Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Low earners do most in budget lifting, says NATSEM modelling

The budget hits 1.25 million low and middle income families with children on average by about $3000 a year in 2017-18 while…

Treasurer Joe Hockey’s first budget has hit lower income families hard. AAP/Lukas Coch

The budget hits 1.25 million low and middle income families with children on average by about $3000 a year in 2017-18 while it actually benefits upper middle and upper income families through removing the carbon price, according to modelling done by NATSEM at University of Canberra.

Ben Phillips, a principal research fellow at NATSEM, said the modelling’s major finding was that the budget’s pain was felt most strongly by low income families – those with children and particularly single parents.

A single parent in 2014-15 would lose about $1800 up to a wage of $60,000, mainly through losing the school kids bonus and having reductions in family payments if their youngest child had turned six. There was a similar hit for couples with children.

By 2017-18 the full impact of losing Family Tax Benefit B, other changes to family payments, and no school kids bonus combined to hit these families by $4000 for very low income people and more than $6000 for families with incomes around $50-60,000.

The research was commissioned by the opposition leader Bill Shorten. Eighteen measures with direct impact on family budgets were modelled plus removal of the carbon price and the school kids bonus. NATSEM uses the same model as Treasury.

The modelling showed that the more a single mother earned, the more she lost under the budget changes - $4200 on the minimum wage and $6300 on average weekly earnings for a full time female worker. “The incentives seem to be confused with lower payments and higher effective tax rates,” Phillips said.

He said that nearly every couple family with children in the bottom 40% of incomes would be worse off while only one in three in the top 40% will be worse off, with the budget income tax levy only affecting about 3% of families.

Families in the bottom half of the income distribution are worse off by about $1200 in 2014-15 while the top income families with children are worse off by about $700.

By 2017-18, when the income tax levy will have finished, couples with children in low to middle income groups lose an average $2700 ($3500 for single parents). Couples with children will be behind by 7% of income; single parents take a 10% cut to their standards of living. High income groups are ahead.

The paid parental leave scheme (not modelled by NATSEM) would affect just 150,000 families a year and cost more than the entirety of the cuts in the NATSEM analysis.

Phillips said: “There is some good reform in this budget, for example FTB B is limited to $100,000, and indexation of excise. But the overall picture is one where low income families do the heavy lifting.”

Join the conversation

66 Comments sorted by

    1. Brad Farrant

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Paul Felix

      Thanks Paul, I couldn't agree more. The majority of our mainstream journalists have a lot to answer for.

      report
    2. Greg North

      Retired Engineer

      In reply to Paul Felix

      Changes had to be made Paul, the greatest change needing to be removal of a government that has led Australians to be involved in creating the fiscal situation we are currently in, a situation where our country is living well beyond our means.
      Builders for instance cannot just keep building houses if they are paid less than what the cost of building them is.
      Tony Abbott and the LNP may be criticised by many for changes that they would rather not see but then it also needs to be asked what the alternatives are for our country.

      report
    3. Ashley Weatherstone

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Greg North

      Greg, once again you prove to be economically illiterate. Please stick to posts about engineering instead of posting the repetitive chants your read over at the MSM.

      report
    4. grant moule

      Consultant

      In reply to Greg North

      To start with, a fairer budget could be put forward that targets saving from those who can more afford them, that is, ending the age of entitlement for the wealthy and multinational corporations: tax concessions on superannuation, negative gearing, family trusts, capital gains tax, and higher tax for those on very high incomes.

      If Joe Hockey's words on everyone has to do the heavy lifting were true, To set an example, I'd like to see the politician's entitlements only becoming available when they reach 70 years of age, and accessing their generous superannuation at the same age as everyone else.

      report
    5. Amanda Barnes
      Amanda Barnes is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Voter

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Perhaps Greg has been in a re-education programme for the last little while, Peter. Central command were no doubt worried that he was starting to become a little too familiar with we lefties on here for his own good and whisked him away to learn how to speak right again?

