Call for inquiry on baby bonus abortion loophole

[fairdinkum]

i hope i don't drop out of the top posters because of this!!!!!!
i've worked so ****ing hard for this.

Nah, I was wrong. You aren't full of yourself.

By the way, if you find the quality of Q&A to be 'hilarious', there's this thing you should check out called commercial television. You will be rolling on the ground with laughter!

 

[medusala]

Taxing people to pay other people to have more babies so said babies will in turn one day pay tax.

The genius of big government.

Even more genius is taxing people to pay for children that have a far less than average chance of paying median tax. ie the sole parent benefit.

Thats what occurs when you have people who are against means testing of family welfare payments-big government, increased number of Public Servants, increased taxes to pay for this non-means tested welfare, churn as the government less the 20-30% PS handling fees hands money back to taxpayers

There is no reason whatsoever for that handling fee. It is simply the utter incompetence of the public service and ATO.

On that basis you would have to be opposed to super and its massive tax churn.

 

[1jasonoz]

There is no reason whatsoever for that handling fee. It is simply the utter incompetence of the public service and ATO.

On that basis you would have to be opposed to super and its massive tax churn.

There is no reason whatsoever for that handling fee.

Yes because taking tax from one group taxpayers and re-directing it to another group of taxpayers is done magically.

It is simply the utter incompetence of the public service and ATO.

Not it is the cost involved with having a complex non-means tested family welfare system like the one you keep supporting; reduce the family welfare system back to a safety net will reduce the associated costs reduce the number of public servants required, reduce the requirement to have higher marginal tax rates than required-all to simple, to simple for some posters it seems!

On that basis you would have to be opposed to super and its massive tax churn

As i have said on numerous occasions i am against Howard/Costello's narrowing of the taxation base in the face of the various IGR's and weaken means testing of government services to the elederly whilst handing out tax free income to these same people through the 60+ free super.

Even more genius is taxing people to pay for children that have a far less than average chance of paying median tax. ie the sole parent benefit.

So you think access to government family welfare should only be based upon the ability to have a child that pay more than the median tax when they are older-Eugenics seems to making a comeback with your post.

 

[medusala]

Yes because taking tax from one group taxpayers and re-directing it to another group of taxpayers is done magically.

What do you think the welfare state does?

Not it is the cost involved with having a complex non-means tested family welfare system like the one you keep supporting;

Enough of the fabrications. I have said its better than Rudd wasting the money on spending. He has refused to cut the top rate, thus it will be a tax increase.

Ever so simple to understand.

So you think access to government family welfare should only be based upon the ability to have a child that pay more than the median tax when they are older-Eugenics seems to making a comeback with your post.

A government should either fund the birth of children or not. To finance sole parents but not families is discrimination and economic stupidity.

Again a very simple argument to understand.

Interesting you mention eugenics after all you consistently advocate fascist economics.

 

[1jasonoz]

What do you think the welfare state does?



Enough of the fabrications. I have said its better than Rudd wasting the money on spending. He has refused to cut the top rate, thus it will be a tax increase.

Ever so simple to understand.



A government should either fund the birth of children or not. To finance sole parents but not families is discrimination and economic stupidity.

Again a very simple argument to understand.

Interesting you mention eugenics after all you consistently advocate fascist economics.

What do you think the welfare state does?

You think your non-means tested welfare system is somehow free from adminstration costs-here is a hint your non-means tested welfare which you constantly support has massive costs so obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of economics, yet you can't can you?

Enough of the fabrications. I have said its better than Rudd wasting the money on spending. He has refused to cut the top rate, thus it will be a tax increase.

Ever so simple to understand.

Nil fabrications on my behalf, you support non-means testing of welfare system and believe high income earners should receive welfare payments, i do not. You don't accept their is any cost associated with your support of non-means tested welfare(lets call it overtaxation welfare churn ok); the cost of administering your non-means tested welfare, the higher than required income tax rates to fund this policy, the massive churn involved as the govenment taxes everyone to then hand this money back to a select group you support.

You also said the ALP blcoked Howards attempts to lower the top tax rate and i asked you when did the ALP have the balance of power in the senate to block Howard from lowering the top tax rate?

And i provided a link to previously saying one of the best policies undertaken by Hawke was means testing of welfare; but now for some reason your against it!!!

A government should either fund the birth of children or not. To finance sole parents but not families is discrimination and economic stupidity.

The government should only provide welfare as a safety net, not a free for all overtaxation welfare churn as you support.

Again a very simple argument to understand.

I understand you arguement actually, you stated the government shouldn't support people having children if their children "have a far less than average chance of paying median tax"-tell me how do you intend to manage this little eugenics policy of yours, ala 1984 or something along those lines?

Interesting you mention eugenics after all you consistently advocate fascist economics.

No just in your woollen wrapped head as you whinge about high income taxes, numbers of public servants yet support non-means tested welfare!

But hey you are

 

[medusala]

You think your non-means tested welfare system is somehow free from adminstration costs-here is a hint your non-means tested welfare which you constantly support has massive costs so obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of economics, yet you can't can you?

All taxes have admin costs. All tax expenditure and deductions have admin costs.

Nil fabrications on my behalf, you support non-means testing of welfare system and believe high income earners should receive welfare payments, i do not.

You have repeatedly been told the difference between such tax expenditure and welfare yet you simply can not get it.

You don't accept their is any cost associated with your support of non-means tested welfare(lets call it overtaxation welfare churn ok);

Another fabrication.

You also said the ALP blcoked Howards attempts to lower the top tax rate and i asked you when did the ALP have the balance of power in the senate to block Howard from lowering the top tax rate?

Rudd followed through on Howards tax cuts but not those on the top end (and pathetically tried to call it a spending cut)

And i provided a link to previously saying one of the best policies undertaken by Hawke was means testing of welfare; but now for some reason your against it!!!

I am in favour IF Rudd would cut taxes. He wont so I'm not. Incredibly simple.

The government should only provide welfare as a safety net, not a free for all overtaxation welfare churn as you support.

It will be a tax rise under Rudd.

I understand you arguement actually, you stated the government shouldn't support people having children if their children "have a far less than average chance of paying median tax"-tell me how do you intend to manage this little eugenics policy of yours, ala 1984 or something along those lines?

You really are wasting mine and everybody else's time.

You either suport government policies re women having children or you don't.

Really, it is not difficult to understand. If you dont support it, then you cant be in favour of sole parents being encourage to have children due to welfare payments.

You totally misunderstand eugenics just as you cant grasp that you advocate fascism.