Our Sponsors

Our Friends

 
Home arrow Opinion Archive
Report a comment

Thank you for taking the time to report the following comment to the administrator of this site.
Please complete this short form and click the submit button to process your report.

Name
  
E-mail
  
Reason for reporting comment
  
   

This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots. (see: www.captcha.net)

Type the characters that you see in the box (5 characters). The code can include characters 0..9 and A..Z.

  

I cannot read the characters. Generate a

 

Comment in question

Impact of Interest rates on Wages

By: geoffreykelley (Registered ) on 07-11-2007 23:47

I saw the 7:30 Report also. Two points came to mind. If you try hard enough you can find an obscure academic somewhere in Australia to say exactly what you want! Also tho old cliche about lies, damn lies and statistics! 
Keen did not mention the difference between the tax on $100,000 a year between 1990 and 2007. 
For instance, in 1990 the tax on $1923 per week ($100,000 pa) was $774.0 and the take-home pay was $1148.00 per week. Today the tax is $553 and the take-home pay is $1370 per week, a difference of $221 or a 30% reduction! In 1990 the tax was 40% of the wage and in 2007 the tax is 28.75% of the wage. 
If you free up another 11% of the wage why would you be surprised if enterprising wage earners spent it on a home mortgage? 
I believe the latest stats show that the average home mortgage has risen from 25% of the take-home pay to about 30%, but it surprise me that it has not gone to 35% given 11% of the wage has been freed up from taxation. What are the people doing with that extra 6%? They are spending it on a better life-style. 
Keen's claims were fraudulent and so absurd that only Kerry O'Brien and the ABC would have the gall to dig him up, and only dyed-in-the-wool Labor voters would fall for it. The rest of the community are out spending their extra $220.00 a week that Howard has freed up! 
Only a Labor voter would argue that we are doing it harder under Howard than we did under Keating. 
Has anyone noticed how well the big toyshops are doing over the last decade? Have a look at the growth in Harvey Norman, JB HiFi, Bunnings, Officeworks, Clive Peters, a whole host of little guys such as AutoBarn and eBay! Who is driving these sales? Where were they during the eighties? Or, can you remember what Allan Bond did to Waltons? It went broke didn't it? Figgins Diorama? The Shop of Shops? Georges? Where are they today? 
I can't wait to see how Rudd follows in the shoes of Whitlam, Hawke and Keating. 
 
Geoffrey Kelley

» Report this comment to administrator

 
»  Go back to the article


mXcomment 1.0.2 © 2007-2009 - visualclinic.fr
License Creative Commons - Some rights reserved