Treasurer rejects Labor's tax cut demands

Jun 18, 2019
Nine News

Josh Frydenberg insists low and middle-income earners will be the ultimate winners from the federal government's promised tax cuts.
This comes as the treasurer refuses to tell Labor exactly how much of the coalition's $158 billion package will benefit people earning more than $180,000.
"The lower and middle income earners are the winners," Mr Frydenberg told ABC TV from Washington on Tuesday.
"The numbers are clearly set out in the budget."
The budget didn't contain the analysis by income group that Labor is seeking.
But Mr Frydenberg says the coalition is distributing exactly the kind of details Labor did when it last ran the country.
"What we've done is entirely consistent with the Labor Party's approach when they were in government and made some tax changes," he told ABC Radio National.


The coalition needs Labor or at least four crossbenchers to support the full three-stage tax plan to get it through the Senate when parliament resumes next month.
Labor supports the first stage of the plan, which will mean extra cash for low and middle income-earners.
But it believes the later stage, aimed at flattening the tax rates by mid-2024, shouldn't be legislated years in advance and may be skewed toward the wealthy.
The coalition has ruled out splitting up the plan, arguing the final stage brings much-needed structural reform.
Mr Frydenberg says it's time for Labor to accept the mandate Australians handed the government to roll out the tax plan when it re-elected the coalition on May 18.
"The Australian people voted for lower taxes, not Labor's higher taxes and redistribution agenda," he said.
Senior Labor frontbencher Tanya Plibersek says the government does not have a mandate to legislate tax cuts five years in advance while the economy faces pressures from all directions.
"You get a mandate for a term, you don't get a mandate for eternity because you win one election," she told ABC Radio National.
"They're asking us to pass a package where they won't give us details about the distributional analysis of who benefits from the later stages of this tax package.
"And they're asking us to make commitments now for tax cuts that come in in not just one election's time but two elections time."
One Nation leader Pauline Hanson, who directs two Senate votes, has said she won't back the plan because major infrastructure spending would be a better way to stimulate the economy.
Centre Alliance, which also has two votes, remains on the fence, amid concerns the extra cash for workers could be lost to rising power costs.
The minor party's senator Rex Patrick met Finance Minister Mathias Cormann to discuss the tax package on Monday.
Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry boss James Pearson is among those urging the parliament to get the cuts across the line.
A new survey has also found strength among manufacturing firms declined a little in the three months to June.
"It all points to the need to strengthen the economy and improve business conditions for the manufacturing sector and business generally," Mr Pearson said.
"It has become even more important the new parliament pass the government's tax package in its first sitting in July to stimulate consumer spending.

And yet government are free to spend taxes five years in advance. That is what they do in a budget.

I'll tell you who has no mandate: The ALP.

They LOST the *unlosable* election. 

Any excuse

Liberal don't want the tax cuts, it would hurt the bottom line

Labour don't want the tax cuts, they want to punish us for not voting them in.

Independents don't want the tax cuts, because they are all pricks.

So

We won't get any tax cuts,.....simple

Tax cuts from a deficit budget is spending money that we don't have.

About the stupidest thing you can do.

Captain Nemo wrote on Jun 18^th, 2019 at 4:22pm:



pretty sure they're not the one claiming a mandate

aquascoot wrote on Jun 18^th, 2019 at 8:36pm:



fat steve is the one who keeps asking for tax cuts horseboy 

John Smith wrote on Jun 18^th, 2019 at 8:38pm:



The tax cuts are for our wonderful businesses .
Steve is on welfare or minimum wage and he will be going on a diet along with Canberra.

This should make him hungry and motivated ,rather the a well fed neutered Tom cat sitting on the sofa.
Scott is put the evolutionary blowtorch on Steve.
Steve will have to strive , persevere, go thru challenges, climb the mountain, push thru barriers, punch thru the wall.
Scott is providing extra motivation for Steve to " be all that he can be"
A noble act of tough love

aquascoot wrote on Jun 18^th, 2019 at 8:55pm:



rubbish ... ask the the conalition, they'll tell you that the tax cuts are for everyone

John Smith wrote on Jun 18^th, 2019 at 9:01pm:



yeah by trying to get pensioners dividend tax credits; before the backflip with pike.

aquascoot wrote on Jun 18^th, 2019 at 8:58pm:


Yep you nailed it:

Cut support for the poor the sick and the disabled  in order to give the most wealthy tax cuts they don't need.

And then when the senate reject the unfair cuts we are left with unfunded tax cuts which we repay in additional debt.

