Skip to main content

That $34 million tax-cut chimera

With Australian electioneering well underway, and smearing much in evidence, Kenneth Davidson, writing in The Age, reveals that that Coalition promise of $34 million in tax cuts is no cut at all:

"John Howard's $34 billion tax cut is neither a fistful of dollars nor tax reform. It is a chimera designed to give back to wage earners the growth in the tax burden as wages rise with inflation, pushing workers into higher tax brackets.

Malcolm Fraser introduced income tax indexation in 1976 to impose discipline and honesty on government financial management.

The automatic indexation of income tax scales in line with inflation was taken for granted by taxpayers. It was quickly abandoned so that the Fraser (and subsequent) governments could get the credit for tax cuts legislated in parliament in a blaze of publicity.

But nobody has tried this old ploy on the scale of the Howard Government, apparently building the strategy for the six-week election campaign around it. Nevertheless, if the headlines are any guide, the media have taken the bait. They all stressed the total $34 billion tax cut. It looks huge — because it aggregates four years' worth of cuts.

Canberra economist Ian McAuley has crunched the Coalition's tax cuts in real and nominal terms, based on Treasury's inflation rate assumption of 2.75 per cent for 2007-08 for the four-year period.

The figures — online at the Centre for Policy Development website — show that the
so-called tax cuts of $34 billion are about equal to the cost of full tax indexation over the period.

In other words, if wages don't keep pace with inflation or if inflation moves above the upper band of 3 per cent set by the Reserve Bank to manage monetary policy, wage earners' real disposable incomes could fall despite the nominal tax cuts."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...