Why $150,000?


The Labour Party has put out its alternative budget today. And as Stuff reports, higher income earners are in for a rude shock:

Labour confirms that high earners will pay a new top tax band, although it is lower than it proposed in 2011.
In its alternative Budget presented today, the party said that if elected it would charge those who earned over $150,000 a year 36 cents in the dollar. Currently the top tax bracket is 33c in the dollar for income over $70,000 dollars a year.
In 2011 it proposed charging top earners 39c in the dollar. Based on Treasury figures, the difference between this year's policy and that of 2011 is that it would raise $246.6 million less in income tax for the Treasury. 

Excuse our cynicism, but we don't reckon that Labour's choice of the cut-in point of the new tax rate is any accident. You see, back-bench MP's earn a base salary of $147,800, so Labour's policy would purposefully exclude them.

You may remember back to January when Labour unveiled its baby bribe bonus. The threshold for that was $150,000 too, so what Labour is effectively saying is that if you are a back-bench MP you'll get welfare under Labour, but you won't have to pay any extra tax. $150,000 per annum is clearly the new rich; dare to earn above that, and Labour wants a cut of the action.

Once again, Labour seems to be looking after its own; its own MP's that is. Thank goodness that, on current polling, Labour's chances of winning the Treasury Benches this year are on a par with England's chances of winning the FIFA World Cup!


Disclaimer: For those who think this may be personal, we don't earn anywhere near $150,000 per annum; chance would be a fine thing.  
◄ New Posts Older Posts ►
 

Copyright 2015 Drunkethic: Why $150,000? Template by Drunkethic Template. Powered by Blogger