The same problem that has haunted this liberal government since the Abbott days, unfunded hand outs to the wealthy.

lee wrote on Jun 18^th, 2019 at 9:21pm:



it was an amendment ... that's one of the benefits of announcing policies early .. . it gives you time to change them depending on the feedback you get.

lee wrote on Jun 18^th, 2019 at 9:21pm:


no, because he realised the extent of the opposition to it.

lee wrote on Jun 18^th, 2019 at 9:21pm:


no one said it did. ... apart from you I mean. It also doesn't make the original the policy taken to the election

lee wrote on Jun 18^th, 2019 at 9:21pm:


the topic being discussed was never the 'original policy'. That was just your imagination going stupid again. My comment was on horseboys vote. Unless it was by some sort of miracle I'm unaware off, I'm pretty sure Horseboy didn't vote when the original policy was announced.

Of course, if you have any evidence to the contrary I'm quite happy to amend my position.  But I'll need to see your evidence first

John Smith wrote on Jun 18^th, 2019 at 9:27pm:


Keep telling yourself that. it was a stuffup, It was supposed to be w well thought out policy. It took about 2 weeks of quivering.

John Smith wrote on Jun 18^th, 2019 at 9:27pm:



Isn't that what well thought out policy is supposed to prevent?

John Smith wrote on Jun 18^th, 2019 at 9:27pm:


And I never said it did petal.

Quote:


Those earning over $30,000 get a 2.5 cent reduction.

Those earning over $90,000 get a 7.0 cent reduction

Those earning over $180,000 get a 15 cent reduction 

Josh says that the lower and middle are the winners, does he think that anyone is stupid enough to believe him ?

One arrogant pig that obviously believes that his supporters are stupid, the sad thing is that he is probably right.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 18^th, 2019 at 9:47pm:



the last election proves they are.

lee wrote on Jun 18^th, 2019 at 9:48pm:


Well it sure wasn't the final product.

You seem to think it clever to pedantically argue about a position that was changed about 18 months before the election. It is fairly obvious that you have no valid point.

*

I’m not a big believer in “mandates” but two days prior to the election Bill Shorten claimed Labor would have a “moral authority” to implement their tax changes in the event they won the election.

Why does this standard not apply to the coalition who did win the election?

Quote:


Lucky that they don't need a mandate to breathe air.

Wouldn't make much difference to many of the Libs.

Rupertsford wrote on Jun 26^th, 2019 at 8:14pm:

Their tax plans were not a central part of their campaign. Their other policies - what there were of them - hardly got mentioned at all. They mentioned Labor more often than they mentioned tax cuts. See Morrison's campaign launch speech for an example. All the Coalition really have a mandate for is not being Labor.

Once again - there is no absolute mandate for any government, as the Fascisti Howard tried to sell us way back now... before his personal Downfall... government, in an age where the people are sovereign, derives any mandate ONLY from the majority of the people on an ISSUE - not at the electoral voting booth with all its cunning manipulations...

It can be effectively argued that preferential voting dictates against any absolute mandate... since it is NOT the will of the people as sovereign pure and simple.....   

Bam wrote on Jun 27^th, 2019 at 8:46am:


We can all be glad the coalition is not Labor and the voters had the sense to seperate the two.

I hope Labor continue to block the tax cuts and the coalition cut a deal with the cross bench. This will further entrench Labor in the political wilderness - a party that has won majority government once in the last 9 elections.

Captain Nemo wrote on Jun 27^th, 2019 at 12:39pm:


Review is a nice word for retaining the ability to block... blocking is but part of its ammunition box .... adjustment is more the go ...

A total victory

I am thinking of all the voters who voted for the Libs for the first time in their life.
They had voted for the alp for decades, now for the first time voted LNP.

There are a lot of people that did this. I heard them on the talkback on the radio.
They ARE the quiet Australians.
Those people, I thought, it might be hard to get them back to voting ALP. Now they have jumped to 'the enemy'?

Now they have $500 --> $1000  in their hand because of their vote.
So, they voted the right way, didn't they?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 5^th, 2019 at 12:37am:


I am one of those who voted Liberal for the first time in my life this year.

Voted Labor every time since the 1970s until this last election.

I voted to try to help to keep Bowen and Shorty out of office.

The Franking Credits retiree rip-off was the main driver for me.

Yes, if Labor can't come up with something good, and if they keep that stinker of a policy on Franking Credits on their books ... I just might vote Liberal next time too.

The old union propaganda parrot BlackDay is squawking at the moon as the Libs have now got their tax cuts thru BOTH HOUSES by buying out Jacqui Lambie.

They don't have a mandate (isn't that sexist ?) then who cares as the voters told the Libs to get on with it when they put Labor in OPPOSITION for the next 20 years.

But the funny part is that when the Libs had scored a winner the stranded Laborites came crawling out of the undergrowth to plaintively bleat that they will support it.

Won't ScoMo beat them around the ears with this sad retreat for months now!!!!