Don’t Marry

Government shifting tax burden to singles.
Post by guest on Jan 13, 2006, 11:27pm

Ten points to whoever said the government would try to make us marry and have children by shifting the tax burden to singles.

Tax slug on poor singles
Elizabeth Colman
January 14, 2006

A NATIONAL underclass of single low-income earners will pay for Peter Costello’s tax relief for families at the May budget as poor and middle-income workers face a growing tax burden despite the budget surplus windfall.

Families earning up to $50,000 a year, who pay no net tax after receiving family benefits, have again been earmarked for federal government help in the form of tax relief and other family assistance payments.

But research commissioned by the Opposition shows a single worker on $30,000 will pay $9720 total tax in the next two years, while a family earning $53,000 effectively pays nothing.

A week after the Treasurer pledged to give a “helping hand” to families earning between $40,000 and $50,000 a year, The Weekend Australian can reveal single and childless taxpayers in the same and lower income-tax brackets face a rising tax burden in the next two years as wage rises to match inflation increase their tax bill or push them into higher tax brackets.

Labourers, hairdressers, cleaners and clerks – among other low-income workers – will pay up to $45 a week more tax by 2008 through so-called bracket creep alone, without including any real wage increases.

A single worker or childless couple on $50,000 a year will pay $50 a week more tax in the next two years through bracket creep, research commissioned by Labor MP Craig Emerson from the Parliamentary Library shows.

Younger, poorer singles earning less than $52,000 a year – a group that traditionally lacks a tertiary degree and does not own a home or have children – have received minimal tax relief since 2000.

The group includes young married couples trying to save for their own home. They have missed out on substantial tax cuts since measures were introduced to compensate for the launch of the GST.

If they are given no assistance in the May budget, they will have received only an average of $4 a week – the so-called sandwich-and-milkshake tax cut – since 2000. In contrast, a couple with two children aged under 13 and who receive rental assistance will pay no net tax until their income reaches $53,293 ayear.

Dr Emerson, who supports giving family tax benefits to low-and middle-income families, said the figures revealed the exploding welfare state was being paid for by single low- and middle-income earners.

“A decade from now, taxpayers will have to cough up an extra $27billion … to feed the ravenous welfare monster created by the Howard Government,” Dr Emerson said. “It’s only a matter of time before taxpayers without children organise a tax revolt.”

The Government claims these people are being compensated through the $14billion family payments system. Mr Costello has foreshadowed further increases in family payments as part tax relief for these people in the forthcoming budget, although a spokesman for the Treasurer said he “hasn’t gone into any of the outlays”.

The spokesman said last night the Treasurer had not had an opportunity to analyse Dr Emerson’s research but said the Howard Government had “more than handed back bracket creep since it came to office”.

He also criticised “the falsehoods in The Australian the other day” in relation to a report that Mr Costello merely wanted to boost family payments at the budget.

Mr Costello is under increasing pressure from the Opposition, business and a ginger group of Coalition MPs to use an $11.5billion budget surplus in 2005-06 for more fundamental tax reform. Growing government expenditure on family welfare payments has been targeted by reform advocates as a possible source of funding for a personal income-tax overhaul.

Institute for Private Enterprise director and former Treasury deputy secretary Des Moore said yesterday there was a “serious churning problem with the present tax and welfare arrangements”.

“Nearly half the taxes paid by households with incomes in the top two quintiles are paid back to them as benefits,” he said.

“The reason why Treasurer Costello and his colleagues do nothing about it is simple: it provides a way of buying votes. Until Australia gets a leading politician with the courage to expose and tackle the dysfunctionality of present arrangements, we remain landed with taxes and welfare payments that are much higher than they should be.”

The Nationals this week joined the calls for systemic tax reform, including a cut to the top marginal rate of 47per cent to 35per cent. The Nationals plan to lobby Mr Costello during his pre-budget deliberations.

Liberal MP Malcolm Turnbull has also argued for tax reform paid for through base-broadening measures.

Labor’s figures reveal federal Government coffers will also gain a windfall by 2008 from taxpayers on incomes of $105,000 and $125,000 a year purely through bracket creep – putting aside high taxes from real wage increases.

That group will pay up to $110 a week more tax through bracket creep – comprising about half their increased tax liability by 2008.

——————————————————————————–
Re: Government shifting tax burden to singles.
Post by rule62 on Jan 14, 2006, 3:23am

Not at all surprising. If you are single and male, you can expect a lot more than this in the next five years. That is hefty tax burden, almost 20% of gross. No society can sustain draconian tax law. Intelligent single men will get around this, I have no doubt. There is enough incentive that single men will change their behavior to avoid the increased tax to pay for single whore mom and her bad boy husband.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Government shifting tax burden to singles.
Post by Disconnect on Jan 14, 2006, 6:07pm

Is this currently limited to Australia? Shit…
——————————————————————————–
Re: Government shifting tax burden to singles.
Post by VirginiaBob on Jan 14, 2006, 6:11pm

this is happening everywhere. It’s politically advantageous to spout, “Tax relief for families”, without considering the consequences to singles.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Government shifting tax burden to singles.
Post by Drifter on Jan 14, 2006, 6:20pm

This method has been tried before – it’s remarkably unsuccessful.

