philperth2010 wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 7:52pm:

Interesting comments by Laurie Oakes in todays Sunday Times(W.A.) regarding tax and the Howard era compared to the Rudd/Gillard era!

V. Interesting, but of course, it has alraedy been well mentioned on this forum!!

Take the area of taxation. Abbott gets traction when he proclaims that "the Labor Party believes in higher taxes" while the Coalition stands for low taxes.

The truth is that taxation as a proportion of the economy is lower now than it was under John Howard's government. The tax to GDP ratio, 23.7 per cent when Labor came to office, is now 21.2 per cent.

According to figures that came across my desk yesterday, had the ratio remained at the 2007-08 level that Labor inherited, tax receipts would have been $21.4 billion higher in 2012-13 than they are projected to be.

Returning the Budget to surplus would not be an issue. The Government would not only be looking at a surplus of $22.9 billion next financial year, but would have been back in the black by more than $3 billion in 2010-11.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/truth-gets-lost-in-canberra-spin/story-fn56b...

Oh looky, I found it in the herald sun aswell!!

..and how does the article end(it looks like a different ending to the Sunday Times thing I read this morning btw,... but I've had a few by now!!

-->>

But a Coalition that has made such an art form of outrageous statements on the economy is in no position to complain.

Laurie Oakes is political editor for the Nine Network

They cut your income tax
Come July you'll be able to make $17999.99 before paying any tax instead of $5999.99.

Kat wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 4:55pm:





In a bid to dampen anger over substantial increases to the household budget, Prime Minister Julia Gillard  announced $7 billion in tax cuts and structural changes marketed as major reform.

However, individuals earning more than $80,000 a year will receive a marginal saving of $3 per year from July 1, 2012, which will increase to $13 three years later.



So on that tax cut i should do well....... I lose my health refund, I get NOTHING for the carbon price, I get nothing for paying my way and paying for my family!!!

Yeah, Julia is great isn't she....... that must mean one thing... quit my job, pick up all the handouts and I should be about the same as now except I wont have to pay the cost of going to work!!

I don't expect anything but I am mighty sick of everyone else having my tax dollars!!!

beware wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 9:53pm:



There are some that I'd rather see not receiving MY tax dollars, too.

The well-off pulling unjustified and undeserved wealthfare, all the while
begrudging others more deserving, are up near the top of that list.

IMO, the well-off DON'T pay their fair share of tax, but expect most
of what they DO pay to come staight back to them in wealthfare.

The country can go to the dogs, infrastructure can crumble and
decay, businesses can close or go offshore, unemployment can
rise, but do this mob care?

Nope! Just so long as they can continue to help themselves to
someone ELSE'S share of the tax dollars, they're happy.

THEY are the REAL bludgers in society.

Superannuation tax concessions will cost the budget $24.6 billion in 2008–09 (Treasury
2009), rivalling the $26.7 billion annual cost of the age pension and constituting a fifth of
income tax revenue ($130 billion per annum). Tax expenditures (see Definitions, Appendix A),
of which the super tax concession is by far the largest, are one of the fast growing
areas of total government spending.

Measured tax expenditures are projected to rise as a proportion of GDP from 5.3 per cent
in 2004–05 to 6.9 percent in 2011–12. They will fall in 2008–09, however, partly as a
result of personal income tax cuts and partly as a result of lower superannuation fund
earnings.

The growth in the cost of the tax concessions for superannuation will continue unless
current policy settings are changed significantly. This is because the age dependency ratio
(the proportion of the population aged over 65) is expected to almost double to 25 per
cent over the next 40 years, while the number of people with large superannuation
entitlements will also grow substantially as the superannuation guarantee system comes
to full maturity.

Australian superannuation fund assets, currently over $1 trillion, are expected to reach
almost $9 trillion in 2041 (Rothman and Tellis 2008). As the size of the tax concessions
are related to the size of the accumulated lump sum, by virtue of the low tax rate on fund
earnings, the forecast growth in superannuation assets ensures that there is a question
mark over whether the current system will be sustainable.

Superannuation tax concessions have long been a bone of contention for the welfare
sector, which views them as redistributing scarce resources away from low-income
earners towards the secure and privileged well-off. This has created a political
battleground, with the welfare groups lining up against the super industry represented
most notably by ASFA. Reform options are canvassed, for example, in ACOSS 2002 and
2006 and the Brotherhood of St Laurence 2008.1 Other welfare and consumer bodies
have also argued for a fairer and more efficient system. Some of the specific reforms
suggested in this paper are very similar to those of ACOSS

This information was taken from a PDF file so I cannot provide the link!!!

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=superannuation%20concessions%20cost%20...

Quote:


Is he confirming that if Labor gets it through he already knows how he will spend the additional money?

Is he confirming that while they will carry on like pork chops over it in the end they want it to get through?

By the time it gets through it will be so watered down it wont matter anyway