Bombshell poll reveals what Aussies fear
The US president has mulled whether to slap further levies on sectors that would hit Australian producers hard, such as 250 per cent rates on pharmaceuticals.
While Australia managed to dodge a higher baseline rate earlier this month, exports to the US are still subject to a blanket 10 per cent impost.
Some exports, including steel, aluminium and copper, are hit with separate 50 per cent duties.
The latest Newspoll, published on Monday, found 42 per cent of the 1283 voters surveyed were more concerned by 'Donald Trump's tariffs' than 'China's military threat'.
But a looming conflict in the region was still a major worry – with 37 per cent putting it at as a greater concern.
Twenty-one per cent said they were neutral.
There was a clear political divide in the results, with 55 per cent of Labor and 60 per cent of Greens voters nominating tariffs.
50 per cent of Coalition voters put China as their primary fear. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has the strongest satisfaction rating since September 2023. Martin Ollman / NewsWire Credit: News Corp Australia
Meanwhile, the poll showed more voters were satisfied with Anthony Albanese's performance than not for the first time since September 2023.
It showed the Prime Minister 49 per cent of voters satisfied with his performance and 46 per cent dissatisfied.
The poll was taken from Monday to Thursday last week, coinciding with Mr Albanese's announcement that he would recognise Palestinian statehood.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AU Financial Review
a few seconds ago
- AU Financial Review
Cam the man goes to a $6m-plus job only 200 metres up the road
When you're done with selling cars (the second-biggest purchase decision for most Australians) and you're still in hot demand, then there's only one place left to go: houses. For about $6 million a year and a juicy sign-on bonus, CAR Group's boss Cameron McIntyre, who worked at and its owner CAR Group for nearly two decades, is doing just that.
Perth Now
a few seconds ago
- Perth Now
Google slugged $55m over Telstra, Optus deal
Tech giant Google has agreed to pay a $55m fine for a deal with Australia's major telcos aimed at reducing search competition. According to the ACCC, the deal involved Telstra and Optus pre-installing only Google Search on Android phones the telcos sold to consumers. In return, Telstra and Optus would receive a share of the revenue generated from ads displayed to consumers via Google Search on these devices. The ACCC said by pre-installing Google Search engines on these devices, the telcos and tech giant engaged in anticompetitive business practices. Google has been fined up to $55m for anticompetitive practices NewsWire / Gaye Gerard Credit: News Corp Australia The ACCC said the breaches in competition laws occurred between December 2019 and March 2021. Google admitted that this relationship with the telcos substantially lessened competition, the ACCC said. The proceedings started on Monday in the Federal Court, with Google admitting liability and agreeing to pay $55m. 'Conduct that restricts competition is illegal in Australia because it usually means less choice, higher costs or worse service for consumers,," ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said. Telstra, Optus and TPG last year agreed with the ACCC not to enter into new search exclusive deals with Google. The breaches occurred between 2019 and 2021. NewsWire / Gaye Gerard Credit: News Corp Australia 'Today's outcome, along with Telstra, Optus and TPG's undertakings, have created the potential for millions of Australians to have greater search choice in the future and for competing search providers to gain meaningful exposure to Australian consumers,' Ms Cass-Gottlieb said. The three telcos could configure search services on a device-by-device basis and in ways that may not align with Google settings, the ACCC said. It said Google didn't agree with all of the ACCC's concerns but gave an undertaking to address them.
News.com.au
24 minutes ago
- News.com.au
‘Distasteful': Growing calls to tax the family home
A radical proposal to tax the family home has been described as a 'distasteful' but necessary measure to reduce 'inequality'. Ahead of Labor's three-day Economic Reform Roundtable in Canberra this week, economists from the University of Technology Sydney and Melbourne University have put forward their own 'bold' proposal, arguing it's time to 'time to consider taxing the family home' by ending the capital gains tax (CGT) exemption. 'This may seem distasteful, but there are some strong arguments for doing so,' Peter Siminski and Roger Wilkins wrote in The Conversation on Wednesday. Australia's capital gains tax, introduced by the Hawke Labor government in 1986, applies to the increase in value between when an asset was bought and sold. The family home, or technically the 'main residence', has always been exempt from CGT. Treasury estimates it forgoes around $50 billion a year in revenue by exempting family homes from CGT. In 1999, the Howard government also introduced a 50 per cent CGT discount if the asset is owned for at least 12 months. The CGT discount equates to around $19 billion a year in lost tax revenue. Scrapping the CGT discount, along with negative gearing — allowing property investors to deduct losses from their from taxable income — has long been called for by critics who argue the tax concessions help drive up house prices and fuel inequality. But touching the family home CGT exemption would be far more controversial. Neither major party has proposed scrapping the CGT exemption. As of the 2021 Census, 67 per cent of Australian's 9.8 million households owned their home, either outright or with a mortgage, while 31 per cent were renters. The overall rate of home ownership has remained steady at between 67 per cent to 70 per cent since the early '70s, but has dropped sharply among younger age groups who face greater barriers to ownership including rising prices and stagnant wage growth. Home ownership among 30- to 34-year-olds fell from 64 per cent in 1971 to 50 per cent in 2021, and from 50 per cent to 36 per cent among 25- to 29-year-olds. Prof Siminski and Prof Wilkins argue 'owner-occupied housing exacerbates inequality'. In a draft research paper, the economists have modelled what they argue is the true picture of Australia's income inequality by taking into account the 'income' that owner-occupiers derive from their family home — by including the 'imputed rental income', or what a homeowner would pay in rent, and unrealised gains on the value of the property. 