The rich to get huge tax cuts under Scott Morrison’s plan   
Wealthy Australians - including Scott Morrison - will be $11,640-a-year better off under proposed tax cuts. But it’s a different story for others.   


News.com.au
SEPTEMBER 3, 2020

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has hinted that personal income tax cuts worth $20 billion could be brought forward.
Part-time workers will score a measly $255-year under the tax cuts the Morrison Government is considering bringing forward but the wealthy including Prime Minister Scott Morrison will ultimately secure a stunning $11,640-a-year windfall.   

Wealthy families on six figure salaries are on track to secure huge windfalls worth up to 20 times the value of low income and part-time workers under the legislated tax cuts by 2025.

That prompted a warning that the Morrison Government would be better off increasing welfare payments or tax cuts for low income workers if they really want people out spending to stimulate the economy.



ANU Associate Professor Ben Phillips told news.com.au that the rich are more likely to stash tax cuts into savings accounts and pay off personal debts including credit cards and big mortgages, rather than spending the money and stimulating the economy.

“We know that people are saving at higher rates than ever. It will have some small impact. But most people would say you get a bigger bang for your buck with tax cuts at the lower income end or welfare,’’ he said.


The Australian Council for Social Services is urging the Morrison Government to deliver a permanent increase to JobSeeker before it fast-tracks tax cuts for the rich.

In a discussion paper, Restoring growth: Tax cuts or payments and services?, ACOSS warns bringing forward the tax cuts won’t stimulate the economy if the wealthy workers don’t spend the money.


“The second and third stages of the Government’s proposed tax cuts are skewed towards high income-earners. In the context of high household debt, much of these tax cuts will be saved,’’ the discussion paper states.



“In contrast, a $75 a week increase in Newstart and related allowances for single people and single parents would mainly go to the poorest households and regions. Since they have little choice but to spend any extra dollar on essentials like food and rent, the money would be quickly spent, lifting jobs and growth in the regions that need it.”

The tax cuts the Morrison Government is considering bringing forward are worth $20 billion and are currently scheduled to come into force in 2022.


Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has repeatedly flagged he is considering bringing forward the tax cuts to help kickstart the economy.

“Again, we’ll provide those details when we get to the Budget, because obviously these are issues that are still under consideration and what we did take to the last election was a three-stage plan which would see the abolition of a whole tax bracket, 37 cents in the dollar tax bracket,’’’ he said.

“It would see 94 per cent of Australian taxpayers pay a marginal rate of no more than 30 cents in the dollar. One big tax bracket between $45,000 and $200,000. It’s important that people recognise that tax cuts put more money into people’s pockets. More money into people’s pockets means more spending and more spending means more jobs. But these are still under consideration, so I don’t want to add to the detailed speculation, you’ll have to wait until Budget day.”



The second stage of the tax cuts the Morrison Government has flagged it is most likely to bring forward will lift the income threshold when the 19 per cent tax rate kicks in from $41,000 to $45,000 and the rate at which the 32.5 per cent tax rate applies from $90,000 to $120,000.

A third stage of the tax cuts, with a tax rate of 32.5 per cent to apply to the vast majority of workers, is currently scheduled from 2024.

It will apply a 32.5 per cent tax rate on all income between $41,000 and $200,000.

That’s the tax change that will ultimately deliver the Prime Minister a $11,640 a year tax cut.

By comparison, a part-time worker earning $30,000 a year will secure just $255-a-year from the planned tax cuts.

A worker earning $75,000-a-year secured a $1080 a year tax cut under the original 2019 tax cuts rising to $1830 by 2025.

But the biggest benefits of the tax cuts kick in when workers are earning six figures.

While the tax cuts are worth up to $2565 for anyone earning over $120,000 from 2023 the windfall gains for high income earners keeps rising.   

By 2025, or earlier if the tax cuts are brought forward, the tax cuts will deliver $4400 for a worker on $120,000 a year.

The carefully orchestrated campaign from the Government of Two Parties is proceeding apace and without let.... the campaign to reduce unto penury and thus economic despotism those who actually work for a living, while uttering inanities like 'trickle down will take care of you all' and 'what's good for business is good for the nation', and 'none of this outstanding government largesse to those with the capacity to do so will lead them to salt this extra lovely away where it pays no tax and perpetuate the never-ending drain on the economy and Budget, thus forcing the government to raise taxes overall on those with the least, to make it equal all round like Thatcher's tax on the number of people in a home' etc .....

Repeat 5000 times until someone believes it...

Well said Jest,  this is why come election time, one should think very carefully on who they vote for.   

I say we take off and Vote Independent from orbit ..... only way to be sure...

Working harder does not necessarily mean you will earn more.   

The Coalition will not touch Franking Credits, Capital Gains Tax or Negative Gearing which all cost the budget far more than they provide towards revenue....So the Coalition will cut taxes to the rich even though the budget is in far more debt and deficit than when they declared a National Budget Emergency in 2013....How is the Coalition going to fix the budget by giving more hand outs to the wealthy???

