Less Income/Less Immigration

Originally posted by moorookamick: ↑

.Its a bit of a circular argument but:

-Cut immigration and wages will go up.
-we are globalised via our FTAs
-according to the Government if we increase wages inordinately , we'll be less Globally competitive (ScoMos case in the Fair Wage Tribureral last Month)
-therefore if wages go up we'll all be less wealthy over time because our national wealth if fairly distributed impacts us all.

Therefore If, as I propose above, that the Government offers workers a $60K tax free income treashold (not the $18,200 now)
then this will effectively increase the average take home pay by $10K P/A and that could be effected forthwith.

Of course that is if take home pay is the issue. Its just all about carving up the national wealth pie which the Government
is already doing via taxation policy etc, not inventing another wheel.

The only logical arguement about this proposal is that it may over time adversely effect the overall economy
but as I have proposed above , the stopping of immigration will also negatively impact the overall economy over time.
And to be scientific about it, one proposition has just as much merit as the other, IMO.

Now you might ask , do we have a country in the world which like Aus that is resource rich which has at least
a $60K P/A tax-free treashold for working income earners (NB I said 'Working). and the answer is yes,
Saudi Arabian working citizens (not guest workers) pay no income tax. Perhaps there are more?

"There is no personal income tax in Saudi Arabia. A flat income tax rate of 20% is applied to the tax-adjusted profit of resident non-Saudi and non-GCC individuals" (wikipedia)PS: IMO there should be different tax scales for income earners by a working PAYE taxpayer
than on income earned by dormant investment (eg: shares, property investment etc) with the former being lower/not higher

In fact the opposite can be true due to the capital gains & franking credits tax concessions.

Expand

Every nation has its own issues, yet every economy works in a similar fashion. I had to review my beliefs in the light of Philip Lowe's recent speech and subsequent analyses. For years I thought I understood the pro-immigration argument sufficiently to for my opinion.... yet my understanding is always limited by the information I receive and understand. like everyone, I rely on the integrity of writers/analysts to put forward honest understanding.

I suppose I had some bias toward the political position of Howard after the Big Aus debates. the analyses and opinions that I followed through with seemed to support the argument and the data supported it.

Recent wages discussion has cast some doubts and Philip Lowe's jolted me into the realisation that the working conditions deteriorating and wages paid were actually significantly impacted by the immigration deals done by federal Govt to support investment in places like abattoirs and specialist factories which bring in workers from o/s specifically in order to reduce the upward pressure on wages/conditions.

MIck, its not a simple equation. It may be that non-specific immigration can still provide the services stimulus, but focussed immigration done for business investment goals do not provide the same stimulus.

@Yoggit's Prof makes the case on the millions of people pouring into the US and so is not directly applicable to the proportionately less immigration that we experience.

The effects of immigration are not a blanket generalisation yet I can't myself formulate a competent argument to directly refute your point beyond to say that each nation has its own immigration plan. Ours is not as good for the economy as I thought, according to Philip Lowe, and has the opposite effect to that which I had believed.