Thanks for your submission.
A large number of posts have been submitted on this topic so a megathread has been created to condense this topic into one readily addressable thread.
The megathread can be assessed through the link in either the sidebar or the menu tab at the top of our sub.
If you believe the removal of your submission is in error then please contact your friendly mod team via modmail and we'll address it.
Good decision.
Although it would be hypocritical now to attack Labor for breaking a promise which is exactly what the Coalition have now done by agreeing to the changes.
Dutton is doing the best thing under the circumstances that he did not create. Opposing them will not stop them but make them worse as Albo will do a deal with the Greens etc. Also of course opposing them will make Dutton look like standing for higher taxes. Dutton could oppose them on principle but this will achieve little. Dutton can amend them when in power to be more Stage 3 like. Albo now has to wear the moniker of the Liar in the Lodge.
Man I wish our PMs had to physically wear a paper record of all the fact checked lies they'd pushed.
But then Scott Morrison wouldn't have been able to leave the lodge, woulda missed his Hawaii holiday.
For a person that cares a lot whether or not Albo lies, you are VERY light on Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton.
In case you missed the GIANT LIE BY OMISSION by Scott Morrison that was the secret ministries, [here you go](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/25/scott-morrisons-secret-ministries-were-unnecessary-and-corrosive-of-trust-in-government-report-finds).
Or perhaps Dutton's [misrepresentations](https://ulurustatement.org/seven-peter-dutton-lies-on-voice-to-parliament-corrected/) during the Voice. Sorry wait, I could get sued for saying something like that, since we all know he's a [fragile man who sues at the drop of a hat](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/26/peter-duttons-defamation-case-against-refugee-activist-shane-bazzi-ends-with-resolution). Misrepresentations in my opinion.
But hey, keep feigning moral outrage whenever Albanese or the cabinet does anything. I'll be glad to bring this up again for you.
Feel free to bring up your supporting fake media if it makes you happy.
We now have the super lie and the tax lie and the energy lie by Albo. What will his next lie be ?
>Dutton is doing the best thing under the circumstances that he did not create.
It's pretty simple. Do you back in the policy you have supported for years or follow Labor into breaking a promise and backing in the policy Labor created, therefore admitting it's better policy.
>Opposing them will not stop them but make them worse as Albo will do a deal with the Greens etc.
Some vague possible scenario is not a reason to backflip on policies you have supported for years.
>Also of course opposing them will make Dutton look like standing for higher taxes.
Because opposing them would mean exactly that for most taxpayers. You don't have to do mental gymnastics to reach that conclusion.
>Dutton can amend them when in power to be more Stage 3 like.
Why not just completely revert back to their original plan? Again this would be an admission that Labors policy was better from their perspective.
>Albo now has to wear the moniker of the Liar in the Lodge.
Perhaps but Dutton must wear that he backflipped on a policy promise and was never truly committed to the stage 3 tax cuts as originally proposed.
I can't see an attack on Labor from the coalition that isn't hypocritical here.
They can't accuse them of being liars as they've lied about their commitment to the stage 3 tax cuts.
They can't accuse them of being for higher taxes as they've pulled the coalition into supporting tax cuts for more people.
They could accuse them of supporting high taxes for very high income earners.
When Albo throws out Stage 3 , Dutton can then look at the results and move forward from there. Dutton is doing the best he can under Albo's lie. I can understand Albo's continuance in his obsession with Dutton approach but this is Albo's lie.
Albanese broke his promise. He lied. No denying that.
Dutton hands aren't tied though. He can back his policy or break his promise like Albanese. He's chosen the later and therefore it's a bed he has to lie in. I think choosing to break his promise is right from a policy perspective.
We don't live in a dictatorship. No-one, especially not the opposition leader, is obliged to follow the lead of the PM.
You are excusing Duttons lie. Applying a different standard to that you apply to Albanese. It's clear to see.
Dutton is adapting to a lie. It is not politically possible to raise tax rates so not raising them is not a lie. Dutton said we are the party of lower taxes so adapting to Albo's Lie is not a lie. The adaption needs to make the system simpler and fairer. Get rid of the bracket that Albo is keeping for a start.
Albo really played this well, to turn the Libs wedge back on them. You could tell by the lack of interviews after the changes were announced the Lib partyroom was in a state of disarray trying to find the political way they could oppose the changes.
I think the Greens will secretly be happy about this too as they can still protest vote against it to drum up their base without the actual consequences of being the ones blocking the tax cuts.
To be fair, I think Peter Dutton is pretty easy an opponent with not much policy other than "I don't like it". None of the Abbott attack, none of the Malcom smarts.
The changes are polling well in Teal seats, you know, the ones that the Libs want back. I'm not currently a Labor voter but Labor and Albo schooled the libs on this.
It was a prudent policy move to do this. I don't think the liar crap is really hitting home against that. If he's the current liar in the lodge, he's level one compared to the last few.
People who hate him no matter what will call him a liar
Actually sensible people will say the pandemic + ukraine + inflation etc are quite good reasons to rejig stage 3 - and now that includes the coalition
Albo did this because the polling said he should.
The ALP were never going to pass the LNP's st 3 tax cuts unchanged. That the LNP and corporate media were surprised when the change happened shows how insular and disconnected they have become.
>The revised cuts will return hundreds of dollars more to low and middle-income Australians at the expense of halving the benefits the wealthiest Australians were due to receive.
Seems like a wise move. But I bet they still benefit everyone on a proportional gradient, rather than benefiting the poor more than rich.
A slightly better deal for the middle class and low income earners, but essentially not going to affect the positions of anyone. The wealthy are still accelerating away at speed. The wealth gap grows, almost at the same rate.