Gordon wrote on Sep 7^th, 2020 at 1:30pm:


The people who work the hardest earn the least ? You plan would fail.

whiteknight wrote on Sep 7^th, 2020 at 9:00pm:

If it wasn't for about 20 wasted years of conservative government, it would have been at 12% already.

whiteknight wrote on Sep 7^th, 2020 at 9:27pm:


This is why we need Direct Democracy because if recollection serves it was Labor Treasurer Wayne Swan who snuck into one of his budgets raising the age to 67. They take it in turns to criticise each other for doing the same things. Kristine Kenealey is constantly on Twitter warning people how the Libs want to privatise this and that and she privatised the NSW electricity grid. This system is about political show and nothing to do with democracy.   

Captain Nemo wrote on Sep 10^th, 2020 at 5:45pm:

Did the Libs repeal the 67 pension age? No.

Jest wrote on Sep 11^th, 2020 at 8:14pm:

Pretty much. Both the major parties are beholden to neoliberal ideology.

Bam wrote on Sep 11^th, 2020 at 9:34pm:

Totally agree! And since the neoliberals own and run both parties our so called democracy doesn't provide us with a real mechanism to change it.

whiteknight wrote on Sep 7^th, 2020 at 9:27pm:


Knocked on the head, years ago.  That plan, not the poster. 

Thank heavens for the good people in the senate.  Expecting people to work till 70 years old.  Trust the liberals of thinking that one up.   

I've said this elsewhere on the forum, but it's worth repeating.

Tax cuts will do little to stimulate the economy, as most will be either saved or used to pay down debt. Neither of which are going to produce economic gains.

What they will do, however, is further reduce Government revenue (at a time when, arguably, we can least afford it).

Surely it would be better to borrow to fund Nation building infrastructure, given where rates are at now (and for the foreseeable future)?

On the Age Pension, a couple of points (some of which have been mentioned, some which have not).

Firstly, Super was brought in, in part, to lessen the overall cost of the pension, by allowing people to be increasingly self-funded in retirement, and to enjoy a decent standard of living.

It was structured to increase over time, to account for inflation (among other things).

Guess which party legislated to stop those increases?

Guess what effect that legislation had?

Yep. A forward looking Government decided that, with the extra future impost on the pension, they'd better raise the age of eligibility.

But the LNP are always up for a "race to the bottom", so decided to attempt to raise it further. It was only eventually "dropped" as they realised it would not get through the Senate, irrespective of likely make up.

Then, in their so-called wisdom, they decide that compound interest does not apply to Super, so they allow people - many of whom have very little - to raid their accounts.

Questions, therefore, arise.

1) How much worse off will the people who accessed their Super be in future years?

2) As a result of being (considerably) worse off, will there be an even bigger reliance on the Age pension to "make ends meet" for those people?

3) If the answer to (2) is yes, will there be a need to both increase the age of eligibility, AND tighten other eligibility criteria?

"Better economic managers" indeed. What tripe!

Sometimes, I seriously wish there was a decent cohort of people whose ONLY interest was the betterment of our Nation and ALL its people, who could be brought together to properly upset this neo-liberal apple cart once and for all...

Otherwise, we'll simply continue to get more of the same. 

crocodile wrote on Sep 19^th, 2020 at 12:58am:

Indeed.

* Millionaires who pay no tax
* One-third of big companies pay no tax

Bam wrote on Sep 19^th, 2020 at 6:05pm:


Yes indeed. There are some simpletons around here that don't realise that millionaire or not, there is no tax due if they didn't earn anything.

The same simpletons that can't get it through their thick, stupid skulls that businesses pay tax on profit. No profit, no tax. No refund for losses. Instead, losses carried forward until exhausted.

Jasin wrote on Sep 19^th, 2020 at 6:19pm:


Someone else will swoop on your vacated 'market opportunity'....

Nobody asked you to 'set up shop' here - you volunteered..... so pay your dues... you no likee?  No playee by the rules....

Go ahead - move to a third world country where you will short-term profit - when you run out of hidey-holes, you will be bust....  you no payee workers to build Horden and Frord - they no havee the money to buy Hordern or Frord.....

Wah' now?  You payee you workers in Thailaysia enough to buy Horden or Frord while they eke out a living on far less?

How many buyee so fa'?

Trade relies on different levels of income and living standards between builder and buyer - if all are 'equar' in poverty - no tradee any mo'!

How many Horden an' Frord you sell this year?  I curiou. .... no' that there anything wlong wi' that!

How long expectee marke' to las'?

crocodile wrote on Sep 19^th, 2020 at 6:44pm:

Incorrect. It's taxable income on which tax is payable, not gross income. Some wealthy people earn million-dollar incomes and pay no tax - see link.

crocodile wrote on Sep 19^th, 2020 at 6:44pm:

Again, incorrect. It's not profit on which tax is paid, but taxable profit.

It's not just carried forward losses (a legitimate deduction when calculated correctly) that businesses can use to reduce their taxable profit. Businesses also receive other tax deductions and benefits that allow them to reduce their tax. Some businesses have no carried forward losses, make decent profits, but pay no company tax.

If the headline company tax rate is to be lowered while not cutting tax revenue, broadening the corporate tax base is needed.