Gough Whitlam: Messiah or Very Naughty Boy?

[Noobz0r]

You think I'm talking about the poorest when I say free loaders. When in fact i'm talking about those people I see dropping their kids off in their 40K 4WD's to school. Those parasites are the true free loaders.

They could afford private education but they would rather tax payers fund their kids education so they can go on holidays to bali and have all the latest and best of everything.

Just on this, there is more to it than people simply being influenced by money in regards to sending kids to public schools rather than private. Perhaps they themselves are graduates of the public system and see nothing wrong with the education? Maybe they have issues with Religious Education? Maybe they think their child is more suited to a public education?

To simply point to money as the motivation is laughable.

 

[Gus Poyet]

Its not just about "poor people not having kids". Its about children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds getting the same access to a quality education as children from wealthy families. Why is it fair on poorer kids to not give them the same chance at fulfilling their potential as rich kids? How is it beneficial for society for us to lose potentially great minds that could help shape our society for the better just because they couldn't get access to the same level of education as Richie Rich could.

What is the incentive to work hard to provide for anything then if you can just get it given to you by the Government?

How is that a beneficial lesson to anyone?

While I agree hard work and innovation should be encouraged through lower taxation and incentives it is the rent seeking parasites and monopolistic corporations at the top that are the real burden to society not the people at the bottom. The rent seekers are the ones that we should be targeting with higher taxation rather than the innovators and creators. The only thing rent seekers do to "help" society is to own a lot of s**t and charge poorer people for the use of it.

I own 2 rental properties. It was always seen as an investment back when we bought ours.

If I was paying a flat 20% tax on anything I made, sold or bought i'd probably be a hell of a lot more financially better off and wouldn't need to charge what I do for the rental properties. However Governments now have to tax us to the hilt to pay for other peoples health and education given the amounts required to fund it all.

 

[Gus Poyet]

Just on this, there is more to it than people simply being influenced by money in regards to sending kids to public schools rather than private. Perhaps they themselves are graduates of the public system and see nothing wrong with the education? Maybe they have issues with Religious Education? Maybe they think their child is more suited to a public education?

To simply point to money as the motivation is laughable.

If people were means tested private non-religious schools would be viable businesses if public schools were only made available to those who truly couldnt afford a private education.

Plenty of non religious people send their kids to religious schools already anyway.

To simply ignore money as the motivation is also laughable. Chortles all round.

 

[medusala]

The contrast to the person who followed is stark. He will be remembered only for a) sec 45d, b) ending death duties and c) cosying up to Mugabe.

A Gillardesque failure who unlike Gough is a mere footnote to Australian history.

 

[Noobz0r]

If people were means tested private non-religious schools would be viable businesses if public schools were only made available to those who truly couldnt afford a private education.

Plenty of non religious people send their kids to religious schools already anyway.

To simply ignore money as the motivation is also laughable. Chortles all round.

I never said money wouldn't be a motivator, I agree that in a lot of instances it likely is.

I was sent to a religious school from a non-religious family so there's no need to lecture me about it. I also know many people (and students) who were sent to public schools because their parents disagreed with RE.

But again, I agree with your point. I just don't think it's as commonplace as you believe.

 

[Gus Poyet]

I never said money wouldn't be a motivator, I agree that in a lot of instances it likely is.

I was sent to a religious school from a non-religious family so there's no need to lecture me about it. I also know many people (and students) who were sent to public schools because their parents disagreed with RE.

But again, I agree with your point. I just don't think it's as commonplace as you believe.

Just as the majority of people who send their kids to private schools aren't "rich". Most work pretty hard to put their kids through those schools and make many sacrifices along the way. I know my parents did and many of my friends parents did as well.

 

[RUNVS]

Just as the majority of people who send their kids to private schools aren't "rich". Most work pretty hard to put their kids through those schools and make many sacrifices along the way. I know my parents did and many of my friends parents did as well.

Parents should not have to send their children to a private school to get a first class education. A first class education is a basic right of every single child.

 

[Gus Poyet]

Parents should not have to send their children to a private school to get a first class education. A first class education is a basic right of every single child.

If they can afford it they should.

Don't talk to me about rights when you support parties that are all about removing our rights law by law, policy by policy, tax by tax.

 

[Noobz0r]

Just as the majority of people who send their kids to private schools aren't "rich". Most work pretty hard to put their kids through those schools and make many sacrifices along the way. I know my parents did and many of my friends parents did as well.

And? In my view education is a right, and within that is a right to choose. Parents shouldn't have to make that sacrifice of they dont believe it will better their education.