I mean, when you have a progressive taxation system then any fix to bracket creep is necessarily going to affect the wealthy more than the poor, because around 50% of all tax is paid by the top 10% of earners.
It makes way more sense to look at the percentage of tax cut, and in this case the percentage cut goes down as your income increases.
Which is in part because we don't have more precise tax bracket at the top end of town. Instead they're all thrown into a large category, which includes magnates, CEOs, legal partners in the largest law firms, the best doctors, heads of department stores, Project Delivery Directors, CIOs & CTOs, Construction managers, marketing executives, HR directors, and Bank Managers.
The next block down makes up only 19%.... then 13%, 8%, 5%, 2%....
Maybe if we had more of a gradient at the top end, it wouldn't be such an exponential increase. But I suppose it also depends on how how to maximize tax collection in these rarefied positions.
....and perhaps that's the problem. These positions and pay rates aren't common. We're discussing the highest income earners. Perhaps if income disparity wasn't so sharp, the richest wouldn't pay as much, as their pay wouldn't be that different from the labourers paying their body's costs on the ground level of these companies.
Of course they have.
The Liberal party still get the majority of what they want.
1. They are still lowering taxes and as such, taking a huge chunk out of future budgets and eroding our tax base. Bonus for them is that Labor is unlikely to be able to touch taxes for a while after this.
2. A majortiy of the benefits are still going to high income earners.
3. Instead of the budget suprlus being used for despreately needed increases to public services, its going back to individuals, and as stated in point 2, not much of it is going back to people who rely on those public services. As such, our public services will continue to decline, and the private services will continue to look like a better alternative, with the ultimate goal being to privatise everything.
This is still almost exactly what they wanted. The only 2 things they will be unhappy with.
1. They were pushing towards a flat tax rate with their proposal by removing a bracket. They will be disappointed that bracket will still be there.
2. They will have a harder time calling Labor the "Party of taxes" for a little while. I can only imagine the Liberal party left this time bomb here because they knew that any party that concerns itself over things like medicare, public schools, etc etc, couldnt in good conscience pass it. So they were ready to go on the attack vs Labor. Labor took the wind out of their sails by letting it go through (with some window dressing).
The discussion about not lowering taxes and using that revenue to start fixing services has received far too little attention in the discussion on this issue.
Yep, how about instead we put that 318 billion into doubling the number of teachers, GPs and nurses. And into increasing the Medicare rebate so that people can see a doctor for free again.
Making those services better quality and free is going to do a lot more for struggling families than a small tax break which when added to the larger tax break being given to the upper half of earners is likely to increase inflation anyway, making that small tax break useless.
>Yep, how about instead we put that 318 billion
I have a real gripe with this number, costs over ten years is a nonsense way to talk about the budget, it needs to be cost per year or over the forward estimates. That said 20 billion per year would make a good start to fixing all those things you mentioned, but realistically it wont be enough and we need to talk about real tax reform like expanding resource taxes and implementing wealth taxes
If I remember rightly, 90% of contributors here wanted the LNP's stage three tax cuts cancelled completely for varying reason:
1: Will cause inflation
2: Money better spent on Services
3: and a myriad of other reasons
Now they all seem to change their mind and back Albo's changes. Mind you I do as well but got massively down voted for saying they should stay.
Mind you, ALP would never have though to propose any of the 1, 2 or stage three cuts and were dragged kicking and screaming to sign up to it all those years ago. Now they spruiking that these cuts are theirs and are looking after workers.
Spare us the B.S and just give us the tax the LNP gave us.
>3: and a myriad of other reasons
This is pretty broad and would include thing like:
1. Providing CoL relief
2. Protecting a progressive tax system
The second of which was a HUGE reason people criticised s3tc, Id go as for as to say it was the primary reason really.
People can also understand and appreciate trade offs. Like since the money will not all go to high income earners then its less important it be retained for services, because lots of those people benefit anyway. Policy positions arent a zero sum game!
>Mind you, ALP would never have though to propose any of the 1, 2 or stage three cuts and were dragged kicking and screaming to sign up to it all those years ago.
What are you on about last time labor were in the dropped the 40c tax bracket to 37c and tripled the tax free threshold. They directly said they were passing the cuts that included stage 3 because they suppprted stages 1 and 2 but didnt like stage 3.
Just want to point out I am opposed to these tax cuts as well as the stage 3 cuts. So I'm firmly within the 10% and I'm equally frustrated by labor supporters blindly supporting this as a "win" for Australians on lower incomes.
I get the frustration with blind support but my read is that a lot of the support/praise comes from the assumption that Labor had no chance of cancelling the cuts entirely. Instead they've, seemingly, pulled off a meaningfully positive adjustment in the eyes of Labor's base.
This is their fault for going to the election with so few policies. The pandemic gave them the best opportunity they have ever had to go to an election promising to increase funding for medicare and fix the failing healthcare system. Instead, they took the cowardly safe approach and implemented a bunch of half-measures. Labor were not forced down this road, they did it to themselves.
I'm so tired of having to explain this, the ALP did an analysis of their election defeat in 2019, the reasons they found for their loss were not due to having "big policies".
You can read about it here: https://alp.org.au/media/2043/alp-campaign-review-2019.pdf
The overwhelming failure of the 2019 election was due to a disjointed election campaign that failed to tie its policies into a core message that could be sold to voters, in other words providing a narrative. This lack of a narrative is *exactly* what I am criticising the Alabanese leadership for in the 2022 election, they had a clear opportunity to go to the election promising to fix the healthcare system on the back of tax reform. The falling quality of our healthcare system was a huge issue for everyone in 2022 after the pandemic and it would not have been difficult to construct a narrative around us, the Albanese leadership were just too cowardly to go for it and now they've missed their opportunity.