'When these are included in the income measure, inequality is higher, and it increases more strongly over time,' they wrote. 'The effect is large enough to shift Australia's inequality from 16th to 10th highest amongst OECD countries. Unsurprisingly, outright homeowners are much better off than renters when income from the home is counted. They have an average income 86 per cent higher than the average income of renters — compared with 34 per cent higher if housing income is ignored, as it usually is.' They argue that in when viewed this way, Australia's progressive tax system, which reduces inequality by charging higher tax rates for people with higher incomes, is 'largely a mirage'. 'The income tax system reduces inequality by a lot less (about 40.5 per cent less) if we include such housing income,' they wrote. 'Because this income is tax-free, the average tax rate for the rich is much lower than it seems.' Similarly they found for that the pension, which excludes 'housing wealth' from the assets test, the effect of pensions and benefits on inequality was 18.9 per cent smaller 'when housing income is included'. 'Overall, the combined impact of income taxes and pensions/benefits on inequality is 26.7 per cent lower when we include income from the family home,' they wrote. Prof Siminski and Prof Wilkins argue that, overall, these tax concessions may increase house prices and encourage 'inefficient allocation of resources'. They suggest that this 'tax-free income from investing in owner-occupied housing' — which is not actual cash but 'imputed' rent and unrealised gains — could instead be invested into private businesses, 'stimulating entrepreneurial activity and lifting productivity, wages and profits'. 'We know of no recent studies that have estimated the size of this effect, but it is likely to be large and therefore make the move into home ownership more difficult,' they write. 'The absence of recent studies may be because taxing owner-occupied housing is not seen as a politically viable option.' Reducing the incentive to invest in housing would benefit the 'Australian community as a whole' due to 'increased investment in productive activities', but renters would stand to benefit the most 'since the tax burden would shift towards homeowners'. The economists put forward several possible options for 'more fairly incorporating owner-occupied housing in the tax system', such as a broadbased land tax — supported by many economists — an explicit tax on owner-occupied housing wealth, or even a broader wealth tax. 'We should have a national conversation on whether the current tax treatment of owner-occupied housing is sensible,' they wrote. 'Moving away from complete exemption would open up opportunities for reduced reliance on income taxes and more food on the table for renters, and owners of modest homes.' Glenn Davies and Chris Evans from the UNSW School of Accounting have also argued that it is time to rethink the main residence exemption, saying both the underlying policy rationale and complex legislation are no longer 'fit for purpose'. 'Australia, like many other countries, is plagued by rising housing unaffordability and significant intergenerational wealth inequality, and the tax shelter provided by the MRE not only does nothing to alleviate these problems, it exacerbates them considerably,' they wrote in a paper for the eJournal of Tax Research last year. But the proposal has sparked backlash on social media. 'First government stopped you from getting on the property ladder by removing the bottom rungs (cheap housing),' Libertarian commentator Topher Field wrote on X. 'Now government is being urged to shackle everyone on to their existing rung of the ladder, by making it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if you sell the family home. If you have to pay capital gains tax when you sell the family home then it will be nearly impossible to save enough money to be able to sell your house and move into a different house of the same value, let alone one of higher value.' 'Disgusting,' another user wrote. 'And confusingly, didn't they want empty nesters to downsize to make bigger homes available? This just discourages that.' Meanwhile the Australia Institute, a progressive think tank, has also called for scrapping the CGT discount as one of 'three ways Australia can tax wealth better' in a discussion paper ahead of this week's roundtable. 'Australia is a low tax country, with increasing demands for government spending,' the Australia Institute's David Richardson and Matt Grudnoff wrote in the paper released on Monday. 'Australia has a long history of taxing wealth lightly: it taxes capital gains concessionally; it does not have a wealth tax; nor does it have an inheritance tax.' They propose scrapping the CGT discount, imposing a 2 per cent wealth tax on those with net assets over $5 million, and introducing inheritance taxes on large estates. The three measures combined would raise an estimated $70 billion a year — $19 billion by fully taxing capital gains, $41 billion from a wealth tax, and $10 billion from death taxes, which were abolished in the '70s. An inheritance tax 'would need to be supplemented by a gift tax to reduce the tax avoidance that would otherwise occur if asset-holders could make large tax-free gifts in the years prior to their demise'. 'Targeted wealth taxes have the advantage of raising large amounts of revenue while only impacting the very wealthy,' they wrote. 'This is a group with the greatest capacity to pay. They are also a group that have been largely ignored by Australia's current tax system.'
