Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 546

Labor had no choice on stage 3 tax cuts

Despite the impassioned discourse across Australia’s major mastheads, realistically Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers had no choice regarding the stage 3 tax cuts. Clearly, the current state of the economy is far different from that in 2019 when the Coalition tabled the tax cuts, which provided impetus for the modifications to be made. Given where we are at in the political cycle coupled with sustained cost-of-living pressures, Labor would have found it difficult to stick with the legislated stage 3 tax cuts that would have predominantly rewarded high income earners.

The famous quote attributed to both John Maynard Keynes and Winston Churchill comes to mind:

When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Unsurprisingly, at the National Press Club announcement, Albanese was quoted as saying:

We are being very upfront with the Australian people that when economic circumstances have changed, it is a responsible thing to do to change our policy”.

Three main questions

Broadly, three questions remain (brief thoughts are only offered on the first two):

  1. Will the decision to rework the legislated tax cuts hurt Labor politically?
  2. Will the new tax cuts be inflationary?
  3. Are the modified tax cuts a good change of policy?

The answer to the first is uncertain but early evidence is that it won’t. While the revamped tax cuts represent a broken promise, they are not removing an established benefit. Rather, all taxpayers receive a tax cut, it’s just that some receive less than they were expecting. It is hard to argue it will significantly damage Labor given Treasury analysis shows 84% of taxpayers will be better off in 2024-25 under the changes corroborated by Grattan analysis that shows 83% will be better off during the decade to 2033-34.

In the end, you win elections for getting things done, not by breaking promises. I am surprised people are surprised a politician has broken a promise (anyone remember John Howard’s “never ever” promise on the GST…?).

The jury is still out on the second question. The reality is that no-one knows for sure as it depends on several factors including how people will spend their tax cuts. But given the cost-of-living crisis and the fact low- and middle-income earners are struggling with higher interest rates, then it is reasonable to expect the cuts to be largely directed towards mortgage payments which will not impact inflation. Further, given the lack of confidence in the economy, it seems unlikely the post-tax income boost will lead to a huge increase in discretionary spending. Indeed, the Commonwealth Bank’s head of Australian economics said that if all the extra tax relief to low- and middle-income earners was spent, it would boost overall consumption by $4 billion which is a rounding error in a $2.6 trillion economy.

An important point: change not reform!

Before answering the third question, an important point needs to be made. Despite the modifications being touted as ‘tax reform’ by some, they are not tax reform but merely another ad hoc change. In contrast, tax reform requires a long-term objective and a series of substantial changes that when implemented, will achieve the long-term objective. Reform is to re-shape in a positive manner (i.e., improvement) and is structural not transitory (tax rates and scales change relatively regularly).

Are the changes good tax policy?

In the lead up to the backflip, the prevailing winds of public opinion were that the legislated cuts were unfair (i.e., they benefit higher income earners), inflationary, and would worsen inequality (especially for women). There is little doubt, as outlined by Treasury, the modifications improve equity (vertical and gender) and efficiency (more people encouraged to work), help reduce the reliance on personal income tax, and give back some of the stealth tax called ‘bracket creep’. Accordingly, they will help many with the cost of living. However, they could have gone much further to increase the equity, efficiency, and simplicity of the Australian personal tax system.

A politically opportune and socially acceptable alternative

My proposal, based on a unique feature of the UK’s tax system coupled with the implementation of one of Ken Henry’s recommendations, offers an alternative that not only improves fairness but provides a raft of other benefits.

The UK has a progressive income tax system similar to Australia’s with increasing marginal tax rates as taxable incomes climb. But a key difference is taxpayers’ ‘Personal Allowance’ of £12,570 (their equivalent to our tax-free threshold of $18,200) reduces by £1 for every £2 that a taxpayer’s income is above £100,000 (roughly $187,000) meaning the allowance is zero once income reaches £125,140 (roughly $234,000).

The thrust of my proposal is to keep the stage 3 tax cuts as originally legislated but reorient them to Australians in more need while simultaneously returning more bracket creep to middle- and high-income earners as intended. The cherry on top is a substantial reduction in tax system complexity.