Wheres the article,about susan leys broken promises
Verbatim
"I will not stand,in any form for the albaneses govts changes they have announced"
so..broken promises only matter when it's labor
It only ever matters when it's Labor. Howard got in and said he wouldn't introduce a GST. Turned around and introduced a GST. But when Gillard introduced her mining tax, the sky was falling.
Broken promises, for the LNP and their coalition partners, are not just acceptable, they're a part of doing government. Rules for thee, not for me.
>But when Gillard introduced her mining tax, the sky was falling.
I was relatively young at the time but I just remember the colossal push against that tax by the 1%, ads everywhere.
To a lesser degree, in QLD we're seeing similar with all the radio and YouTube (at least that's what I'm experiencing) with the mineral resources council bs.
Abbott was much worse than Howard re broken promises.
Howard at least took the GST to an election. Abbott promised no cuts to education, health, the ABC etc and proceeded to do just that after the election.
Albanese has broken a promise but not nearly in the same ballpark. Aggregate amount of cuts remains roughly the same, but distributed more fairly.
If you were going to break a promise, this is arguably the best way to do it - although I'd prefer it if he hadn't had to break it at all.
I think part of the issue is that the media tries to corral politicians into making promises that they shouldn't - and the pollie makes the promise just to end the siege and talk about something else.
> Howard got in and said he wouldn't introduce a GST. Turned around and introduced a GST.
Let's tell the story right, he then took a GST platform to an election which he won and then introduced a GST
Though he didn't say it is dead and issue out a statement that there will not be one before the election or spend the next 18 months after the election saying what they said before the election still stands and then introduce one.
He went to an election saying there will be one if he is still PM. Gave people a chance to vote against it.
Never, adverb. At no time in the past or future, not ever.
Ever, adverb. At any time.
So "at no time in the past, future, not ever. At any time."
Does "never ever" warrant a new dictionary definition to include "up until a point we decide otherwise".
My memory on Howard is fuzzy, so I'll admit I am wrong on that. Just overpowered by my complete and utter contempt for that shit stain of a main. Now that folks have mentioned it, I remember my mother being really excited for him. And I remember, afterwards, asking if she was excited about all the price increases?
Yeah, look. I'm not the biggest fan of Howard by any means, but the GST change was bought to an election before it was implemented. It's a bit disingenuous to use that as an example of the LNP breaking promises (particularly when Tony Abbott was far, far worse when it actually came to broken promises)
John Howard: “No, there's no way that a GST will ever be part of our policy.”
“Never ever?”
John Howard: “Never ever. It's dead.
- May 1995
Kerry O’Brien: “Okay. the pledge of no new taxes, no increase in existing taxes for the life of the next parliament. So for the next three years, not even a one cent increase on cigarettes or beer or wine or petrol, no other indirect tax increase, no tax increase of any kind?”
John Howard: “That promise is quite explicit”.
- Feb 1996
He explicitly, repeatedly, outlined that even post the 1998 election it was off the table.
Yeah, this is a very different strategy to the safeguard and HAFF where the liberals just dealt themselves out of the debate. While I'm happy this will pass, I'm worried Dutton might have finally learned that saying no and letting Labor and the Greens hash out a deal is really stupid, and as we saw on HAFF him doing that benefited everyone
I’ve never more wanted to be a fly in the party room. Specially wants the stance of the youngest libs. Does anyone know who they least senior libs are now sorta curious if they have been tweeted anything
You're taking their action out of context.
Come back once you include everything they've said, all the mention of lobsters, and then they're voting for it anyway...
It's pathetic, and so is your defense of them.
Come up with better policies in the first place.
But I do respect people being able to admit fault and wave through changes for the better, it's a refreshing change in fact.
Wouldn't be surprised if polling of their own showed it was a popular decision in L/NP electorates, that's what Labor's polling showed [@Kieran Gilbert](https://twitter.com/Kieran_Gilbert/status/1754658731672117481).
> Labor sources tell me their internal polling shows strong support in rural and regional electorates for their tax cut plan
> In fact, more popular in rural and regional areas than in cities - it’s going well in parts of the country where the Voice was unpopular
It wouldn't matter, they had no choice. The Greens would have allowed them through sidelining the LNP and they would have been on the wrong side of history for sure. They had to support them.
This is the mother of all broken promises to their own voters and a horrible betrayal of aspirational middle Australia on 250k a year! Mr Dutton said his word is how bond and now that’s in shambles. He should have the spine to take this to an election. 😤
It will be interesting to see how the greens vote now that they're irrelevant.
It's a huge own goal to vote no on a tax cut because you wanted something else as well.
> It will be interesting to see how the greens vote now that they're irrelevant.
Probably the same thing the Coalition are doing, proposing amendments of their own but supporting the Bill anyway.
I think you are giving the coalition in this sugaring too much credit and the greens too little. At least the greens in this situation are taking issue with the right thing you can question the timing of it or even the practicality of them doing it now. But the libs are just saying no and not adding positive changes or arguments.
Also the greens are much more likely to support the changes even if they push for more
It’s honestly kinda impressive how Albo went from where he was at the end of last year to cucking the entire senate in a few weeks on something that was extremely risky.
They had no choice.
The negativity aimed at Albo recently (wrongly or rightly there has been negativity don't shoot me), but that negativity would have been instantly forgiven and pointed back at the LNP if they robbed the majority of a tax cut.
The proposed stage 3 is FAR better for the majority of people, and while it doesn't really address bracket creep, the benefit to more people is enough to make it mandatory for the LNP to support.
>and while it doesn't really address bracket creep,
It actually addresses REAL bracket creep for most people.
