Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

No, Sen. Cory Booker, you are absolutely wrong. Ben Ritz’s analysis was not limited to raising tax rates. He was looking at the total revenue that could be raised from any tax increase on households earning more than $400,000 per year. Cc: Dana Bash

21,360 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

The budget failed to deliver significant income tax cuts to offset bracket creep that is devasting family budgets as a result of high inflation. For someone on a wage of $80,000, 4% inflation reduces purchasing power by $3,200 each year. The best Chalmers can do to help hard working Australians, is to offer a measly $275 temporary tax offset. The minimum CGT tax rate of 30% is wrong. Capital gains like any income should be taxed at the marginal rate. Low income earners are going to be hit hard by this measure. I could live with removing the CGT discount provided the extra tax revenue from that measure had been used to offset income tax rather than remove negative gearing. Negative gearing is more effective when income tax rates are high. If tax rates were lowered, then negative gearing would be become a more much ineffective tax strategy. Personally I’ve never been a fan of negative gearing, because you have to spend a $1 to get 47 cents back which leaves you 53 cents worse off in today’s money. There is no substitute for cutting income tax if you want to maintain a strong economy. Immigration is forecast to be 2 million over the next two terms of Parliament which is still too high. Yet again if Labor wants to improve housing affordability, why won’t they lower immigration? Debt levels are forecast to continue to increase which reflects on Labor’s inability to control government spending. People First will cut spending, cut immigration and cut taxes. See how at:

Gerard Rennick

32,831 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten