Tax scales

The Meeting Place > Political > Tax scales

2 yrs ago

I've chosen to create a new topic because I am unable to comment on topics raised by YLC. Monday's topic about how tax cuts are unfair to women is stretching statistics to its absolute limit. The argument is based on the fact that the highest earning income group is mainly men. So, because there are more men than women in that group then the argument is that women are losing out on tax cuts.

Tax cuts have traditionally been made by percentage, not a dollar amount, so if there is a fairer way to adjust the tax scales I have yet to see it. The article also tries to say that Labor doesn't support the tax cuts for the highest earning group when the truth is that Labor has agreed to support the tax cuts even though they once had one member disagree with them.

To put all of this in perspective, both men and women have received, or will receive, an equal tax cut based on their income. As the tax cuts are percentage based it neither advantage or disadvantage any particular group. An argument about males versus females could be made that more female teachers and nurses are receiving tax cuts as their male counterparts. The article by YLC is factual but doesn't disclose the full story.

4 comments

Suze

2 yrs ago

I cannot see why personal income tax should be higher than company tax.

There is nothing to stop women from going into jobs with lower tax cut positions.

Woodstock

2 yrs ago

The familiarity with this article is that it merely conforms to our cultural agenda which is to itemise nearly all matters as disadvantage and or discrimination towards women. Then push for concessions or preferential treatment for women. I have never seen ONE initiative that targets advancement for men. We talk of teachers and nurses regarding the tax initiatives. We could in parallell talk of the lack of male teachers, the curriculum adjustements to suit women under STEM type irrationality, and the HSC University enrolment qualifaication outcomes that heavily favour women to an extent of around 60% women and 40% male. Situation reversed would be a headline. End of the story is if you are an Australian citizen earning income the tax level should be 'equal'.

Diogenes

2 yrs ago

HI Horace Cope,

Very pleased to see you here again and alarmed to learn you are unable to comment on topics. I have always enjoyed your wise comments, as they are reasoned , sound and well argued. I also appreciate the fact that you never make derogatory comments about others, though I note that many others have not always treated you with the same courtesy. As usual you have subject the article on tax cuts into a reasonable, commonsense framework for us. Thank you from a grateful Horace Cope fan.

Horace Cope

2 yrs ago

Thank you Diogenes, I have always believed that facts are enough to sway a debate and personal abuse is only used by those who have no facts to support their argument. Their words define them, not me.

Karl Marx

2 yrs ago

I would prefer to see the current threshold of $18,200 increased to at least the annual single base pension rate of $22,937 or better still the full pension single rate annually of $25,155 or even round it out at 30k. No threshold adjustment has been done since the 2012-2013 tax year.

This will help the more in need & low income earners & also flow on to all the the other tiers as well. Maybe not at the same savings.

Pensions & welfare payments need to be revised upwards as well as these groups are one of the most vulnerable and never get a mention in budgets since, I think, Kevin Rudd's pension increase in 2009 or around that time.

Elderly poverty is a very real threat in developed nations like Australia. In fact, almost a third of Australians on a pension live in poverty and most of them are women unfortunately.

Woodstock

2 yrs ago

Hey Karl, "most of them are women". There goes another fabrication.

Sue Ridge

2 yrs ago

Karl Marx

2 yrs ago

Is it really Woodstock. Obviously your research is zero.

Suze

2 yrs ago

Karl

re; " In fact, almost a third of Australians on a pension live in poverty and most of them are women unfortunately. "

It may be because women live some 5 years longer than men,

so possibly that is why most of them are women ?

Karl Marx

2 yrs ago

Good point Suze but still doesn't alter the facts. A fact that isn't hasn't been of any importance or concern for many years of federal grubbyments and I can pretty much guarantee no mention of help for pensioners come this 29th March.

4 comments

To make a comment, please register or login

Tax scales

Preview your comment