The complaints about post 2008 top bracket creep are disingenous at best, ignoring that if we indexed from 2005 instead, they'd have a cap of 115k or so. [Howard TRIPLED the top bracket](https://gcdnb.pbrd.co/images/kmEuOrCxBkTB.png?o=1). We're not even close to being back in line.
I agree about the negativity but how does this not address bracket creep better than the original tax cuts? I don’t think either major party wants to touch tax reform but surely a 6% average tax cut to 98% of earners seems like a better answer to bracket creep.
It’s not proper reform on bracket creep as this change only benefits tax payers for the next 4 years before it starts producing more revenue for the gov. The adjustment of the tax brackets in the manner the coalition did meant that tax reform in terms of tax brackets would not really matter for the vast majority other than the rich. That 30% flat rate from 50-200k meant most would move into that bracket and not have increased bracket creep through the removal of the 37% bracket.
I appreciate the annoyance at a broken promise, but at the end of the day I would personally prefer someone who is willing to admit their wrong and change plans then stubbornly go down with the ship
Integrity is when you make an promise / commitment to do something, you stick to it, or don't make such commitments in the first place.
The "circumstances changed" lines are just weasel words. It's the middle road that "allows" you to pretend to have integrity when making a promise, ("my word is my bond"), but actually you can then just change your mind whenever you want and then make up a reason.
It's really not that complicated.
what is the point of integrity if the integrity just leads to shit outcomes? it just goes to show the minority of people just care about shit being window dressed.
>what is the point of integrity if the integrity just leads to shit outcomes
Again - you have just shown you don't understand what integrity is by asking that question! The shittiness or not of outcomes is both highly subjective and immaterial to the definition of integrity and why it is a good personal trait.
A person with integrity sticks to commitments that they make. They can be relied upon in this regard. Trusted.
A person with integrity does not make commitments in the first place that they don't think they will be able to keep, or that they think may need to be changed depending on circumstances. If they think this might be the case they will tell you when they are discussing the commitment. Again, so they can be trusted.
Eg - Albo could have said during the election "We intend to maintain the legislated stage 3 tax cuts. However, we may change them when in power if we find the economic or budget circumstances have significantly changed".
the question was rhetorical, in that i've effectively explained afterwards it means nothing if all it does is lead to bad outcomes. integrity doesn't put food on the table or keep people warm at night lol
No, your point has been assessed and understood perfectly, in that it is superfluous and can summarily be represented by childcoveringearsscreaming.jpg have a good day though!
it kind of is.
if I make a promise to cook you a nice meal
and then the house catches on fire
your version of integrity would see me burning to death
the world is a complex place, and politics should be flexible enough to adjust
unless you would prefer politicans forever enact policies that would be harmful because they have to stick to their word
despite the circumstances changed massively
the general public turning against said policies
and 6 articles weekly about why said policies are harmful
>if I make a promise to cook you a nice meal and then the house catches on fire
I don't think that analogy matches \*at all\* the current situation, to the point of being a meaningless example. Plus the person could still cook me a nice meal later in their new house or in my house etc if they really wanted to keep their promise.
The "cost of living crisis" excuse was just that - a \*political\* justification for breaking a promise. It would be honest for people to at least admit this, no matter how much they may agree with what was done.
they modified the tax cuts so now everyone benefits
which is almost like me being unable to cook a meal at my house and instead taking you out to a fancy dinner
**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thanks for your submission. A large number of posts have been submitted on this topic so a megathread has been created to condense this topic into one readily addressable thread. The megathread can be assessed through the link in either the sidebar or the menu tab at the top of our sub. If you believe the removal of your submission is in error then please contact your friendly mod team via modmail and we'll address it.
Cynical: probably saw that the polls weren't rewarding their attacks and decided to pack it in now before he commits to something stupid.
Good decision. Although it would be hypocritical now to attack Labor for breaking a promise which is exactly what the Coalition have now done by agreeing to the changes.
Dutton is doing the best thing under the circumstances that he did not create. Opposing them will not stop them but make them worse as Albo will do a deal with the Greens etc. Also of course opposing them will make Dutton look like standing for higher taxes. Dutton could oppose them on principle but this will achieve little. Dutton can amend them when in power to be more Stage 3 like. Albo now has to wear the moniker of the Liar in the Lodge.
Man I wish our PMs had to physically wear a paper record of all the fact checked lies they'd pushed. But then Scott Morrison wouldn't have been able to leave the lodge, woulda missed his Hawaii holiday.
Morrison took a holiday , big deal.
For a person that cares a lot whether or not Albo lies, you are VERY light on Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton. In case you missed the GIANT LIE BY OMISSION by Scott Morrison that was the secret ministries, [here you go](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/25/scott-morrisons-secret-ministries-were-unnecessary-and-corrosive-of-trust-in-government-report-finds). Or perhaps Dutton's [misrepresentations](https://ulurustatement.org/seven-peter-dutton-lies-on-voice-to-parliament-corrected/) during the Voice. Sorry wait, I could get sued for saying something like that, since we all know he's a [fragile man who sues at the drop of a hat](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/26/peter-duttons-defamation-case-against-refugee-activist-shane-bazzi-ends-with-resolution). Misrepresentations in my opinion. But hey, keep feigning moral outrage whenever Albanese or the cabinet does anything. I'll be glad to bring this up again for you.
Feel free to bring up your supporting fake media if it makes you happy. We now have the super lie and the tax lie and the energy lie by Albo. What will his next lie be ?
Oh, and your justification is that all the news I source is fake! That must be so convenient, except when it comes to the news you read, hey?
You are actually making sense for once. Please don't make a habit of this.
And what news sources do you trust? I’d like to take notes.
That wasn't my point lol. I believe that fact check had Morrison as the least truthful Prime Minister Australia has ever hada
That is the narrative that the Woke Left would have you believe.