The key problem is that young single people have few attachments to the country and more willing to leave if they can make more money abroad. The end result – the country experiences a loss of all the single motivated people, which turns into a large economic problem and hence even less tax revenue than before.

It should be also noted that many countries used “tax credits” rather than “benefits”. The difference? It’s an accounting trick, since the tax credits are subtracted from the total tax, so the government can make it look like they are taxing the population less and the welfare system isn’t as large.

——————————————————————————–
Re: Government shifting tax burden to singles.
Post by uzername on Jan 14, 2006, 8:08pm

We have a conservative government in Australia. The opposition, the Labour Party (lefties) arte just barreling out their usual statistical distortions to push their bullshiat Marxist Utopian agenda.

l am single and shock horror left leaning, but frankly l would never vote for the lying guilt tripping wah, wah, wah, what about me, Labour party. As a single, l gotta tell you, the governments tax cuts of late have been GREAT and l have MORE money not less in my pocket.

That article was written by the typical leftist shill media hack, a characteristic that infects all those lefty twats at The Australian newspaper. Its a red herring masquerading as storm in a teacup dressed up in the facade of leftist rhetorical statistical distortion.

Taking that crappy article and holding it up as ‘evidence’ regarding the subjugation of single men does no good for the credibility of this place.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Government shifting tax burden to singles.
Post by guest on Jan 14, 2006, 10:12pm

Jan 14, 2006, 8:08pm, uzername wrote:That article was written by the typical leftist shill media hack, a characteristic that infects all those lefty twats at The Australian newspaper.

Isn’t “The Australian” a Murdoch paper owned by news corp, the same company that operates the Fox News Network?

Jan 14, 2006, 8:08pm, uzername wrote:Taking that crappy article and holding it up as ‘evidence’ regarding the subjugation of single men does no good for the credibility of this place.

That may be your opinion but i guess that is up to each reader of article to decide. Is this statistic a lie “But research commissioned by the Opposition shows a single worker on $30,000 will pay $9720 total tax in the next two years, while a family earning $53,000 effectively pays nothing.”? If so, i’m interested to hear the truth. If not, then it does look like the government is taxing singles more heavily, even if you as an individual now have more money (which doesn’t disprove that singles are taxed more heavily). Lets not forget about the baby bonus either.

The only upside is that the conservative government there does look like it is at least paying lip service to addressing the divorce problem.

——————————————————————————–
Re: Government shifting tax burden to singles.
Post by antiriad on Jan 14, 2006, 10:20pm

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependency;
From dependency back into bondage.

– Authors unknown
——————————————————————————–
Re: Government shifting tax burden to singles.
Post by openeyes on Jan 14, 2006, 11:52pm

Jan 14, 2006, 10:12pm, guest wrote:”But research commissioned by the Opposition shows a single worker on $30,000 will pay $9720 total tax in the next two years, while a family earning $53,000 effectively pays nothing.”

That seems like a very odd way to form a statement, one which to me is simply playing with numbers until it gives the desired impression. Why not compare a single person making $30,000 to a family making $60,000? That’s about what the US government does, with joint tax returns being taxed at the same rate as single returns with about half the income. Also, since you’re comparing one person to two, one could just as well split the $53,000 income, meaning that a single person with a $30,000 income pays more taxes than a married person with kids who averages $26,500 per year.

Also it says “in the next two years”, which means that the single worker will pay less than five grand per year in taxes. That actually doesn’t sound so unusual to me. It’s either about the same as in the US, or maybe a bit less. And of course, child credits DO often lead to nice tax refunds. That’s not something that only goes on in Australia. Perhaps every first world nation with a lagging population does so. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” I don’t blame a nation for seeking to destroy a low birth rate via taxes. In fact it may be one of a nation’s few clever (but not necessarily helpful) acts. Let’s hope it turns out well.

Having everyone remain single and childless isn’t in a nation’s best interest, but perhaps that problem could be fixed without the prod of tax adjustments. Maybe make marriage a bit less suicidal financially and otherwise, while also taxing people less in general. Nah, governments may not see the benefit in that
——————————————————————————–
Re: Government shifting tax burden to singles.
Post by guest on Jan 15, 2006, 12:15am

Jan 14, 2006, 11:52pm, openeyes wrote:
Having everyone remain single and childless isn’t in a nation’s best interest, but perhaps that problem could be fixed without the prod of tax adjustments. Maybe make marriage a bit less suicidal financially and otherwise, while also taxing people less in general. Nah, governments may not see the benefit in that

This was in fact the point i was trying to make
——————————————————————————–