      Hello Greg. Hope you are well. We did miss you.

      report
    6. Paul Felix

      Builder

      In reply to Greg North

      Sadly, and factually, then, by your own criteria, the budget is a failure. It makes no impact on the current deficit and at some point in the future a change may be made, as was the case with Labor.
      However when we have a PM and Treasurer who do not know the content of their own budget papers then that appears to be a forlorn hope, your hope not mine.
      The alternatives are the many tens of billions of dollars that Abbott rejected because it would have meant the wealthy paid a fair share of taxation…

      Read more
    7. Garry Baker

      researcher

      In reply to Paul Felix

      Close the money Paul - the media chase nothing but headlines, and the LNP are making them in spades

      As for the above essay :

      Consumer sentiment has taken a dive ? .... Candidly, it's my view we ain't seen nothing yet, and if this bunch of clowns running the show in Canberra isn't brought to brook in quick time, then a full blown recession is waiting just round the corner.

      As for the indices on measuring consumer sentiment - they are trailing indicators at best - whereas leading indicators…

      Read more
    8. Paul Felix

      Builder

      In reply to Greg North

      "Builders for instance cannot just keep building houses if they are paid less than what the cost of building them is."
      I have waited for someone to comment on this, sadly none have.
      Large builders, and most other large businesses, sometimes do run a loss to keep their business going during difficult times (ie the Global Financial Crisis), if they can get bridging capital.
      Smaller and sole builders operate somewhat differently. They sign a contract with a person(s) to build them a house of a particular…

      Read more
    1. Greg North

      Retired Engineer

      In reply to Ben Marshall

      Ben, if it is reality you are after, it is very easy to see the fiscal direction the country had and that change is necessary.
      Do not be fooled into thinking that any one budget is alone going to make our economy stronger and in a global context, Australians do need to face up to the reality that the cost of doing things in Australia is far more expensive than in many other countries.
      To make our economy stronger, we do need to address just how we can become more competitive as a nation.

      report
    2. Ben Marshall
      Ben Marshall is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Writer

      In reply to Ashley Weatherstone

      You might be right, Ashley. I suspect the Coalition carry more than one agenda / ideology at once, and both are mutually opposed.

      Old school liberal clashes with libertarian, true, but the strands of small government, low or no tax, etc fit with the latter. When I look across to the Tea Party end of the GOP spectrum, they have many common elements with the current Coalition.

      But, yeah, fair call. Labels like 'libertarian' only get you so far. It's more a case of me trying to understand where these p****s are coming from.

      Cheers.

      report
    3. Ben Marshall
      Ben Marshall is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Writer

      In reply to Greg North

      Hi Greg.

      Yeah, the whole 'reality' thing. See, if the Coalition had put out a budget that had some real long term planning in it, like acknowledging the reality of climate change, I'd be like, yeah, right on.

      And if they'd put out a budget that didn't take the most from those least able to afford it, acknowledging the reality that this approach is not only viciously cruel but will also increase economy-sapping inequity and entrench poverty, I'd be like, go Coalition.

      Finally, if they…

      Read more
  1. Paul Felix

    Builder

    ''We provide ethical, fact-based content informed by academic expertise'.
    I noticed this banner after my previous posting.
    Political commentary has nothing to do with ethics, it is not fact based and there is little academic expertise.
    It is like claiming Lord Monckton's or Andrew Bolte's views on global warming are based on scientific rigor.
    I accept this has nothing to do with the substance of the above article, I simple found it such a weird thing to assert.

    report
    1. Jeff Payne

      PhD in Political Science and Masters in Public Policy

      In reply to Paul Felix

      I find this conclusion Paul frightening. That you can so readily surrender truth to those with power. Where is your backbone? Political commentary, indeed politics itself, can be informed by the truth and directed by our ethics. This is what real politics is. Politics is a practice and, therefore, guided by what is right and good. Just because the powerful have distorted these institutions does not mean that we need to surrender them. Let them, no make them, fight for every inch of reality. Monckton and Bolt are wrong based on the facts. Let's not forget reality and truth or politics really is lost.

      report
    2. Paul Felix

      Builder

      In reply to Jeff Payne

      This is the banner on The Conversation.
      I did not say I agree that the lack of ethics, made up facts or intellectual rigor is desirable, I did observe that it is reality, and, in the context of my views of the author, I find it an amazing statement to head The Conversation web page.
      I actually agree with you.
      However your personal observations about me are both wrong and offensive.

      report
  2. Dave Bradley

    logged in via email @yahoo.com.au

    Right on the mark Paul. The hypocrisy and cruelty and greed are overwhelming. Abbott and hockey are still lying and double speaking as they gloat. Maybe the only place to get the truth about liberal party plans is Hun Sen's face book page. Now he seems to have managed to cut a lot of red tape, no silly ICAC slowing growth in Cambodia

    report
    1. Greg Bloomfield

      Democracy Coach

      In reply to Dave Bradley

      If so Dave, we have all the solutions at hand. I started Votergrams in 1986 out of frustration that governments treated people so badly. To my absolute amazement they started doing what people wanted. I have learned a bit since then.