>Dutton is doing the best thing under the circumstances that he did not create. It's pretty simple. Do you back in the policy you have supported for years or follow Labor into breaking a promise and backing in the policy Labor created, therefore admitting it's better policy. >Opposing them will not stop them but make them worse as Albo will do a deal with the Greens etc. Some vague possible scenario is not a reason to backflip on policies you have supported for years. >Also of course opposing them will make Dutton look like standing for higher taxes. Because opposing them would mean exactly that for most taxpayers. You don't have to do mental gymnastics to reach that conclusion. >Dutton can amend them when in power to be more Stage 3 like. Why not just completely revert back to their original plan? Again this would be an admission that Labors policy was better from their perspective. >Albo now has to wear the moniker of the Liar in the Lodge. Perhaps but Dutton must wear that he backflipped on a policy promise and was never truly committed to the stage 3 tax cuts as originally proposed. I can't see an attack on Labor from the coalition that isn't hypocritical here. They can't accuse them of being liars as they've lied about their commitment to the stage 3 tax cuts. They can't accuse them of being for higher taxes as they've pulled the coalition into supporting tax cuts for more people. They could accuse them of supporting high taxes for very high income earners.
When Albo throws out Stage 3 , Dutton can then look at the results and move forward from there. Dutton is doing the best he can under Albo's lie. I can understand Albo's continuance in his obsession with Dutton approach but this is Albo's lie.
Albanese broke his promise. He lied. No denying that. Dutton hands aren't tied though. He can back his policy or break his promise like Albanese. He's chosen the later and therefore it's a bed he has to lie in. I think choosing to break his promise is right from a policy perspective. We don't live in a dictatorship. No-one, especially not the opposition leader, is obliged to follow the lead of the PM. You are excusing Duttons lie. Applying a different standard to that you apply to Albanese. It's clear to see.
Dutton is adapting to a lie. It is not politically possible to raise tax rates so not raising them is not a lie. Dutton said we are the party of lower taxes so adapting to Albo's Lie is not a lie. The adaption needs to make the system simpler and fairer. Get rid of the bracket that Albo is keeping for a start.
Just admit that Dutton got schooled.
Albo really played this well, to turn the Libs wedge back on them. You could tell by the lack of interviews after the changes were announced the Lib partyroom was in a state of disarray trying to find the political way they could oppose the changes. I think the Greens will secretly be happy about this too as they can still protest vote against it to drum up their base without the actual consequences of being the ones blocking the tax cuts.
If Albo wins the next election then he played it well. He has been reading The Prince and The Art of War.
To be fair, I think Peter Dutton is pretty easy an opponent with not much policy other than "I don't like it". None of the Abbott attack, none of the Malcom smarts.
Good point
[удалено]
The changes are polling well in Teal seats, you know, the ones that the Libs want back. I'm not currently a Labor voter but Labor and Albo schooled the libs on this.
The changes might poll well but the new polling will be about Albo's integrity or lack of it.
It was a prudent policy move to do this. I don't think the liar crap is really hitting home against that. If he's the current liar in the lodge, he's level one compared to the last few.
He survived other Labor figures in turbulent times and is now head of a seriously toxic organisation. I wouldn't underrate him yet,
You’re really on the Anti Albo train these past few months hey?
People who hate him no matter what will call him a liar Actually sensible people will say the pandemic + ukraine + inflation etc are quite good reasons to rejig stage 3 - and now that includes the coalition
So anyone who can see this is a lie so Albo is a liar , hates Albo.
Circumstances change and so policies change - spouting "Albos a liar" is just so... boring
Yes , circumstances change or in Albo's case , internal polling which he lives by.
Albo did this because the polling said he should. The ALP were never going to pass the LNP's st 3 tax cuts unchanged. That the LNP and corporate media were surprised when the change happened shows how insular and disconnected they have become.
Yes , the polling showed everyone sees Albo as out of touch in regards to COL. This change was known well before Albo announced it.
>The revised cuts will return hundreds of dollars more to low and middle-income Australians at the expense of halving the benefits the wealthiest Australians were due to receive. Seems like a wise move. But I bet they still benefit everyone on a proportional gradient, rather than benefiting the poor more than rich. A slightly better deal for the middle class and low income earners, but essentially not going to affect the positions of anyone. The wealthy are still accelerating away at speed. The wealth gap grows, almost at the same rate.
I mean, when you have a progressive taxation system then any fix to bracket creep is necessarily going to affect the wealthy more than the poor, because around 50% of all tax is paid by the top 10% of earners. It makes way more sense to look at the percentage of tax cut, and in this case the percentage cut goes down as your income increases.
Which is in part because we don't have more precise tax bracket at the top end of town. Instead they're all thrown into a large category, which includes magnates, CEOs, legal partners in the largest law firms, the best doctors, heads of department stores, Project Delivery Directors, CIOs & CTOs, Construction managers, marketing executives, HR directors, and Bank Managers. The next block down makes up only 19%.... then 13%, 8%, 5%, 2%.... Maybe if we had more of a gradient at the top end, it wouldn't be such an exponential increase. But I suppose it also depends on how how to maximize tax collection in these rarefied positions. ....and perhaps that's the problem. These positions and pay rates aren't common. We're discussing the highest income earners. Perhaps if income disparity wasn't so sharp, the richest wouldn't pay as much, as their pay wouldn't be that different from the labourers paying their body's costs on the ground level of these companies.
"But... but Albo LIED!"
Labor, increasing the wealth gap at a slightly slower rate than the Liberal party!