First, the tax-free threshold should be increased in line with the recommendation of the 2009 Henry Tax Review. The Review’s favoured model was a tax-free threshold of $25,000 (this equates to roughly $35,000 in today’s dollars).

Second, the tax-free threshold is phased out for higher income earners. For instance, it could reduce by 25 cents for every dollar taxable income exceeds $200,000 (where the top marginal tax rate was to kick in from 1 July this year).

Third, the tax brackets in the original Stage 3 cuts are retained (i.e., a marginal tax rate of 19% on taxable income between $25,000 and $45,000; a marginal tax rate of 30% on taxable income between $45,000 and $200,000; and a tax rate of 45% for taxable income exceeding $200,000).

Everyone’s a winner!

The table below reveals that all taxpayer’s gain under the proposed alternative relative to the current system and the revised stage 3 tax cuts. However, those earning above $230,000 in taxable income (around 350,000 people or 3% of all taxpayers) enjoy less tax cuts compared to the original Stage 3 tax cuts but more than the revised version.

The proposal would lead to a decrease in the average tax rate:

The proposal would put more money into the pockets of all taxpayers relative the revised tax cuts but tapers off at the higher income levels.

Importantly, as a percentage of income, the proposal would see all income earners gain relative to the revised cuts, but higher income earners enjoy less relative to the original cuts.

Benefits of the proposal

The benefits include:

  • It heeds the Henry Review’s call that “a high tax-free threshold with a constant marginal rate for most people should be introduced to provide greater transparency and simplicity”. Streamlined tax brackets are simple and offer incentives to work.
  • Removes approximately 350,000 taxpayers from the tax system (based on the latest ATO statistics for the 2020-21 income year). This group represents 3% of all taxpayers and accounts for 0.8% of total taxable income but only 0.1% of total net tax paid. These taxpayers would no longer need to pay any income tax, and many would not have to lodge a tax return greatly simplifying the personal tax system. Interestingly, if the tax-free threshold were increased to $35,000, 1.6-1.7 million taxpayers (14% of all taxpayers) would be removed from the tax system (they account for 4.7% of total taxable income but only 0.9% of total net tax paid).
  • Lower tax system costs – lower administration costs for the ATO (resources could be directed elsewhere) and lower compliance costs for taxpayers.
  • Reduces Australia’s over-reliance on incentive blunting income tax (as advocated by the OECD and IMF).
  • Increased after-tax income for low-income earners struggling with cost-of-living pressures. This group is predominantly female, so this also helps restore gender equity (around 55% of the group no longer required to pay tax are female).
  • Aligns the marginal tax of most taxpayers (around 69%) to the main corporate tax rate of 30% thereby minimising incentives to incorporate to reduce tax.
  • Ensures high income earners still receive some benefit to compensate for bracket creep.
  • Provides a greater incentive for people to engage in paid work thereby strengthening the bond between below-average income earners and the labour market. This should encourage more women into the workforce and may help with skill shortages.

Costs of the proposal

Potential drawbacks include the possibility the tax cuts are inflationary and a negative impact to the federal budget. However, the Treasury analysis reveals that while the redesign of stage 3 is broadly revenue neutral in the short term (reduces tax receipts by $1.3 billion over the forward estimates period from 2023–24 to 2027–28), it will increase tax receipts by around $28 billion over the medium term from 2023–24 to 2034–35. This is the ‘black hole’ Peter Dutton refers to. Why not give more back to taxpayers now?

Of course, additional budget cost may lead to other piecemeal tax ‘changes’ to raise revenue. Rightly or wrongly, Labor was badly burnt at the 2019 election on the back of a platform that included proposed restrictions on franking credits and negative gearing and halving the capital gains discount from 50% to 25%. Despite the potential revenue on the table (the latest Tax Expenditures and Insights Statement released by Treasury last week reveals that for 2023-24, the revenue forgone is $27.1 billion for rental deductions, $56.61 billion for superannuation concessions and $19.05 billion for the CGT discount for individuals and trusts), the 2019 experience will still be fresh in Labor memories meaning Albanese and Chalmers are unlikely to go down this path unless it is part of a comprehensive tax reform package.

