I’ve seen various assertions in the last couple of days claiming that cuts in the top marginal rate of taxation have been blocked in the Senate (so, by implication, can now been introduced). I don’t recall this happening, though there have certainly been occasions when the Senate blocked spending cuts or increases in other taxes that were supposed to finance cuts in the top marginal rate. But my memory on these things is not 100 per cent reliable.
Can anyone advise me whether there has in fact been an occasion where the Senate has voted against a reduction in income tax rates (on its own, not as an element of a package)?
John Quiggin 
I’ve had a quick look at the daily bills list, and nothing leaps out as a tax cut being blocked.
I thought this occured as part of the New Tax system back a few lections ago.
In that case, Homer, the Democrats insisted on removing food from the tax base for the GST. As a result, there wasn’t enough money for the full tax cut proposed by the government. As I’ve mentioned I’m not interested in cases like this.
I’m looking for a case where a cut in the top tax rate or change in thresholds has been rejected directly, perhaps on the basis that it should have been spread more evenly.
My recollection is that the Government did not propose to cut the top tax rate. It proposed to increase the income level at which it applied, but with food out of the GST it had to re-lower that income level.
That’s what I recollect also
As I understand you the proposition that you are putting is that the government reduced the lowering from 43 to 40 and the increase from $50,000 to $75,000 for the 47cent tax because they could not afford them with the GST off fresh food. Material I have read says that the Democrats required those changes for the upper income earners as well as the GST off fresh food to pass the GST. Egs, Dr Dennis Woodward and Business Coaltion for Tax Reform.
Why is that not a rejection by the Senate of changes in tax rate and thresholds. Don’t understand.
Ros, if your recollection is correct, this is the kind of case I was asking about. Do you have links or more detailed citations?
I think the reson why it never actually comes to the Senate having to vote against specifics you mention is because everything is bundled together into a generalised ‘deal’. For investigating the quality of these deals and seeing how we are really represented in Canberra see:
http://parlsec.treasurer.gov.au/tsr/content/transcripts/1999/006.asp