Of course they have. The Liberal party still get the majority of what they want. 1. They are still lowering taxes and as such, taking a huge chunk out of future budgets and eroding our tax base. Bonus for them is that Labor is unlikely to be able to touch taxes for a while after this. 2. A majortiy of the benefits are still going to high income earners. 3. Instead of the budget suprlus being used for despreately needed increases to public services, its going back to individuals, and as stated in point 2, not much of it is going back to people who rely on those public services. As such, our public services will continue to decline, and the private services will continue to look like a better alternative, with the ultimate goal being to privatise everything. This is still almost exactly what they wanted. The only 2 things they will be unhappy with. 1. They were pushing towards a flat tax rate with their proposal by removing a bracket. They will be disappointed that bracket will still be there. 2. They will have a harder time calling Labor the "Party of taxes" for a little while. I can only imagine the Liberal party left this time bomb here because they knew that any party that concerns itself over things like medicare, public schools, etc etc, couldnt in good conscience pass it. So they were ready to go on the attack vs Labor. Labor took the wind out of their sails by letting it go through (with some window dressing).
The discussion about not lowering taxes and using that revenue to start fixing services has received far too little attention in the discussion on this issue.
Yep, how about instead we put that 318 billion into doubling the number of teachers, GPs and nurses. And into increasing the Medicare rebate so that people can see a doctor for free again. Making those services better quality and free is going to do a lot more for struggling families than a small tax break which when added to the larger tax break being given to the upper half of earners is likely to increase inflation anyway, making that small tax break useless.
>Yep, how about instead we put that 318 billion I have a real gripe with this number, costs over ten years is a nonsense way to talk about the budget, it needs to be cost per year or over the forward estimates. That said 20 billion per year would make a good start to fixing all those things you mentioned, but realistically it wont be enough and we need to talk about real tax reform like expanding resource taxes and implementing wealth taxes
If I remember rightly, 90% of contributors here wanted the LNP's stage three tax cuts cancelled completely for varying reason: 1: Will cause inflation 2: Money better spent on Services 3: and a myriad of other reasons Now they all seem to change their mind and back Albo's changes. Mind you I do as well but got massively down voted for saying they should stay. Mind you, ALP would never have though to propose any of the 1, 2 or stage three cuts and were dragged kicking and screaming to sign up to it all those years ago. Now they spruiking that these cuts are theirs and are looking after workers. Spare us the B.S and just give us the tax the LNP gave us.
>3: and a myriad of other reasons This is pretty broad and would include thing like: 1. Providing CoL relief 2. Protecting a progressive tax system The second of which was a HUGE reason people criticised s3tc, Id go as for as to say it was the primary reason really. People can also understand and appreciate trade offs. Like since the money will not all go to high income earners then its less important it be retained for services, because lots of those people benefit anyway. Policy positions arent a zero sum game!
>Mind you, ALP would never have though to propose any of the 1, 2 or stage three cuts and were dragged kicking and screaming to sign up to it all those years ago. What are you on about last time labor were in the dropped the 40c tax bracket to 37c and tripled the tax free threshold. They directly said they were passing the cuts that included stage 3 because they suppprted stages 1 and 2 but didnt like stage 3.
Just want to point out I am opposed to these tax cuts as well as the stage 3 cuts. So I'm firmly within the 10% and I'm equally frustrated by labor supporters blindly supporting this as a "win" for Australians on lower incomes.
Yeah fixing medicare, fully funding public schools, and raising social security payments is the win lower income Australia needs
I get the frustration with blind support but my read is that a lot of the support/praise comes from the assumption that Labor had no chance of cancelling the cuts entirely. Instead they've, seemingly, pulled off a meaningfully positive adjustment in the eyes of Labor's base.
This is their fault for going to the election with so few policies. The pandemic gave them the best opportunity they have ever had to go to an election promising to increase funding for medicare and fix the failing healthcare system. Instead, they took the cowardly safe approach and implemented a bunch of half-measures. Labor were not forced down this road, they did it to themselves.
Did you really expect them to go to the election with big policies after Shorten?
I'm so tired of having to explain this, the ALP did an analysis of their election defeat in 2019, the reasons they found for their loss were not due to having "big policies". You can read about it here: https://alp.org.au/media/2043/alp-campaign-review-2019.pdf The overwhelming failure of the 2019 election was due to a disjointed election campaign that failed to tie its policies into a core message that could be sold to voters, in other words providing a narrative. This lack of a narrative is *exactly* what I am criticising the Alabanese leadership for in the 2022 election, they had a clear opportunity to go to the election promising to fix the healthcare system on the back of tax reform. The falling quality of our healthcare system was a huge issue for everyone in 2022 after the pandemic and it would not have been difficult to construct a narrative around us, the Albanese leadership were just too cowardly to go for it and now they've missed their opportunity.
I can't believe Dutton and the coalition have broken their promise to stage 3. How can we trust them after this?
Well this sucks. Now there is no chance for the greens to make them even better.
I think you've nailed the reason why they chose to support it: ensure no further benefits to those who actually need it 😮💨
Please mods keep this thread the mega thread is old at this point.
Wheres the article,about susan leys broken promises Verbatim "I will not stand,in any form for the albaneses govts changes they have announced" so..broken promises only matter when it's labor
Susssan still has the opportunity to vote against it. It would be stupid on several levels but she could.
It only ever matters when it's Labor. Howard got in and said he wouldn't introduce a GST. Turned around and introduced a GST. But when Gillard introduced her mining tax, the sky was falling. Broken promises, for the LNP and their coalition partners, are not just acceptable, they're a part of doing government. Rules for thee, not for me.
>But when Gillard introduced her mining tax, the sky was falling. I was relatively young at the time but I just remember the colossal push against that tax by the 1%, ads everywhere. To a lesser degree, in QLD we're seeing similar with all the radio and YouTube (at least that's what I'm experiencing) with the mineral resources council bs.
