Will you win or lose from the tax changes? Here's how they will hit Canberra

Modelling undertaken by the ANU's Centre for Social Research and Methods shows those living in the South Canberra statistical area, covering Kingston, Yarralumla, Deakin, Griffith, Narrabundah and Red Hill, will, on average, receive $427 less in tax cuts under the government's revamped scheme, while people in the Weston Creek area, straddling Duffy, Holder, Fisher, Chapman and Waramanga, will be $179 worse off.

But the majority of Canberrans look set to gain from the proposed changes, which will pare back the tax cut for high-income earners and boost the relief for those earning less than $146,486.

The modelling looks at average incomes in each region, and the change in tax will be different for each person based on their income.

Those living in North Canberra, including Ainslie, Watson, Dickson, Lyneham, O'Connor, Reid and Campbell, will get an extra $424, on average. Also benefiting will be those in Belconnen ($324 extra), Tuggeranong ($342 more) and Molonglo ($267 extra).

The analysis, led by ANU Associate Professor Ben Phillips, shows that almost 90 per cent of regions in the country will be left better off by the government's tax changes, with most of those losing out concentrated in high income inner-city areas in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Canberra.

Associate Professor Phillips said the area left most worse off by the changes was Manly, where the size of the average tax cut would shrink by $2251. Areas including Leichhardt, Ku-ring-gai, Mosman, Sydney's eastern suburbs and Cottesloe in Perth, would all lose out by more than $1000.

South Canberra is 18^th on the list of 329 regions, and Woden Valley 26^th.

The area set to benefit most is Whitsunday, with an average gain of $718.

Although Canberra has the nation's highest median weekly earnings, Associate Professor Phillips said, "you will still find that there will be more households better off than worse off" under the government's tax changes.

"We are a relatively high income area so the stage three tax changes don't effect us as much as some," he said. "But we don't have areas at the very top of the list because we don't have those very high incomes."

Overall, the government's revamped package will return $359 billion over 10 years to taxpayers, including bigger tax relief to those earning less than $146,000 while halving the benefit that was to go to those on $190,000 or more under the former model.

The tax cuts come against the backdrop of soaring income tax collections in recent years.

Analysis by Commonwealth Bank economist Gareth Aird shows the proportion of household income going on tax has reached a record 17.7 per cent and will rise even further to around 19 per cent by mid-year.

Mr Aird said that even with the proposed tax cuts, which have to be passed by Parliament, it will still be a historically high 18 per cent.

Associate Professor Phillips said there had been substantial tax bracket creep in the past 14 years, driven by more people in employment, working more hours and earning higher pay.

"It is no surprise our tax has risen pretty strongly," he said.

Although the tax share of income would still be high even with the tax cuts, the government's package was well designed, he added.

"The tax cuts are not a bad effort to ensure that bracket creep is largely accounted for," Associate Professor Phillips said. "Overall, from an equity perspective, they have done a good job."