 

[Gus Poyet]

And? In my view education is a right.

In my view it's up to the parents to provide it and everything else that a child needs. It's not the role of a Government to provide it.

 

[Noobz0r]

In my view it's up to the parents to provide it and everything else that a child needs. It's not the role of a Government to provide it.

And if it's not the parents belief that their child needs a private education?

 

[Showbags]

What is the incentive to work hard to provide for anything then if you can just get it given to you by the Government?

How is that a beneficial lesson to anyone?




I own 2 rental properties. It was always seen as an investment back when we bought ours.

If I was paying a flat 20% tax on anything I made, sold or bought i'd probably be a hell of a lot more financially better off and wouldn't need to charge what I do for the rental properties. However Governments now have to tax us to the hilt to pay for other peoples health and education given the amounts required to fund it all.

So If you were paying less tax you would lower your rent? Yeah bull s**t. You bought it to make more money or to rent seek, no other reason.

I own a rental property myself so I am a hypocrite I suppose but just owning s**t is not creating wealth or innovation. Speculation and buying more wealth with your current wealth should be taxed at a much higher extent than the job creators or innovators in society. It is just rent seeking (using your capital to purchase more income producing assets).

I ask you again why is it fair that little Joe Public from a working class family with the exact same ability as that of little Richie Rich from a wealthy class family of rent seekers does not get the same access to education and healthcare.

 

[Ripper]

The contrast to the person who followed is stark. He will be remembered only for a) sec 45d, b) ending death duties and c) cosying up to Mugabe.

A Gillardesque failure who unlike Gough is a mere footnote to Australian history.

Yep We used to joke that Fraser was the best Labor PM ever and Bob Hawke was the best Liberal PM.

 

[Ripper]

So If you were paying less tax you would lower your rent? Yeah bull s**t. You bought it to make more money or to rent seek, no other reason.

I own a rental property myself so I am a hypocrite I suppose but just owning s**t is not creating wealth or innovation. Speculation and buying more wealth with your current wealth should be taxed at a much higher extent than the job creators or innovators in society. It is just rent seeking (using your capital to purchase more income producing assets).

I ask you again why is it fair that little Joe Public from a working class family with the exact same ability as that of little Richie Rich from a wealthy class family of rent seekers does not get the same access to education and healthcare.

Probably becuase before gough there was a really good scholarship program where anyone with a big brain could get a "Free education"

 

[medusala]

So If you were paying less tax you would lower your rent? Yeah bull s**t.

Hardly. Rents would be decline as investment decisions are based on net of tax returns.

If they weren't negative gearing wouldn't have an effect.

Any danger of getting back to Gough?

Wasn't it Saddam Husseins regime that he tried to get cash from? Interesting that given current events.

 

[Showbags]

In my view it's up to the parents to provide it and everything else that a child needs. It's not the role of a Government to provide it.

Whether you like it or not we live in a society. We are a social creature that congregate together in communities. It is to society's benefit that we give every child access to education and the ability to fulfil their potential. For every dollar spent by the government in education the investment is returned tenfold to the taxpayer.

 

[Gus Poyet]

So If you were paying less tax you would lower your rent? Yeah bull s**t. You bought it to make more money or to rent seek, no other reason.

We bought them because its a way to make back the money we get butt raped for through taxes. My wife has a pretty decent job. She's on close to 100K
a year. The amount of tax she loses is ******* ridiculous however.

I own a rental property myself so I am a hypocrite I suppose but just owning s**t is not creating wealth or innovation. Speculation and buying more wealth with your current wealth should be taxed at a much higher extent than the job creators or innovators in society. It is just rent seeking (using your capital to purchase more income producing assets).

Except that if you tax people so they can't expand their wealth when in their earning prime come the time they require a pension more and more people will have their hand out for more money from the government.

I ask you again why is it fair that little Joe Public from a working class family with the exact same ability as that of little Richie Rich from a wealthy class family of rent seekers does not get the same access to education and healthcare.

Who says life has to be equal or fair? It's not. And never will be.

Given the middle class is bar far the largest class now in this nation the old worn out working class term no longer holds the same conotations it did 50 years ago. I'm sure you msut be inclusing these middle class types among the "working class" numbers.

 

[Dry Rot]

Enjoying watching the ABC doco again, especially the interviews and the cool cars.

 

[Showbags]

Probably becuase before gough there was a really good scholarship program where anyone with a big brain could get a "Free education"

Or anyone with the right connections, with parents who made the right donations into the right pockets would get the scholarships.