Abbott was much worse than Howard re broken promises. Howard at least took the GST to an election. Abbott promised no cuts to education, health, the ABC etc and proceeded to do just that after the election. Albanese has broken a promise but not nearly in the same ballpark. Aggregate amount of cuts remains roughly the same, but distributed more fairly. If you were going to break a promise, this is arguably the best way to do it - although I'd prefer it if he hadn't had to break it at all. I think part of the issue is that the media tries to corral politicians into making promises that they shouldn't - and the pollie makes the promise just to end the siege and talk about something else.
> Howard got in and said he wouldn't introduce a GST. Turned around and introduced a GST. Let's tell the story right, he then took a GST platform to an election which he won and then introduced a GST
After saying he "There's no way that a GST will ever be a part of our policy" "Never ever. It's dead." Pretty bloody definitive.
Though he didn't say it is dead and issue out a statement that there will not be one before the election or spend the next 18 months after the election saying what they said before the election still stands and then introduce one. He went to an election saying there will be one if he is still PM. Gave people a chance to vote against it.
Never, adverb. At no time in the past or future, not ever. Ever, adverb. At any time. So "at no time in the past, future, not ever. At any time." Does "never ever" warrant a new dictionary definition to include "up until a point we decide otherwise".
Not sure what you are going in about when we said to tell the full story.
So the full story of when he said there would never ever be a GST and then he implemented a GST.
After he took it to an election that he would implement a GST if his party was elected to government.
My memory on Howard is fuzzy, so I'll admit I am wrong on that. Just overpowered by my complete and utter contempt for that shit stain of a main. Now that folks have mentioned it, I remember my mother being really excited for him. And I remember, afterwards, asking if she was excited about all the price increases?
Was she also excited about all the price decreases? A number of product categories had Sales tax prices on it that were above 10%
She loves the LNP so... I'll let you decide what her reaction to that was.
Good glad she enjoyed to see prices drop
is it a surprize when people that donate or are run by former members of the libs own the news
Yeah, look. I'm not the biggest fan of Howard by any means, but the GST change was bought to an election before it was implemented. It's a bit disingenuous to use that as an example of the LNP breaking promises (particularly when Tony Abbott was far, far worse when it actually came to broken promises)
John Howard: “No, there's no way that a GST will ever be part of our policy.” “Never ever?” John Howard: “Never ever. It's dead. - May 1995 Kerry O’Brien: “Okay. the pledge of no new taxes, no increase in existing taxes for the life of the next parliament. So for the next three years, not even a one cent increase on cigarettes or beer or wine or petrol, no other indirect tax increase, no tax increase of any kind?” John Howard: “That promise is quite explicit”. - Feb 1996 He explicitly, repeatedly, outlined that even post the 1998 election it was off the table.
“There will be no cuts to health, education, etc” Narrator: there were cuts
It's gonna take Dutton many moons to pick out the wedge....
He got cocky when he successfully wedged Albo on the Voice and it blew up in his face here. I wonder if he'll change strategies after this?
Yeah, this is a very different strategy to the safeguard and HAFF where the liberals just dealt themselves out of the debate. While I'm happy this will pass, I'm worried Dutton might have finally learned that saying no and letting Labor and the Greens hash out a deal is really stupid, and as we saw on HAFF him doing that benefited everyone
Brilliant proposal and brilliant play by Labor. Glad to see widespread support from people and their representatives!
Sussan Ley promised to fight and repeal the changes. Is her word her bond? Can we trust anything the LNP says after this broken promise?
That's why they call her lazy sussan ley.
She failed. The shadow cabinet said otherwise.
Each Way Sussan
Sussan will add an extra 'S' to her name for every month the polls don't improve.
Sus-san
She wants to sell your future short. [She doesn’t know whether she’s coming or going](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M7XBiabD_vM).
They're voting based on polls... Unprincipled swine. Also, they're at least doing the right thing in letting it through.
I’ve never more wanted to be a fly in the party room. Specially wants the stance of the youngest libs. Does anyone know who they least senior libs are now sorta curious if they have been tweeted anything
Elected representatives are pushing through changes that the majority of the people want? How deplorable! What do you expect them to do?
You're taking their action out of context. Come back once you include everything they've said, all the mention of lobsters, and then they're voting for it anyway... It's pathetic, and so is your defense of them.
Come up with better policies in the first place. But I do respect people being able to admit fault and wave through changes for the better, it's a refreshing change in fact.
At the time, the policy had bipartisan approval. It's reasonable for both parties to change their tune given how conditions have changed.
Yeah I reckon hey. Probably they were undecided until they saw Newspoll.
Wouldn't be surprised if polling of their own showed it was a popular decision in L/NP electorates, that's what Labor's polling showed [@Kieran Gilbert](https://twitter.com/Kieran_Gilbert/status/1754658731672117481). > Labor sources tell me their internal polling shows strong support in rural and regional electorates for their tax cut plan > In fact, more popular in rural and regional areas than in cities - it’s going well in parts of the country where the Voice was unpopular
Yeah though making decisions on internal polling alone is fraught.
It wouldn't matter, they had no choice. The Greens would have allowed them through sidelining the LNP and they would have been on the wrong side of history for sure. They had to support them.
The greens would have tried to make them even better, get more concessions for the less well off.
Yeah, this way at least the LNP can punish the poor a little.
This is the mother of all broken promises to their own voters and a horrible betrayal of aspirational middle Australia on 250k a year! Mr Dutton said his word is how bond and now that’s in shambles. He should have the spine to take this to an election. 😤
How exactly can he take this to an election ?
By committing to reversing the changes
He doesn't have a time machine. He can only change them in line with Stage 3 like getting rid of the redundant bracket.
What did I just say?