Speaking of which, the primary downside of my proposal (or any other offered in isolation) is that it does not form part of a broader reform package with comprehensive changes. It should, and most business leaders and tax experts are now sensibly advocating for such an approach.

So, where to from here?

The proposal outlined here could be tweaked in a myriad of ways, but its essence remains unchanged. That is, all taxpayers are more fairly compensated for bracket creep (this is a continual process since tax brackets are not indexed for inflation) and more support is provided to low- and middle-income earners to help with the cost-of-living crisis.

It should be an interesting week or two in Parliament. Nonetheless, it is frustrating that both parties continue to tinker with the tax system in an ad hoc manner and argue over piecemeal changes while trying to score political points. In doing so, they are letting politics trump policy and continuing to delay the comprehensive tax reform Australia so desperately needs.

 

Dr Rodney Brown is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Accounting, Auditing & Taxation at UNSW Business School. This article is for general information only, as it does not consider the circumstances of any individual.

 

40 Comments
Kevin L
February 13, 2024

Here's a wild idea. How about Australia index its tax brackets to a reasonably accurate estimate of inflation increases. In other words, join most of the rest of the developed world. Then bracket creep does not become a political football every X years

George B
February 13, 2024

It will never happen because bracket creep gives politicians of all persuasions a path of least resistance when it comes to raising more revenue without actually changing tax scales. It also enables them to give some of it back at election time to give the (false) appearance of being generous.Bracket creep has been a very nice earner for the Victorian government who enjoy massive windfalls by not indexing stamp duty on property transactions for decades and is another kick in the head for struggling home buyers.

Former Treasury policy adviser
February 13, 2024

Nah. That's done in other countries like the US and it's why their budget is hard to control. We elect governments to make policy decisions and one of the decisions that has to be made is when the balance of budgetary and other factors supports changing the tax brackets.
If we had indexation of tax brackets that would just force other decisions to be made - and that might just prove to have unintended consequences.

James
February 14, 2024

Alternatively, and more probably, governments of all political persuasions like to sneakily take more from tax payers through bracket creep and then for cynical political reasons give it back come the election cycle.

Typically budgets are hard to control because of a spending problem! Take the NDIS as but one example. Ill conceived, implemented and badly managed. It's a spending problem!

Former Treasury policy adviser
February 14, 2024

James, what you said does not contradict what I said.

Harry
February 13, 2024

Completely disagree with your claim. In fact the reasons for structural reform removing the 37% bracket are even more urgent.
Compared to the 2019-20 budget estimates receipts for 2022-23 are up $86B and spending up $70B, so the budget outcome is actually ahead of what was predicted, and therefore more affordable.
In addition the higher rate of inflation and wage rises is creating even faster income inflows due to bracket creep.
In fact the situation is sufficiently ahead of expectation that the could have preserved the stage 3 cuts and the LITMO leading to a more sustainable tax reduction over the course of the next decade.

James
February 13, 2024

The original Stage 3 tax cuts were an attempt at structural tax reform by removing the 37% bracket and addressing the lowish $180k (with inflation the highest tax rate should cut in at $250K +) cap before the highest 45% tax rate cuts in. Tinkering with this, albeit inadequate change, is a retrograde step and cynical politics, with the Dunkley by-election due soon. These tax changes don't help until FY2425! If real cost of living relief was being provided, do it now by e.g. cutting the fuel exercise to help families at the bowser!

Lyn
February 14, 2024

Yes James you are right, changes for Yr 24/25 needed now. PM has turned the change into a gift for himself inadvertently given by prior govt. stage 3 introduction date of 1/7/25. The change reaches larger group of voters than otherwise intended and that larger group will be receiving their Yr24/25 refunds 1/7/25 onward just when the next election is round the corner, everyone will be saying down the pub look what I got back you beauty, so to be expected PM will dine out on those refunds as part of next campaign when fresh in public's minds. A masterstroke on his part and no debate of that facet in press or by Oppositon. If PM really wanted to help, he'd legislate to bring forward the date to this financial year with time to get it passsed for Yr 23/24. Covid proved Govt can work fast when it chooses.

