Reply to thread

With our progressive tax system, the Government deems what they consider a low income earner, what I or you consider as low income is very subjective.

I have a daughter with two children (8 and 13) and earns about $40k per annum, I wouldn't say she is well off, but some may.

As I said in my original post, I would much rather the Government moved away from being overly dependent on income tax and changed the tax system to better reflect a changing society.

With technology, there is an expectation that there will be fewer jobs and we may end up having a universal living wage no point in taxing that.

But it is a huge issue, the well off are incentivised to negative gear and provide social housing, with no limit on how much of a tax offset they can get, I knew someone with a huge property portfolio balanced so that they didn't pay any income tax.

Meanwhile the rent is only limited by what they can get for it, so 40% of the average persons wage going in rent is a misnomer, it is what the market can bear and working families can't live on the street.

So would a better system be, that a family can claim their mortgage interest up to a certain value of house, that the Government incentivises builders to supply at a predetermined price range?

That way housing is supplied and the incentive is focused on the lower end of the market, rather than carte blanche, as is the case at the moment?

There are a myriad of ways of addressing an issue, at the moment the Government incentives for supplying housing is a bit like the NDIS was, an open cheque book with little monitoring, of whether the outcomes are a reasonable reflection of the expenditure.

All I see is a ponzi scheme myself, but hey that's only my opinion, as I said a more broad based tax base will be required.