Reflection on the article “Labor plans three-tiered tax system”
By reducing the proposed tax cut for the wealthy bracket, the opposition wanted to modify the initial tax plan of the coalition. There are two arguments in evaluating the effect of the move. On one hand, it can contribute in minimizing the disparity between rich, working and poor families as wealthy people will have to pay more taxes slightly higher than the original tax cut. On the other, it can adversely affect investor’s appetite for creating new jobs through stock investment as the new proposal sustain few tax burdens that initially planned to incentive them.
The argument of the opposition about increasing the original tax cut is to accumulate savings and use them in information technology like purchase of computers and health care particularly elective surgery. However, these are mainly attributed to short-term benefits compared to long-term view of increasing employment. Parents may buy their children with computers and connect on the internet but there is a loophole in sustaining this kind of lifestyle for long. The number of immigrants in the country as well as its population is rising in recent years. When corporations fail to support the economy through job creation by opening new factories and sites, the same families that could afford technology education may trade-off their digital future with underlying tenure risks.
Opposition’s proposal can also gain ground when seen in the lens of the public welfare and governance. With more tax being collected from wealthy people, more funds can circulate the economy to support basic needs. Poorer people are assured that their welfare will be addressed because the government is responsible for allocating tax collection. If the coalition’s proposal is to be followed, tax collection will be reduced with no assurance that the wealthy people or companies that benefit from the tax cut will really invest in creating new employment opportunities. It is the issue on the level of concern that influential entities are known for especially when it comes to the welfare of the working and poor families. Corporate strategies have the main goal of profiting while public service is accountable for public trust.
Modifying the original proposal from the coalition has its various dimensions that require value judgment and vision in order to optimize positive impact. As the coalition’s representative said, the opposition’s plan is derived from theirs 91.5% of it. This means that 8.5% difference is largely on numbers but the same concept of improving the national tax system is at its core. Due to this, it can be argued that opposition’s follow-up on the original tax cut is meant to employ politics on the issue. Specifically, it is meant to send the message that the opposition has its own version of how to change national tax system. To put color on opposition’s proposal, it is apparent that the idea of how will it impact technology education and healthcare is inserted.
Reflection on “Senior Australians tax offset”
As tax offset enables a taxpayer to receive more income than without offset, this incentive is very compatible to the public status of senior Australians. In the article, there are four required conditions that should be met by them to be eligible. In condition 1, the minimum age for older men and women is quite high which in turn may not result to enjoyment of the tax offset if they pass. When one gets old, things he or she can do generally decreases and large portion goes to healthcare. If the tax incentive is really directed towards their welfare, the age would be pretty much lower. This is particularly true with war veterans and widowers whose emotional and physical characteristics may not be averagely healthy when running on old age.
In condition 3, the requirement becomes more rigid as the combined taxable income of spouses should not exceed a limit of $59,244. This provision reduces the motivation of older people to work and act as a regular wage-earner. If their earning will serve as a bottleneck to receive an easier way to get money, they would prefer to work minimally or even be laid-off. All sources of taxable are within the requirement such as superannuation, investments and pensions which when combined will definitely reach the taxable income limit. In condition 2, the bias on war veterans are eminent. Although the incentive is very fit for brave men and women in the past, the term senior Australians is obviously not exclusive for them. The requirement should have been open to all older people.
Out of the four conditions, condition 4 or “not in prison” is seemingly the most valid requirement especially if the issue of being a senior Australian is considered. Being old, still much is expected from senior Australians such as keeping tradition, telling history and guiding the newer generation towards the path of patriotism and love for the country. However, there are older people that also still want to act normal people. If this requirement for tax offset can only remind them of their old age, it would be better if they will not bother an effort for filing for the benefit. They are more concerned for the quality of life as well as “giving the last round a clean, exciting and fair fight”.
0 comments:
Post a Comment