Adrian Pounsett
February 13, 2024

So those of you who are worried that the government might backflip over franking credits, capital gains tax and negative gearing don’t have investments that might be affected? There will be absolutely no affect for low income earners who can’t afford to use these methods to reduce their taxes. So wether the government breaks its promises about these taxes would only worry those who use them. I suspect you are all guilty of looking after your own interests rather than what is in the best interests of all Australians.

Dudley
February 13, 2024

"no affect for low income earners who can’t afford to use these methods to reduce their taxes":

The use the tax free threshold to reduce their taxes - made possible by those paying tax.

Franking credits - 'company tax imputation' - is similar employee tax credits - 'income tax imputation' - where taxes are deducted by an employer, paid to government, credited to employee so that employees can not rack off with taxes owed to government.

Capital gains tax 50% deduction is a simplified allowance for 'imaginary gains' due to inflation. Should be applied to all gains such as interest to avoid the 'inflation tax'.

Negative gearing is nothing other than claiming business costs similar to employment cost deductions.

SMSF Trustee
February 13, 2024

Adrian, franking credits are not a way of reducing taxes. They are the imputation system at work which results in tax being paid on dividend income at the tax payers marginal rate. If that rate is zero then zero tax is paid, generating a refund of the withholding tax already paid by the company (aka company tax). It's because the tax payer is already on a zero tax rate that franking credits happen. Don't blame the imputation system - it doesn't change anyone's tax rate, the government controls those. If you have an issue with some people being on a zero tax rate then tackle that issue, not blame the wrong target.

Geoff
February 13, 2024

Who put you in charge to decide what is "in the best interests of all Australians" Adrian?

As a general observation, people who rail against franking credits, capital gains tax and negative gearing ofetn have no idea at all what they actually are and how they actually work. "Negative gearing" is particularly misunderstood.

Feel free to disabuse me of this notion.

Harry
February 14, 2024

It’s not in the interest of Australia for everyone to spend what the earn, invest nothing and fall back on the taxpayer teat. It’s a common theme in Labor circles that those who make absolutely no effort to provide for themselves post working are somehow nobler than those who save and make sensible and sustainable investments. It’s nuts, but it’s what they believe.

James
February 14, 2024

Despite the criticisms of compulsory superannuation, without it, most Australian's would save very little for their retirement years. As to whether they're better off though depends on the quantum of those assets versus the means testing of the pension. Unfortunately perverse outcomes are achieved where people are worse off, in that they partially fund the same amount as the age pension that some get for free! Only in Australia, land of the over-regulated and oft maker of inane policies! Hence people not saving extra or spending their superannuation quickly to get the full age pension.

H. Ashoka
February 12, 2024

It is not surprising that you find arguments in favour of breaking the promise. Firstly, there were stages 1 and 2 where the low income earners benefited. Secondly, Albo could have taken the top earners into confidence by saying that circumstance had changed and he had to break the promise instead of insisting for months that he would honour the Stage 3 cuts in full, and then breaking his word. One does not expect this from a responsible Prime Minister. The duplicity and dishonesty is what rankles, and raises suspicion about everything this government promises, Onwards towards Venezuela.

Michael
February 12, 2024

Agree - not sure of the "not removing an established benefit" remark - they were legislated - that's pretty established - perhaps not yet effective may have been better. I also think it folly to have taxation debates in isolation to Australia's welfare system - it appears that high income earners fund welfare and then everyone cries when the tax table changes.

CC
February 11, 2024

You conveniently ignore the Medicare levy, Medicare levy surcharge for high income earners who don't pay expensive private health insurance, and other levies sometimes charged on higher income earners ( Fire levy, Budget repair levy etc ) which means the top tax rate is ACTUALLY 48% or more....absurdly high

Cam
February 11, 2024

Circumstances haven’t changed since Albanese kept saying stage 3 tax cuts won’t change over recent months.
The only fact that’s changed is we can’t believe what he says, no matter how insistent he is.
In contrast Howard took the GST to an election.
To compare the 2 just says you’re a Labor voter and you let that affect your academic judgement.