      The problem is that the people rarely tell enough pollies (all of them) what they want. May I suggest that what we want now is some Key Performance Indicators for our local politicians in each electorate. So I am establishing Residents Roundtables, free of party…

      Read more
  3. Peter Frey

    Project Officer

    MORE LIES

    GST WILL NOT RISE Tony Abbott

    Tony, we know exactly what you intend to do - pretty much the total opposite of what you say. See - we're not so dumb eh!

    Call an election Tony - you lack a shred of credibility or integrity and WE DO NOT TRUST YOU.

    I posted another comment earlier today describing the conspiracy of silence from politicians, including senators. The news tonight confirms it. All we got was a senator-elect being bigoted (such is the quality of statesmen these days) and McDonald (Lib) pressuring Tony for an increase in the GST.

    There is no mandate for anything you built on lies Tony. Call an election.

    report
    1. Sean Douglas

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Peter Frey

      CALL AN ELECTION .... yes I would like a re-run too. I hope we get one before the end of the year.

      report
  4. Greg Bloomfield

    Democracy Coach

    Michelle is correct of course. But there is no budget deficit problem, only an attempt to tax more poor people with GST and cut the taxes of the highest income earners which are companies. As a former Chartered Accountant, CPA and Tax Agent, I ask why companies who earn billions should only pay a maximum tax rate of 30% when individual voters pay a maximum rate of 45% on earnings over $200k. Companies are separate legal entities to shareholders. If the company and personal tax rates were aligned…

    Read more
    1. Garry Baker

      researcher

      In reply to David Stein

      Pretty much a re-run of Abbott's trash talk on SPC Ardmona's workforce, where the company itself felt obliged to deny his claims.

      In other words... they said he was full of it.

      Elsewhere on

      report
    2. Garry Baker

      researcher

      In reply to David Stein

      Elsewhere on TC ... I've made another post about this LNP lying game ... Blatant lies on our debt position

      ************
      "" To supplement a critique of Mr Hockey's dire predictions of where we are at right now. Australia's debt at the moment is probably around about $300 billion, so that's about two months of our annual activity.... given our GDP is about $1.5b

      Say then, translated to your own personal debts (in total, as an individual), - (including your house mortgage, car, along with…

      Read more
    3. Jack McCadden

      Analyst

      In reply to David Stein

      They are trying to talk the currency down David. The AAA rating and a market expectation that the next rate rise will be up is keeping the A$ above 90c, which is making life tough for everyone. A lower currency would be a great help for the Australian economy. A "businessman" should know this.

      report
    4. David Stein

      Businessman

      In reply to Jack McCadden

      Putting your cheap shot aside, losing the AAA rating would, all other things being equal, put upward pressure on official rates. Higher official rates will in turn will encourage currency carry trade and an increase in the AUD.

      report
    5. David Stein

      Businessman

      In reply to Garry Baker

      Thanks Garry - great points.
      I also think one of the other objectives is downward pressure on wages. Industrial relations policy by stealth.
      Reducing welfare and throwing people on the street without the dole would force people to accept much lower wages for the same work - employers would know this. There is an enormous campaign against weekend penalty rates right now. Just another war against the workers by the conservatives.

      report
    6. Jack McCadden

      Analyst

      In reply to David Stein

      That's patently incorrect, as evidenced by interest rates in countries with sub AAA ratings at the moment.

      report
    7. David Stein

      Businessman

      In reply to Jack McCadden

      ''Patently". Ah, so charming.
      I look forward to your patently obvious evidence which will patently convince me.
      Until then, I'll rely on forward premiums for my forex advice.

      report
    8. Jeff Payne

      PhD in Political Science and Masters in Public Policy

      In reply to David Stein

      We have to realize David, as the US has shown in practice, that credit rating agencies are just another instrument of neo-liberalism. Sometimes, as other counties again have shown, you need to go against these ideological prescriptions if you want a good society.

