Stage 3 tax cuts

[David]

[stui magpie]

Fair enough, you're much more passionate about the Arts than I am, not going to argue.

When you talk though about prioritising spending, try this example from Victoria and I'm not having a slap at Andrews here for the sake of it, just pointing out what I know of, it could be better or worse in other states.

The place I just resigned from runs Kindergartens, among other things.

The Andrews Government recently announced new funded Kindergarten places from next year. They provide funding directly to the Kinder so parents get free Kinder.

Most Kinders are run by NFP organisations and/or councils. In Victoria at least, Early Childhood Teachers (degree) and Educators (Diploma) are paid in accordance with the VECTEA Award. Mine sets their salaries at Award rate plus 1%, but it's still seriously shit money. Probably why there's a shortage of people wanting to work in the industry.

There's compliance requirements on how many educators and teachers you must have per class size, government funding barely covers things, even with some charges going back to parents so there is just no capacity for NFP's to pay higher wages.

The State Government has the capacity to tie it's funding to staff salaries if they chose to. They could increase the funding to each kinder per child on the condition, for example, that staff were payed 5 or 10% above award.

Similar applies to many other NFP programs that are state government funded through NFP,s like Family Violence programs. The government puts in place a mandatory qualifications framework and all sorts of other requirements but barely provides enough money for organisations to pay shite money and barely break even.

State governments don't get income tax, but they get a share of the GST, they get Payroll Tax and stamp duty so it all comes down to how they prioritise their spending.

[swoop42]

Some people have clearly grown up in relative privilege or have earned well above the average wage for so long now they've lost all touch with reality.

I mean honestly trying to argue someone earning $400,000 a year isn't wealthy is surely just pure semantics surrounding the definition of the word wealthy.

Christ the only people who think that earning $200,000 a year doesn't make them wealthy, rich, well off, comfortable or any other term you'd like to use are those earning that 200K. For the majority earning much less the perception might be much different.

Given to that those on above average wages are more likely to be in a long term relationship / married than those in casual employment or considered the working poor only increases the amount of household wealth they have access to and extends the gap between the rich and poor. This seems to always get lost in the debate surrounding stage 3 tax cuts.

Perhaps those tradies or office managers earning $125,000 a year who think life's tough now because of the rising cost of living need to go follow an aged care worker around for a week and see what they have to do to in order to earn far far less. It could be worse for you.

This whole concept that greater remuneration is always the result of working harder is such a made up conservative construct and if I had to guess who leaves work at the end of each day more exhausted, the cleaner on 45K or the IT guy on 100K it's not the computer geek.

TP talks about entitlements and people bleeding the system dry but I'd say there is nothing more entitled than those who don't appreciate how good they've got it, have little perspective, little empathy and believe hardship is not being able to afford that shiny new car until next year, latest iPhone until next month and believe sacrificing is only buying a takeaway coffee twice a day and eating out twice a week.

Having grown up in the Latrobe Valley I know what real hardship looks like, what generational poverty leads to and if you ask me if as a society we can afford to strip hundreds of billions of dollars out of services (which in reality will serve everyone rich or poor at some point) then it's a very obvious no.

Labor was right to oppose the stage 3 tax cuts originally and both parties should have made them dead in the water once the pandemic hit.

That the coalition didn't is not surprising and it's also not surprising that Labor played politics ahead of doing what was right in the lead up to the election. It was still disappointing.

That election has been won now however and while the Coalition will try and exploit any back flip from Labor as an election "broken promise" I'm not convinced it would be the vote winner they think and in fact I believe Labor could and would actually benefit from disbanding or altering it.

And why not?

Firstly it's nonsensical for the Coalition to constantly campaign about lowering debt and bringing the budget back to surplus when all the while they're endorsing measures to strip tens of billions a year from the bottom line.

Secondly the majority of the workforce either wouldn't benefit directly from these tax cuts or it would be a modest amount. It's reasonable to assume that most of these people would prefer to see the money go towards a service they will benefit from whether it be hospitals, GP clinics, schools, aged care facilities, day care centres, infrastructure projects, environmental causes, major events, law enforcement, military defence, government benefits, PBS, NDIS and Medicare etc.

Thirdly the majority of those who would benefit most from the stage 3 tax cuts would be staunch Coalition voters and those that aren't seemingly progressive enough to not be swayed by the issue.