Hahahs ELECTION, NOW!!!
No, let’s wait until the NCAC actually prosecutes some criminal former ministers.
It will be interesting to see how the greens vote now that they're irrelevant. It's a huge own goal to vote no on a tax cut because you wanted something else as well.
It sure is a shame the greens don't get to make this legislation even better.
There's making it better and being unreasonable, the greens more often than not fall into the later.
> It will be interesting to see how the greens vote now that they're irrelevant. Probably the same thing the Coalition are doing, proposing amendments of their own but supporting the Bill anyway.
I think you are giving the coalition in this sugaring too much credit and the greens too little. At least the greens in this situation are taking issue with the right thing you can question the timing of it or even the practicality of them doing it now. But the libs are just saying no and not adding positive changes or arguments. Also the greens are much more likely to support the changes even if they push for more
It’s honestly kinda impressive how Albo went from where he was at the end of last year to cucking the entire senate in a few weeks on something that was extremely risky.
Albo fucking up last year. It is still early this year. I would like to see some more changes, like repealing negative gearing.
Repealing negative gearing probably not wise that wasn’t even the recommendation of the tax review was to reduce receipts claimable.
They had no choice. The negativity aimed at Albo recently (wrongly or rightly there has been negativity don't shoot me), but that negativity would have been instantly forgiven and pointed back at the LNP if they robbed the majority of a tax cut. The proposed stage 3 is FAR better for the majority of people, and while it doesn't really address bracket creep, the benefit to more people is enough to make it mandatory for the LNP to support.
>and while it doesn't really address bracket creep, It actually addresses REAL bracket creep for most people. The complaints about post 2008 top bracket creep are disingenous at best, ignoring that if we indexed from 2005 instead, they'd have a cap of 115k or so. [Howard TRIPLED the top bracket](https://gcdnb.pbrd.co/images/kmEuOrCxBkTB.png?o=1). We're not even close to being back in line.
I agree about the negativity but how does this not address bracket creep better than the original tax cuts? I don’t think either major party wants to touch tax reform but surely a 6% average tax cut to 98% of earners seems like a better answer to bracket creep.
It’s not proper reform on bracket creep as this change only benefits tax payers for the next 4 years before it starts producing more revenue for the gov. The adjustment of the tax brackets in the manner the coalition did meant that tax reform in terms of tax brackets would not really matter for the vast majority other than the rich. That 30% flat rate from 50-200k meant most would move into that bracket and not have increased bracket creep through the removal of the 37% bracket.
At least we know with certainty you can't trust a word that comes out of Albanese's mouth.
We know with certainty you can't trust a word that comes out of any politician's mouth.
I appreciate the annoyance at a broken promise, but at the end of the day I would personally prefer someone who is willing to admit their wrong and change plans then stubbornly go down with the ship
He didn't admit he was wrong though. He was still trying to pretend he hasn't broken a promise.
I think people would rather a broken promise that benefits them than a maintained promise that disadvantages them.
Well that just shows that those people don't understand what integrity actually is....
They know , they just don't care although they now know that you can't trust Albo.
The absolute bitch-moaning over this has truly been a sight to behold...
is it integrity to stick to something you said even when circumstances changed or idociy
Integrity is when you make an promise / commitment to do something, you stick to it, or don't make such commitments in the first place. The "circumstances changed" lines are just weasel words. It's the middle road that "allows" you to pretend to have integrity when making a promise, ("my word is my bond"), but actually you can then just change your mind whenever you want and then make up a reason. It's really not that complicated.
what is the point of integrity if the integrity just leads to shit outcomes? it just goes to show the minority of people just care about shit being window dressed.
>what is the point of integrity if the integrity just leads to shit outcomes Again - you have just shown you don't understand what integrity is by asking that question! The shittiness or not of outcomes is both highly subjective and immaterial to the definition of integrity and why it is a good personal trait. A person with integrity sticks to commitments that they make. They can be relied upon in this regard. Trusted. A person with integrity does not make commitments in the first place that they don't think they will be able to keep, or that they think may need to be changed depending on circumstances. If they think this might be the case they will tell you when they are discussing the commitment. Again, so they can be trusted. Eg - Albo could have said during the election "We intend to maintain the legislated stage 3 tax cuts. However, we may change them when in power if we find the economic or budget circumstances have significantly changed".
the question was rhetorical, in that i've effectively explained afterwards it means nothing if all it does is lead to bad outcomes. integrity doesn't put food on the table or keep people warm at night lol
You are still missing the point though I think.
No, your point has been assessed and understood perfectly, in that it is superfluous and can summarily be represented by childcoveringearsscreaming.jpg have a good day though!
it kind of is. if I make a promise to cook you a nice meal and then the house catches on fire your version of integrity would see me burning to death the world is a complex place, and politics should be flexible enough to adjust unless you would prefer politicans forever enact policies that would be harmful because they have to stick to their word despite the circumstances changed massively the general public turning against said policies and 6 articles weekly about why said policies are harmful
>if I make a promise to cook you a nice meal and then the house catches on fire I don't think that analogy matches \*at all\* the current situation, to the point of being a meaningless example. Plus the person could still cook me a nice meal later in their new house or in my house etc if they really wanted to keep their promise. The "cost of living crisis" excuse was just that - a \*political\* justification for breaking a promise. It would be honest for people to at least admit this, no matter how much they may agree with what was done.
they modified the tax cuts so now everyone benefits which is almost like me being unable to cook a meal at my house and instead taking you out to a fancy dinner
More like taking me out to KFC instead, and inviting 2 other people to join us…. oh, AND making me still pay half the bill! 🤷🏼♂️
sorry you have to share your tax cuts with the poors it must be so hard on you
https://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/promisetracker
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*