      I thought the actions of the US government shows the political, and at times comical, nature of these rating agencies. In 2011, after the US lifted its debt level, S&P, perhaps the most prestigious rating agency, decided to slap the President…

      Read more
    9. Jack McCadden

      Analyst

      In reply to David Stein

      Country - credit rating - interest rate
      USA AA+ 0 - 0.25%
      EU AA- 0.25%
      Japan AA- 0 - 0.10%
      UK AA+ 0.5%

      Forward premiums? Don't you mean forward curve? Or are you just making stuff up?

      report
    10. David Stein

      Businessman

      In reply to Jack McCadden

      Hi Jack,
      Thanks again for the very pleasant interaction. 'Making stuff up' this time - nice.
      This is the last time since I don't think you are really here to have a sensible discussion.
      All you have done is lay out a few credit ratings and their official interest rates. It's the spread that matters.
      When there's a sovereign credit downgrade, or an anticipated downgrade, currencies typically move up in response to the downgrade as a result of rising spreads. This is the forward premium puzzle - forex investors looking for carry trade get a better yield from both a potential increase in official rates and also higher actual spreads demanded on sovereign bond. Paradoxically, the currency appreciates in response to the expected downgrade.
      Adios.

      report
    11. David Stein

      Businessman

      In reply to Jeff Payne

      Hi Jeff,
      Excellent points and no doubt about it - the ratings agencies are certainly flawed. No question - they missed the great depression, and certainly missed the GFC. Lehman got an A rating from S&P - a downgrade to A - only days before the company filed for bankruptcy. Other examples abound - Enron etc. How are pensioners who invested in those shares feeling about the quality of the ratings agencies?
      And as far as sovereign debt is concerned, large developed economies typically shrug…

      Read more
    12. Jack McCadden

      Analyst

      In reply to David Stein

      Wrong again. To cite a recent example - US economic data weakened from January to March due to a harsher than usual winter. In response the US dollar fell against a basket of currencies. At the same time Australian eco data surprised to the upside, hence $A strength through the period.

      When a country is experiencing a down turn in economic activity, otherwise known as a recession, the relevant central bank eventually lowers interest rates = lower yield on government bonds = weaker spread = lower currency.

      report
  5. Dave Bradley

    logged in via email @yahoo.com.au

    Noticed the Murdoch pro Abbott campaign still running, thought election was over: HEADLINE in Australian quoting Abbott and Standard and Poors dude saying how labour and Greens will destroy Australia's AAA credit rating by opposing budget (democratically and supported by public opinion of course but which Australian didn't have space to mention) but how strange when ABC checked the man from Standard and Poors denied making statement and said blocking legislation in senate would have no effect on…

    Read more
  6. Michael Rogers

    Retired

    The land of the "fair go" myth has always had disdain for those deemed "no-hopers". We'll have to wait for the next election to if the exploitation of this disdain has been pushed up bit too far up from the bottom this time.

    report
  7. Jack McCadden

    Analyst

    The headline of this article is complete rubbish and is the mirror image of so many Newscorp headlines. Low income earners will do zero heavy lifting in this budget, they will just receive less. If people want to debate whether low income earners should receive more/less then fine, but call it what it is; receiving, not lifting.

    The only net 'lifters' in Australia - people who pay materially more in tax than they receive from the Government - are the top 20% of tax payers + corporate tax.

    report
    1. Janeen Harris

      chef

      In reply to Jack McCadden

      Most low income earners do actually work. Low income work is often hard, tedious or back-breaking. High income earners can afford to contribute more for good social outcomes. How dare the treasurer think he is entitled to leave young people with no income support, and put young disabled people on newstart. How dare he disrespect medicare. How dare this government break EVERY pre-election promise. How dare they enact policies that will increase homelessness, mental health problems and crime. Taking from the lowest income people shows a callous disregard for what Australia has always wanted to stand for, the fair go.

      report
    2. wilma western

      logged in via email @bigpond.com

      In reply to Jack McCadden

      So someone who slaves away cleaning hotel rooms for example or the offices in high rise city buildings , and who may have several kids at home to look after is just a "taker"?

      While those CEO's on hundreds of thousands or even millions who have all those corporate responsibilities and don't exploit the loopholes to avoid paying too much tax - well they are the "real lifters" is our society.

      I beg to disagree.

