Here is a question for all - do you consider someone on $150,000 - $180,000 rich.
In the old days, those on the 2nd highest income stream would have investment properties etc as the income to house ratio was around 4 times (refer 1980s) and have ok wages growth. Back then one would work and the other would stay home and look after the kids.
Now those on the 2nd highest income ratio are probably struggling IMO to buy a house and look after their kids (and those on lower incomes would be struggling more).
Both partners probably work and childcare is expensive these days as well. So how fair is a single parent earning $180,000 compared to both parents working who are on $100,000 respectively each - who is better of under these tax cuts.
It is a disgrace the politics of envy have happened in Australia - bracket creep has been a disgrace that both sides of politics have not addressed. Now back to the question:
Do you consider someone living in Sydney with two kids rich who earns $180,000 and has to buy a home and/or is mortgaged to the hilt rich?.
Albo is playing the politics of envy, when the circumstances around income and what it can buy is markedly different today than back in the 80s. Maybe he should focus on restoring the house to income ratio and then he can play the politics of envy. Wealth and what one considers wealthy has changed is my point.
This post is not question in those on lower incomes getting tax benefits btw. It is about actually understanding cost of living today to yesterday when playing politics of envy.
