From: speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Fightback! the politics and the sums
Date: 20 Dec 1992 14:27:12 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

Original Message From: yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
 
>>>income poor people (retirees). But this new income tax system is
>>>also less progressive than at present.  That is, the more income
>>>you get the greater the proportional income tax saving.
>>
>>As the inflation is sure to rise, the next impact on the average wage
>
>The inflation effect is a one off.
 
And still this is supposedly compensated for by the package, but what
worries me about this "package" is that EVERYTHING depends on
everything else. The slow implementation of one or more aspects could
severely effect those least able to afford the impost.
 
>>Consequently, the belief must be that the richer a person gets the more
>>his business will be expanded.
>
>This is generally true is it not?
 
True that this is the current concept, but is it right? Ok, I am
about to use a real BAD example, but look at what Bond did with all
the money he got. He spent it pursuing take-overs, thereby hardly
giving credence to the concept. I agree that in principal this
should happen but I don't believe it does.
 
>>I suppose they have got to find somewhere for their money. But if
>>savings are relatively tax free (are they?) what incentive is there to
>>invest their money in some business or productive aspect of the
>>economy?
>The first $2k are tax free, this creates a large pool of cheap funds
>available locally for expansion. It should be a win for industry,
>an increase of our saving pool and a win for our current acct.
 
Ok so $2000 in interest is tax free, but what guarantee is there
that this money will be used by business. Chances are it is all
going to go into housing and with the aid of negative gearing
leave savings in short supply again. Am I being too pessimistic or
indeed unrealistic?
 
>>If you are unemployed you are definitely in the "basket-case"
>>category. Sure you have a higher tax threshold on your social security
>>payments, but what other compensation do you get. The big selling
>
>Unemployment benefits go up by 8%.
 
I suppose it is a moot point now, but my reply to the above would
be that this is a big consolation after 9 mths (or whatever the
cut-off time was). Let's just say that the Liberals have
introduced a modicum of realism and world-awareness into their
economic master plan.
 
>>point seems to be "well you'll get more in child endowment". Well what
>>happens if you are single or married and without children. Does this
>
>Tax cuts below $15k average 4.8%, CPI effect of GST is 4.7%
>or 4.4% if you don't include tobacco.
 
Still if you are earning under $15,000 and have a wife to feed,
then there is no margin for error.
 
The trouble with these averages of 4.7% and so on is that like the
Liberal's original basket of goodies, it all depends on how you
define average. Poorer people spend more of their disposable
income in just sustaining themselves and generally drink and
smoke, thus while the average increase in their daily living costs
may be 4.7% it may not apply to them, and very likely won't.
 
Newsgroups: aus.politics