      As for a paraplegic on disability pension and care packages - what a burden on the real contributors to society he must be according to you, Jack.

      report
    3. Jack McCadden

      Analyst

      In reply to Janeen Harris

      "Taking from the lowest income people" - the government isn't taking anything, it's just giving less. Too my original point.

      report
    4. Jack McCadden

      Analyst

      In reply to wilma western

      If a person receives more in benefits than they contribute in tax, then yes in the monetary sense they are a burden. In the social sense, of course not, that's a completely separate issue. However, that doesn't change the fact that only 20% of tax payers are net contributors. It's not a sustainable situation.

      Also that person cleaning a hotel room has a job. If you keep on hitting those who can pay tax, with more tax. Eventually businesses and individuals will relocate to Singapore where income tax is 15%. Good riddance you might say, fair enough, but Australia will be poorer for it.

      report
    5. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Jack McCadden

      Not really the poorer for losing such fleas Jack... you should see them jumping off Buster when I take him for a swim!

      If one's "business" is so frail as to be driven solely by global marginal tax rates then chances are they wouldn't be contributing much to the local economy Jack ... nor do they have to "go" anywhere if they are exporters - obviously they're not selling into this domestic market ... they just have to set up a shelf subsidiary or chain of them where electronic transactions see their profits turn up however briefly in say the Cook Islands or the Channel Islands.

      For that matter why Singapore with their extortionate tax-grab. Bermuda - like the Packers - 0% or Bahrain also on zero ....

      Here's a useful list of places that have wonderful taxation regimes for business. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

      Geez! Jeeves - get my accountant on the line - and my travel agent!

      report
    6. Jack McCadden

      Analyst

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      " If one's "business" is so frail as to be driven solely by global marginal tax rates then chances are they wouldn't be contributing much to the local economy"

      - wrong

      e.g. Holden, Ford, Toyota

      All of those businesses were struggling locally and operating at a loss, therefore paying no tax (actually receiving govt. grants instead). They were/are significant employers in regional centers.Their employees pay tax and their spending supports other businesses. Arguably they will missed by quite a few.

      report
    7. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Jack McCadden

      I'd be fair to middling confident that Holden, Ford and Toyota were not in fact utterly pre-occupied with marginal tax rates ... nor have we seen a rush of carmakers to Bahrain, Bermuda or the Cayman Islands where there are zero rates.

      As I explained, it is not necessary to move your factories to take advantage of low tax rates, all one must do is move your profits there for a bit at the flick of a button. Some 50% of global trade now passes through tax havens according to the OECD... the local tax rates prevailing in the countries where you have your assets are no longer as significant as they might once have been. It's your profits that you move, not your assets. You put your assets where the productivity is highest.

      Please Jack, there's more to this business than common sense and the obvious.

      report
    8. David Stein

      Businessman

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Peter, I always find this discussion of takers and givers a purely political attempt to demonize welfare recipients.
      Particularly when companies stand on their soap box telling governments how over-taxed they are. As if they don't rely on government spending from top to bottom of their operations. For the education of their employees who make them money, the health system to get their folks back to their desks quick smart, and the roads and bridges business use to transport their goods around…

      Read more
    9. Jack McCadden

      Analyst

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      The transactions your talking about are possible in certain industries due transfer pricing. It is possible in some industries (IT) but not in others (mining). It's not magic, not all companies can do it. Tax is a cost. Whether or not it happens to be the cost which broke the camel's back is best the point.

      report
    10. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Jack McCadden

      Transfer pricing is actually a little different ... a ship full of aluminium slabs leaves Australia owned by Company A once outside the heads that load of slabs is "sold" to Company A (Raratonga) for a tragic loss... The Raratonga subsidiary on sells it to Company A (Cayman Islands) for a massive profit and - after as many steps as you like, the boat eventually arrives at the final customer. Miners can and do use transfer pricing routinely. The ship's course doesn't alter at all of course but the…

      Read more
    11. Amanda Barnes
      Amanda Barnes is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Voter

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      How depressing. Skip the tax liability of the host, pick up free cash from the shell nation that sits like a canker on a desperately exploited native class, such as in Panama, then some basic semblance to reality reasserts itself in poor returns to expenditure at the end of sale. The pirates won after all. All that messing about with democracy has proven naught to the will of the few to exploit the many.