Martin
February 11, 2024

Howard invented "core" and "non-core" promises. This would suggest he maybe broke his promises once or twice!

John Abernethy
February 11, 2024

Thank you Rodney for an excellent thought piece.

I want to comment on question 2. Is the proposed tax rate adjustment inflationary?

I have argued for the past few years ( since Covid and Ukraine War) that this is substantially a “cost driven” inflation cycle and not a “demand driven” inflation cycle. Note Australia’s recent recorded and forecast below historical average economic growth rate.

Whilst supply lines were hindered coming out of Covid as demand recovered, it was a transitory inflation cycle. The Ukraine War and the actions of OPEC to push or to hold up oil prices ( to aid Russia) was a major cause of cost inflation.

In Australia policies regarding energy supply, pricing, indexed excise taxes and no targeted tax relief ( trade off for wage rises) has pushed costs higher as imported prices surged. A weak AUD is the icing on the cake.

So the proposed tax changes will not affect inflation outcomes. It is a fallacy constantly put out by politicians who have no understanding of different types of inflation.

Indeed my collection of year 12 economics was that the difference between “cost push” and “demand pull” inflation was a rudimentary economic concept that was studied and clearly understood.


Wayne Rees
February 11, 2024

The reality is no one can tell the future and therefore should not make promises and then renege on the basis the world changed.....hello!

Dauf
February 09, 2024

Look out for you super and negative gearing and franking credits (which helps the funding source of industry funds as a bonus). Super is where the money is so look out ‘they is a coming’!

will stuart
February 09, 2024

Agreed that the stage three was'nt reform within and of itself, however it was one aspect of tax reform that would, to some extent have relieved the very real consequences of bracket creep.
The fact that even that has failed would suggest that any and all aspects of tax reform are very unlikely to be implemented at all.
Sure things have changed but these changes were already clear at the election and surely there are other ways of providing relief without killing off the one aspect of tax reform that had been agreed to.
Nothing more or less than a political tool to wedge Dutton and change the conversation, which as always was masterfully carried out.

Outsider
February 09, 2024

This is good, but real long-term reform is required.
As Ken Henry recommended take less tax from wages and a bigger proportion from land tax (a la Henry George).
It's a huge reform and unlikely to be passed into law by any government any time soon due to vested interests etc.

John
February 08, 2024

Circumstances have indeed changed, inflation has skyrocketed making bracket creep a far more insidious form of taxation increase. The correct response would have been to increase the tax cuts for all, giving back what inflation and bracket creep has taken away.

Dudley
February 08, 2024

Marginal Tax Rates 67+:
https://freeimage.host/i/J1zLbJj

Negative taxation due to Age Pension excluded.

Michael
February 08, 2024

Many sensible tax reforms proposed are difficult to implement politically, which means the political decision making filter is very important when analysing any tax changes. And while this may not be acknowledged by Jim Chalmers, Bill Shorten possibly may.

Focusing on the particular political decision on the Stage 3 tax cuts I am disappointed that almost all the political and economic commentary I have seen does not consider the impact on tax revenue of higher wages due to higher inflation.

Inflation expectations at the time of the original legislation was passed were lower. Bracket creep due to these higher than expected wages is fuelling a higher percentage increase in taxes than in wages. As a result income tax paid will be greater overall in percentage terms, than originally anticipated, despite the current reallocation between high, middle and low income earners.

A simple solution, to remove the ongoing need to adjust the tax brackets for inflation, would be to legislate for automatic indexation of the tax brackets to account for bracket creep i.e to maintain the same percentage of income paid as tax after inflation at each bracket threshold.

While not preventing other changes to brackets and rates it would remove much of the political spin associated with "cuts" and provide a sounder basis for "real" reform.

Paul
February 09, 2024

I agree indexing income tax thresholds to inflation should be part of a more comprehensive tax reform. The issue for me is what do you make the starting point. Arguably the top tax rate and the level it cuts in are both too high. If income tax thresholds were indexed today we would just entrench this problem.

George Hamor
February 08, 2024

You omit to say, in regards broken promises, that Howard took the GST issue to a general election.
Albo simply pulled a swifty.

