This is the best summary I could come up with:

The government’s gamble is that nearly six-to-one winners to losers presents pretty good odds for the widespread financial benefits to outweigh the cost of a broken promise.

“The heavy weighting of the original package towards those on the highest incomes is difficult to justify in the current economic climate and, with the cost of living disproportionately impacting those low- and middle-income taxpayers, this will provide some much needed extra cash in the pockets of hard working families to pay mortgages, food and fuel bills,” noted its director of tax communications, Mark Chapman.

Aside from returning some of the extra revenue generated by bracket creep, one of the arguments for the stage 3 tax cuts in the first place was that they’d boost incentives to work, and therefore productivity and economic growth.

Tax economist Steven Hamilton from George Washington University was scathing of a key element of the original plan, and full of praise for Labor’s decision to roll it back.

Phillips notes that these same workers often face higher financial barriers to taking on extra work than their more heavily taxed high-income counterparts, due to the lose of welfare benefits as they earn more.

Perhaps the best person to sum up the Reserve Bank’s likely view on these tax changes, given she was one of its most senior officials until October 2023, is Westpac’s new chief economist Luci Ellis.

The original article contains 1,457 words, the summary contains 229 words. Saved 84%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!