|
Page 3 of 8 Update: Howard slipped up today when questioned on A Current Affair - he could not name the correct interest rate. Quoting 6.25% instead of 6.5%. I wonder if this will get anywhere near the same coverage that Rudd's tax-scale slip-up received from the mainstream-media... Earlier: And now we have... TAX CUTS! $34 billion worth from Howard & Costello. Initial analysis gives about a $20/week cut for middle-income earners in the next financial year. An amount that would get wiped out by an interest rate rise expected either on November 7 or early December (just after the election!). The media is giving it a favourable run, but I wouldn't be surprised to see no poll bounce for the Coalition. Anyone remember the post-budget bounce that failed to materialise? Rudd seemed to indicate that his response is a couple of weeks away. My advice would be to shift more emphasis towards lower & middle income earners. There's a decent-sized cut for the top income-earners which could be shifted down to the lower brackets instead.
Analysis of the tax policy: The tax policy is misleading. Claims of the tax-free threshold rising to $14k are plain wrong.
Here they say "The tax-free threshold would rise from $11,000 to $14,000 in 08/09."
This is simply not true.
If you read the Liberal party announcement "the Low Income Tax Offset (LITO) will increase from $750 to $1,200, providing an effective tax free threshold of $14,000 (up from $11,000) to those taxpayers eligible for the full LITO".
To be eligible for the LITO, you must earn less than $39,999 and it starts to taper off once you're earning more than $25k.
So, let's look at what an average middle-income earner stands to gain from these tax cuts...
Someone on $50k:
07/08 Financial year: $3600 + $6000 = $9600
08/09 Financial year: $4200 + $4800 = $9000
Or a saving of $600/year = $11.50/week
Someone on $100k:
07/08 Financial year: $3600 + $13500 + $10000 = $27100
08/09 Financial year: $4200 + $13800 + $8000 = $26000
Or a saving of $1100/year = $21.15/week
Someone on $200k:
07/08 Financial year: $3600 + $13500 + $30000 + $22500 = $69600
08/09 Financial year: $4200 + $13800 + $40000 + $9000 = $67000
Or a saving of $2600/year = $50.00/week
----
As far as I can tell, my calculations are correct. If anyone sees an error please point it out 
But as they stand, it seems quite clear that - as usual - these tax cuts are skewed to favour the rich. Why should someone on $200k/year get $50/week extra, while the middle-income earner gets a paltry $11.50/week? $50/week would mean so much more to someone on a lower income, but to the high income earner it might mean a couple of extra glasses of brandy one night. Earlier in the day: So now to get these updates back to normal.. Howard paid his visit to the Governor General yesterday and the faux campaign has come to an end. The 6 weeks ahead will be long and treacherous for both sides. There have been a plethora of polling results released: There have also been a stack of editorials and commentary in all of the newspapers. One article I found particularly interesting was Glen Milne's take. Reading his article, it's clear that he's still sore about Howard not handing over to Costello. If you remember, he was one of Costello's main barrackers in the Murdoch press. It has to be read to be believed: "Instead of the jaundiced reception Howard got, voters might, just might, have greeted the idea of an indigenous preamble in the Constitution coming from Costello as a genuine attempt to begin a sketch of a post-Howard Coalition government. After all it was Costello who walked for reconciliation in 2000, not Howard. Not on your Nelly. No, Howard, who is so closed over with scar tissue after 30 years in politics that some colleagues complain they can no longer have a meaningful social conversation with him outside politics or cricket, hoarded his Sydney Institute enterprise so closely none of his ministers got a decent look-in. If they had they might have warned him it was a folly, fatally contaminated by the imminence of the election, which as we now know was clearly in Howard's own mind. "
Yes, ladies and gentlemen - this from an unashamedly right-wing commentator of the utterly hypocritical type (see Walkley awards, lots of alcohol, Stephen Mayne, in contrast to Rudd's strip club episode). Of course it'd be too much to ask for Piers Ackerman to give up on the Heiner affair already, after it was so emphatically put to bed in The Australian. Just on Howard's Indigenous epiphany... I don't really see how this is supposed to help him politically. It seems to be aimed at the doctors' wives, which I understand have been leaving him in droves. However, it simply looks too cynical to have any net beneficial effect. If anything, it makes his promises of a safe, secure leadership look weaker. He looks like he's making policy on the run, with his own Indigenous affairs minister only being informed on the day. Let's consider the different political groups this policy will affect: - Aborigines - nothing to be gained politically for Howard. No trust here.
- The broad left - again, nothing to be gained for Howard. It's been 11 years and again, no trust.
- Wet Liberals - potentially small ground can be made here. However, it is my view that any possible gains will be tempered by a refusal to say sorry as well as his stubbornness on climate change. Only two days ago did Howard repeat his questioning of the validity of global warming, referencing "The Great Global Warming Swindle".
- Conservative voters - considering that this group is Howard's bedrock support base, I don't think the Indigenous policy would have much effect. They're not going to swing Labor on the back of this policy.
I'll keep this updated throughout the day!
Polling analyses to come shortly!
Views: 2051
|
Comments (40)