Disgrntled
February 09, 2024

From 1997, Howard spearheaded the Coalition push to introduce a Goods and Services Tax (GST) at the subsequent election; this was despite saying, before winning the prime ministership, that it would "never ever" be part of Coalition policy.

The tax was introduced by the Howard government and commenced on 1 July 2000, replacing the previous federal wholesale sales tax system and designed to phase out a number of various State and Territory Government taxes, duties and levies such as banking taxes and stamp duty.

We were promised a lot of other taxes would be removed with the introduction of a GST. That never happened.

It could be reasonably argued that Hewson's was the better version of a GST but the short sighted couldn't see that.

Chris Davis
February 09, 2024

Or in another example using Mr Abbott,
No new taxes, no cuts to health, medicare, SBS or ABC.
Tony Abott simply pulled a swifty with a double pike.

Tony
February 08, 2024

When the facts change...
What has changed since the 2022 election, when Labor promised to keep the stage 3 tax cuts, is that income tax receipts have risen by almost $100 billion and the budget recorded a surplus. The original stage 3 cuts merely contained temporarily the rapid rise in income tax receipts - which go up more than average wage growth due to bracket creep.
The ALP are hiding behind Treasury - there's no way the proposal came out of thin air and contrary to government 'promised' policy without the Treasurer's approval.
Those on more than $150,000 are worse off from day 1 and many others will be in just a few years of wage growth. Those people were counting on tax cuts to ease some of the pressure from rising mortgage payments (higher income earners tend to have higher mortgages). A $4,500 tax cut reduced from $9,000 barely touches the sides when mortgage repayments are for many up by $30,000 to $40,000 per year.
Don't forget those on lower income have had the benefit of Stage 1 and Stage 2 already.
For those who argue those on welfare need more - that's got nothing to do with income tax rates and everything to do with how expenditure is allocated - and by the way a 5%+ pay rise for those on welfare care of CPI in the last year requires an 8% pay rise before tax for those in the current $45,000 to $120,000 tax bracket (34.5% including Medicare).

Stephen
February 08, 2024

Rodney, while I admire the work you’ve put in to this it really is just more sophisticated tinkering of tax rates. The recent IMF report on Australia mentioned the need for substantial review of all tax arrangements at a federal and state level. I do feel that with growing realisation of the current system’s inequity, distortions and inefficiencies, the merry go round of tax tinkering might stop and that finally we might get a reasoned debate. This will require real leadership from both major parties. I’m not holding my breath especially with Dutton (Mr No) leading the Opposition, but maybe, just maybe, we are about to see real reform in the next Parliament.

the suppository of all wisdom
February 08, 2024

"economic circumstances have changed"

The economy is always changing, but it has changed this year no more than in any other year. Saying the economy has changed is nothing but a fanciful excuse for breaking a promise.

In 2 years time interest rates, the share market, property prices and unemployment will all be different to what they are today. Using this excuse any promise can be broken at any time because “things have changed”.

Geoff
February 08, 2024

"We are being very upfront" - I think not. Nothing about this process involved anyone being upfront about anything.

What annoyed me, and I suspect many others, was that all the way along it was "We haven't changed our position" - which are weasel words, but the implication was obvious. Then, out of nowhere, there was a show put on by calling all the Labor troops together in Canberra at our expense. Not to actually discuss what might be done - a pretence - but to tell them what Treasury had already been working on for months and that the PM had already decided to implement for purely political reasons - 1. the Dunkley byelection and 2. because the No vote on the Voice and his lack of attention to what most people are concerned about - it's the economy, stupid - in the months leading up to it caused a big dip in his approval numbers.

I can live with changing the tax rates. I can't live with the deliberate deception and condescension to the voting public.

Errol
February 08, 2024

Well said Geoff. The sleight of hand and pretence are what bites rather than the taxes changes per se.
The PM’s integrity has taken a major blow and when the election comes around after the tax cuts have been done and dusted, the public may not be so forgiving.

Davidy
February 08, 2024

But do the public then direct their votes to Dutton and Co or do the Teals/independents/Greens get the reaction vote ?