Finally it's simply the responsible thing to do, Labor know it, the people who voted Labor, Greens and Independent last time should see that and deep down even the majority of Coalition voters would agree.

In reality these tax cuts are not due to come in to effect until July 2024 so Labor should just keep playing a straight bat and only when the time comes a final decision must be made is that decision made public.

Until then just let the Coalition huff and puff on this issue until they blow themselves out.

It's already gotten annoying.

[nomadjack]

Not much to disagree with there Swoop. The proposed cuts make no sense on economic or ethical grounds as far as I'm concerned. If there was a closer correlation between income/wealth and effort/talent/social value I might have a different opinion - probably not though. Don't tell me someone on 200k a year needs or deserves to be paying less tax when pensioners or unemployed are living well below poverty; when someone with mental health problems can't find crisis support when they need it; or when someone with cancer can't get in to see a specialist because they can't afford private health cover. These aren't luxury items- they are basic social services that enable advanced societies to function. And the reason they aren't available to all is precisely because those of us more fortunate in life would rather take a tax cut than to contribute to the broader social good because 'we' deserve it (and by extension 'they' don't).

So much of where we end up in life is down to factors beyond our control - whether it's dumb luck; to be born into a stable family; to find the right partner; meet the right teacher at the right time; to be healthy; not to have an addictive personality; whatever the case may be. I agree completely Swoop - the greatest and most obnoxious sense of entitlement is that complete inability to understand and appreciate how lucky we are; and by extension, the complete absence of empathy for those who weren't as fortunate. The two often go together and it makes me puke.

[think positive]

[think positive]

[think positive]

[pietillidie]

The income-wealth nexus is also a huge part of the story. Efforts to minimise income tax not only undermine government revenues, but often go hand-in-hand with the distortionary effects of wealth. So, because a person feels so incredibly superior, they minimise tax on income, and channel that into wealth, which is even easier to legally shield from taxation. The problem is wealth is not passive; it's leverage, so that leverage is then used by the same psychiatry of self-entitlement to interfere in legislation, policy and competitive practice.

So, what starts out as the itch of deserving more can quickly escalate into a leverage contest which distorts good policy, from good environmental policy and employment policy, to fair competition.

Once that is turned into a political platform, the leverage works against national good, so you get really dumb things like a refusal to deliver HQ broadband; active undermining of green technology to protect fossil fuels; peasant rate minimum wages that generate brain damaging stress in adults and far worse in children; and all kinds of service deficits that do the same.

That itch of superiority is then used to justify such things as support for the Iraq War to bolster pension funds invested in natural resources and contracting military companies, or as opposition to green energy technology for the very same reason, or as a way of skimming money by really dumbly privatising things in non-competitive natural monopoly markets, as well as a host of really idiotic red meat policies to get angry people supporting those things against their own interest, such as global warming denial, Brexit, a trade war with China, or violent rhetoric against higher fee-paying international students. These end up undermining the country, pulverising productivity and making everyone poorer and less safe and healthy.

And it all starts with the original sense of self-entitlement where tax is concerned, very often accompanied by hidden crime and the damaging of others in the process, which then becomes entitled wealth leveraged against the overall good.

Even worse, the more sociopathic or grandiosely narcissistic the sense of entitlement (and those are the prime conditions associated with other-destructive self-entitlement, the more successful the effort can be. So, we get this horrifying process where the worst and most damaged psychiatries benefit the most and then use that leverage to wreck the joint.

Meanwhile, there are many, many destructive conditions that can actually make some people work hard, but not in a noble, normal or sustainable way, from OCD, anxiety and PTSD, to psychopathy, narcissism and various forms of deviance. This is because drive and motivation can look just like hard work, even if it's pathological and completely destructive.

So, we end up with a bunch of very driven whack jobs first minimising or outright avoiding tax, then amassing wealth, then wrecking society by undermining democracy and markets. And because they're so driven, they can cause complete havoc, all the while claiming to be hard workers.

This was essentially the finding of Picketty's work; I've just added the psychiatric mechanism to the finding that the rate of return is below what it should bebecause the amassed wealth distorts good governance and policy, which is another way of saying rich mental cases keep damaging and undermining society.

