tax, either because they are on disability payments, a student, or caring after a loved one - then providing them with supplemental rental and nutritional payments are sometimes the only thing standing between them becoming unhoused and going hungry.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Not if you just give them money.

They can still buy food or rent with that money.

Let's say they live with a family member for free or they have a small allotment. Maybe they don't need rental help or food help. By giving them that they might not get what they really need. They might need gas money, or small starter money for a business or an eduction certificate.

Money still allows them to do what they want but also more. That's why cash is becoming more popular. It has more value for the same cost to government

[–] Paragone -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Insanity:

Accommodating a no-living-wage legislative-regime, .. and then demolishing tax-funds band-aid-ing the problem, with support for those who can't get a living-wage.

FIX THE RIGHT PROBLEM, DAMMIT!

Politics never will.

Political-motivation prevents that from ever having roots.

Systemic, not political, change, is required.

_ /\ _

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

Honestly no idea what you're even trying to say there mate, it was a lot of words but very little substance.

demolishing tax-funds band-aid-ing the problem

Are you referring to the Stage 3 tax cuts? Because they straight up need to go, they literally only benefit high income earners at the expense of everyone else.