Chris
February 08, 2024

Well said Geoff. Dutton had no realistic choice but to accept the labor deception. otherwise they would have belted him from now to the next election for "not helping the poor low paid people" who actually benefited from the libs stage 1 and stage 2 tax changes. Surely Labor wouldn't be playing politics due to the Dunkley by election! Many Labor voting workers have recently received pay rises and they now will be pushed into the highest tax bracket which now has a lower income level,.

My worry is that having got away with this broken promise is that Chalmers will put franking credits under the microscope again and use the age old class distinction attack.

Franco
February 09, 2024

My understanding of Stages 1 & 2---
Stage 1---LMIT offset for 4 years--ended in 21/22
Stage 2---Low Income Offset given an extra $200/yr, and adjustment of 32.5% tax threshold from $87000 to
$90000 and then from 2022 from $90000 to $120000.
**ALL taxpayers earning above these amounts received these benefits .

So it looks like the low paid received the LMIT for 4 yrs and then $200 /yr.

All above average incomes $87000 +++ received the rest of Stage 2 changes.

Let me know if Ive misunderstood how they worked!

Victoria
February 13, 2024

Albanese - He changed his mind from one day to the next...

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

$5 million cap punishes 30 years of super saving

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

How the Intergenerational Report misleads on super

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The best strategy to build income for life

Owning quality, dividend-producing industrial shares is key to building a decent income stream. Here is an update on the long-term performance of industrial stocks against indices, listed property, and term deposits.

Are more taxes on super on the cards?

The Government's broken promise on tax cuts has prompted speculation about other promises that it may consider breaking. It's widely believed that super is lightly taxed and a prime candidate for special attention.

Lessons from the battery metals bust

The crash in lithium and nickel prices has left companies scrambling to cut production, billionaires red-faced, and investors wondering how a ‘sure thing’ went so wrong. There are plenty of lessons for everyone.

16 ASX stocks to buy and hold forever

In his recent shareholder letter, Warren Buffett mentions several stocks he expects Berkshire Hathaway will own indefinitely, including Occidental Petroleum. We look at ASX stocks that investors could buy and hold forever.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 545 with weekend update

It’s troubling that practical skills like investing aren’t taught at schools as it leaves our children ill-equipped to build wealth, and more vulnerable to bad advice. Here are some suggestions to address the issue.

  • 1 February 2024

For the younger generation, we need to get real on tax

The distortions in our tax system have been ignored for too long, and we're now paying the price. It's time Australia got real and addressed the problems to prevent an even greater intergenerational tragedy.

Latest Updates

Shares

16 ASX stocks to buy and hold forever

In his recent shareholder letter, Warren Buffett mentions several stocks he expects Berkshire Hathaway will own indefinitely, including Occidental Petroleum. We look at ASX stocks that investors could buy and hold forever.

Investment strategies

Clime time: 10 charts on the outlook for major asset classes

The charts reveal that interest rates can't rise much further as Australian mortgage holders are under stress, bank dividends look solid, and the bond market is in flux because yields are being manipulated.

Strategy

Phasing out cheques, and what will happen to cash?

Cheques and bank service, or the lack of, were major topics when I addressed a seniors’ group recently. The word had got out that the government was phasing out cheques, and many in the audience were feeling abandoned.

Retirement

What financial risks do retirees face?

Treasury's consultation into the retirement phase of superannuation is generating a lot of interest. This submission to the consultation outlines the key financial risks to an individual’s standard of living in retirement.

Shares

Recession surprise may be in store for the US stock market

Markets are partying like it's 1999, but history suggests that US earnings and economic growth are vulnerable following an interest rate tightening cycle. Investors should prepare their portfolios accordingly.

Investment strategies

3 under the radar investment opportunities

The Magnificent Seven are hogging the headlines, yet there are plenty of growth opportunities elsewhere, at a fraction of the cost. Here are three stock ideas riding key areas of structural and cyclical change.

Shares

Why a quant approach can thrive in the age of passive investing

The rise of passive investing is unlikely to derail the value of quantitative strategies. Passive investing hasn’t eradicated the irrationality of crowds, leaving pockets of opportunity to outperform indices.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2024 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.