If we want to go down the American model of education (the user pays system) then we can expect all the rich kids going to rich schools and getting the best crack at the top positions in society, whereas the poor kids will go to the lower class universities and come out of uni still with inequality of opportunity.

 

[Gus Poyet]

Whether you like it or not we live in a society. We are a social creature that congregate together in communities. It is to society's benefit that we give every child access to education and the ability to fulfil their potential. For every dollar spent by the government in education the investment is returned tenfold to the taxpayer.

Except the concept of community has been diminishing for a long time now. It's funny that when Governments didnt pay for everything the local people worked together and were more part of their neighbourhoods,communities and school. Everyone knew everyone and helped each other out.

Fast forward to today and that's almost gone in most areas. Most people wouldn't know the person two hosues down from them.

Society it seems hasn't benefited from these freebies from the governments. It seems society has in fact gone the other way and become far more anti-social towards each other.

 

[Ripper]

Or anyone with the right connections, with parents who made the right donations into the right pockets would get the scholarships.

If we want to go down the American model of education (the user pays system) then we can expect all the rich kids going to rich schools and getting the best crack at the top positions in society, whereas the poor kids will go to the lower class universities and come out of uni still with inequality of opportunity.

Maybe , but there was a big emphasis on "winning a scholarship" back then, as it was when I was going to school. I had finished when Gough got elected.

You are sounding a bit like a "victim" , You won't go far if you keep that up.

 

[Showbags]

We bought them because its a way to make back the money we get butt raped for through taxes. My wife has a pretty decent job. She's on close to 100K
a year. The amount of tax she loses is ******* ridiculous however.




Except that if you tax people so they can't expand their wealth when in their earning prime come the time they require a pension more and more people will have their hand out for more money from the government.




Who says life has to be equal or fair? It's not. And never will be.

Given the middle class is bar far the largest class now in this nation the old worn out working class term no longer holds the same conotations it did 50 years ago. I'm sure you msut be inclusing these middle class types among the "working class" numbers.

As I said. So if you stop paying taxes tomorrow on your incomes then you will sell your properties and have no need to rent seek and charge rent on your properties? Of course you wont. You will continue to charge rent and probably go on to buy more properties and continue to rent seek. The problem with that is that you (and me I suppose) are helping to price new home buyers out of the market because you have had more time to accumulate capital and buy some properties before they have had the opportunity to do so (again inequality of opportunity).

Maybe life isn't fair. Does that mean that we shouldn't strive to create a society that is fair, where every child has equality of opportunity? This may never be achieved but why throw up our arms and stop trying?

Equality of outcome is a different story. Some people obviously are going to achieve more than others due to intelligence differences. That is fine. But allowing people to not have that opportunity to achieve just because they were unlucky enough to be born in lower socioeconomic families is surely on in a fair and just society.

 

[scon]

Frances say 'Hi!I ain't no snivelling victim!'

 

[Showbags]

Maybe , but there was a big emphasis on "winning a scholarship" back then, as it was when I was going to school. I had finished when Gough got elected.

You are sounding a bit like a "victim" , You won't go far if you keep that up.

I'm no victim. I am at uni myself studying a double degree, own my own small business, work full time, volunteer for charities and have saved hard and am looking at buying a second rental property (which I admit is nothing but non productive rent seeking) over the next 6 months (I'm 25).

My stance is based on a societal concern and wanting to live in a society of fairness and equality rather than a society that only cares about how big your bank balance is.

 

[Gus Poyet]

As I said. So if you stop paying taxes tomorrow on your incomes then you will sell your properties and have no need to rent seek and charge rent on your properties? Of course you wont. You will continue to charge rent and probably go on to buy more properties and continue to rent seek. The problem with that is that you (and me I suppose) are helping to price new home buyers out of the market because you have had more time to accumulate capital and buy some properties before they have had the opportunity to do so (again inequality of opportunity).

Maybe life isn't fair. Does that mean that we shouldn't strive to create a society that is fair, where every child has equality of opportunity? This may never be achieved but why throw up our arms and stop trying?

Equality of outcome is a different story. Some people obviously are going to achieve more than others due to intelligence differences. That is fine. But allowing people to not have that opportunity to achieve just because they were unlucky enough to be born in lower socioeconomic families is surely on in a fair and just society.

You do realise that if taxes were dropped signifigantly people renting would then also have far more disposable income to spend or invest? Which in turn would mean they would be in a better financial position to purchase their own homes.

You and I are into purchasing pre-existing homes. These renters with a new found stream of income can move into the new home market.