Spot on - this is fundamentally what the ALP don't understand. The median wage in Australia is about $70,000 - $80,000 so in effect the ALP consider someone rich on $150,000 - $200,000 per year. Which is laughable, given the average house price to average income ratio is over 5 times and 10 times in some cities, so been on $150,000 per year in Sydney wouldn't put you in the rich category for example (and /or up to 3-5 times the top marginal tax rate in say Sydney and Melbourne). Problem remains - bracket creep and that is a key issue because this ain't the late 70s where the top marginal tax rate cut in at about $35,000, but house prices were at $35,000 or less in most cities and less than $70,000 in all other cities.
http://www.econ.mq.edu.au/Econ_docs/research_papers2/2004_research_papers/Abelson_9_04.pdf
https://www.ato.gov.au/uploadedFiles/Content/CR/Research_and_statistics/In_detail/Downloads/cor00345977_2011SUM1C.pdfFundamentally, PAYG workers are not rich, even on the highest tax ratewhen compared to cost of living.
If people want to target these type of things, just be mindful multinationals are the ones who minimise tax and the rich actually use trusts. The ALP really don't have a clue when they target PAYG workers when they don't understand movements in cost of living. You are not rich if you only earn twice the average wage. Well off possibly if you have your house paid off and the kids don't live at home(given child care costs) but certainly not rich on $150,000 per year.
Most tradies earn over $100,000 so no wonder why they are leaving the ALP when the ALP comes out with such stupidity along with those dopey greens.
All IMO