Of course, the tricky thing is that you want people to work hard and be a bit weird because that's also very creative. Fortunately, most people are only moderately mental, so they are a bit driven or a bit self-entitled within a normal range. That's why I am happy to allow some inequality as a form of difference and incentive. But not too much that children are being born into stressed, impoverished and unhealthy households, and turned into a generational underclass.

There is clearly a line whereby that deviance becomes outright destructive and then starts wrecking the place by making everyone poorer, unhealthier, more stressed, more unstable, less safe and ultimately less productive.

[think positive]

So one more, while I was in the shower, I could not get passed this

So what is wealthy ?

I agree with Stui 100%

This magical 200k salary, is that each, or as a family? Because that can make a hell of a difference? Or is it the size of your personal or family wealth?

Luck. Choices.

There are a lot of people out there that cannot make their own luck, a lot of people who are disadvantage through no fault of their own. Be it health worries, mental or physical or refugees. Lack of education. For example. People who don’t have the ability to earn a living wage for what ever reason. These people they need all the help they are entitled to, to live to a decent level. These people did not make bad choices. These people NEED assistance.

But then you have people who make choices, they want toys they can’t afford, or they want a job that is fun but not financially viable, or they have children before the are ready. There are no accidents. Fail to plan, plan to fail. People who get to the end of their working days and have no super because they never learnt to budget. Choosing not to live up to your potential is just that, a choice. These people WANT assistance.

Banks allowing outrageous loans for credit cards and too expensive houses are not helping. Live within your means.

I’m not a capitalist I’m a realist.

I’ll read your post fully later PTID, I have something to do, but your posts here have been very interesting

[David]

[stui magpie]

I agree with the term wealthy being semantics but as I said earlier it's also relative.

For someone on shit money, struggling to pay rent, utilities, food and put kids through school, someone earing $200k would be like a millionaire. The reality is those people likely have a mortgage, car loan and other expenses so cash in hand wise they aren't necessarily that far in front in the short term.

In my next life I'm definitely picking a partner who has at least a job if not a career. Working full time as a single parent is fkn hard work, particularly when the ex gets all the government assistance.

[pietillidie]

One of the problems here in the UK is that smash-and-grab business which invests nothing in people, product and technology, and in the process mistrains or untrains workers, has been driven by the deranged class of driven mental cases I mentioned above.

What they do is run some unproductive, uncompetitive service business that can still make money because wages are low, basically parasiting off government handouts that keep workers and zombie companies alive. They then avoid tax on income and use the wealth they siphon off as leverage to further distort policy and elections in their favour.

This is the vast majority of business in the UK from what I can tell, and it has clearly created a vicious cycle of Tory policy and decline.

With the vast majority of employees in turn becoming more useless and unskilled by the day working at these zombie companies, where nothing is invested in training, technology and product development, the country as a whole gets more unproductive because its workers are utterly useless. Meanwhile, the opposite is happening at the top tier of global companies, so a sliver of society is doing well, feels superior because it is actually productive, and votes accordingly.

So, the problem here is the peasant class of useless workers created by a massive parasite class of utterly useless companies which siphon money away and contribute absolutely nothing to the economy or society, except to weaken it.

Not surprisingly, those parasites voted for Brexit, because that allows them to distort the system and exploit people more easily without any pressure to contribute anything, all the while building wealth to use as a weapon to keep their zombie scam alive and live off things like cheap labour and dirty government service delivery contracts.

It has horrified me watching this, and seeing just how unskilled people working in these zombie companies are. And so government revenue and worker skills and productivity decline still further as the same creeps and their destructive policies keep getting voted in as angry people get conned into voting for red meat issues against their own futures.

Being huge and the world's reserve currency, America can get away with this because it controls that top end of highly productive global companies that do attract investment, build technology, patent things and train workers. So, they just wall off their peasants in filth and chaos, while living off that top layer of supremely productive companies with all the best talent.

But Australia and the UK can't get away with being run like that because they don't have superpower advantages. Instead, they need superior policy and for companies and the wealthy to contribute or to be shut down and replaced so this sick process is halted and then reversed.

[What'sinaname]

[stui magpie]

We just seriously parted ways there.

The more the Government (any one) gets involved, the more they fvk things up.

capping sparkies prices? seriously?

[What'sinaname]