      Yet, all that patronising shite that I have heard from the mega wealthy threatening to pack up and abandon our sinking ship is just hype! If they need a healthy economy and an educated worker class to do their bidding then surely Abbott is an anathema to these vested interests? No wonder South American countries are starting to return to health now that the US is distracted and the IMF has better things to do with it's influence.

      report
    12. Jack McCadden

      Analyst

      In reply to Peter Ormonde

      Nice story Peter, unfortunately that's not what happens for the miners. BHP paid $10bn in tax in Australia in 2012. Corporate tax + royalties = effective tax rate of 45%. Verified by audited and published financial statements and the ATO. The same being the case for the junior miners which export from Australia. What you've outline is a intriguing and well researched conspiracy theory. It plain just doesn't happen for the miners. Re google I suspect you're right.

      report
    13. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Jack McCadden

      No Jack I'm not commenting on BHP - I lost interest in them when they got out of steel-making - but just because BHP pays some tax doesn't give the entire minerals export industry a clean slate.

      If you'd like to see how transfer pricing and physical goods exports operate have a google at "Alcan, transfer pricing"... there's a mountain of it.

      But since you've raised BHP Billton have a look at this 2011 report to the London Stock Exchange in which the Top 100 FTSE corporations listed their…

      Read more
    14. Jeff Payne

      PhD in Political Science and Masters in Public Policy

      In reply to Jack McCadden

      I don't know about BHP in particular but mining generally in Queensland is subsidised by the state at a higher rate than the state of Queensland gets back in revenue. This is a little known fact but one Palmer and Co., I'm sure would like to keep a secret.

      report
    15. Jack Bloomfield

      Retired Engineer

      In reply to Jack McCadden

      Jack,
      As you seem to known a fair bit about BHP, could you explain the function and requirement of BHP maintaining four subsidiaries in secrecy/tax haven jurisdictions?

      As per this link:
      http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/tax-dodgers-sans-frontieres/667/
      it appears BHP has the following registered entities:
      2 in Switzerland (7.8% + access to other havens via tax treaty network),
      1 in Anguilla (0% company tax) and
      1 in British Virgin Islands (0% company tax).

      Analysis of top 100…

      Read more
  8. Jay Wulf

    Digerati at nomeonastiq.com

    I am sure Abbott and Costello... sorry, Hockey... Abbott and Hockey will give us another performance or two in front of the cameras, explaining to us why they always were lying to us before the election, and that it is simply only because people are too stupid that they were not able to connect the strategic silences in response to questions about cut funding WITH the actual cuts after the election.

    The really funny thing is not their performance in front of the mikes, ratcheting up one notch in the stereotype of a lying politician serving vested interests. Its the fact that they now expect the poor and the middle class to take this outright thieving of social contract, while rewarding the privilidged few.

    Class warfare taken to a new level. Well done.

    report
  9. wilma western

    logged in via email @bigpond.com

    One day someone might point out to Joe that because his parents managed to do well in their adopted country , this does not mean that every person who starts off with little and works hard will prosper. Circumstances from ill-health to accidents, from locating the small business in an area where it cannot prosper for all sorts of extraneous reasons , to all sorts of other misfortunes can befall the hardest worker with absolutely no "sense of entitlement".

    report
  10. Geoff Taylor

    Consultant

    I wonder what this would look like post the 2014 budget:

    Effective marginal tax rates from PM and Treasurer Dept 18.8.11

    Post Clean Energy Future marginal rate, couple with one on $30k, children 13 and 15, second partner pay variable as shown. Newstart, Medicare levy, LITO, FTB-A, FTB-B included.

    Second partner’s income Amount taken from every extra dollar earnt
    0-2000 20%
    2000-15000 60-72%
    15000-18000 30%
    18000-19000 20%
    19000-21000 40%
    Tiny gap after 21000 20%
    21000-25000 50%
    25000-37000 40%
    37000-63000 55%
    63000-72000 33%
    72000-80000 63%
    80000-86000 69%
    86000- 90000 39%

    report
  11. Lee Emmett

    Guest House Manager

    Thanks Michelle, for reporting the facts on who will actually be doing the heavy lifting.
    It's clear that Tony Abbott's and Joe Hockey's lifting goes as far as a glass of wine, or the occasional cigar.
    The LNP has no idea of the cost of living, and has brought in a Budget which is punitive for some of the most vulnerable people in Australia.
    This inequitable Budget defies all understanding of 'a fair go', and values spending billions on dubious war planes and a lop-sided paid parental scheme at the expense of educating the population, and providing reliable health services.
    So much for 'Real Solutions'.

    report