Politics Centrelink

Remove this Banner Ad

Ghost Patrol said:
Increase the pension and lower the age to 60 or 55.

Employment problem solved.

What's next?
Click to expand...

massive tax increases to pay for it, esp with an aging population reducing the number of tax contributors for every retired person
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Ned_Flanders said:
massive tax increases to pay for it, esp with an aging population reducing the number of tax contributors for every retired person
Click to expand...
Never happen as it's political suicide but an inheritance tax should be bought in.
 
Kram said:
Never happen as it's political suicide but an inheritance tax should be bought in.
Click to expand...

im not opposed to death taxes, but they usually are best at reducing income inequality that is institutionalized (ie UK in the past, USA now)

we need a no exemptions GST to better hit consumption. im also in favour of smarter taxing of wealth (ie to get the amazon loophole), but im yet to find a method i 100% like
 
Kram said:
Never happen as it's political suicide but an inheritance tax should be bought in.
Click to expand...

we definitely need wealth taxes

I'd support death taxes over $5m (see through individual beneficiary) and annual property taxes over $5m (see through basis). Note property taxes could be complex formulas with offsets to income tax.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Power Raid said:
we definitely need wealth taxes

I'd support death taxes over $5m (see through individual beneficiary) and annual property taxes over $5m (see through basis). Note property taxes could be complex formulas with offsets to income tax.
Click to expand...

Instead of reinventing the wheel we could just scrap section 8 of the Tax Act.
 
Number37 said:
Instead of reinventing the wheel we could just scrap section 8 of the Tax Act.
Click to expand...

yep we should enshrine a class system. The wealthy deserve to have deductions and ordinary workers should go fk themselves.


It is important to tax the middle class to buggery, just in case they forget their place.





and taxing revenue rather than profits, may result in more tax than profit. That sounds sensible.




You have brilliant ideas!
 
SaintsSeptember said:
What would be good would be some sort of system to motivate the wealthy to create business entities with lots of employees.
Click to expand...

30% corporate tax reduced by a 10% payroll rebate (limited to the payroll for staff under $100k)

essentially reducing corporate tax rather than penalising payroll tax
 
SaintsSeptember said:
What would be good would be some sort of system to motivate the wealthy to create business entities with lots of employees.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes it would.

The current system incentivises the wealthy to create business entities with as few employees, especially skilled employees, as possible.

Every time technology creates an increase in productivity, it equates to fewer people doing the same work, or lower cost to have the same number of people. Up until the mid-late 70s the extra wealth created in the business was shared with those doing the work, principally through the (generally cooperative) union structure.

But why pay for bank tellers when you can replace three with a machine that sits in a hole in the wall and works 24 hours a day? We're used to this one by now, it's been a feature from the mid-80s.

Why pay kids and the unemployed to man checkouts when you can install a bank of self-checkout machines and have the customers do it? They're only a couple of grand each, pay for themselves in a month. Anything after that is cream.

Why pay a technical guru to provide specialised computer support when, for a third of the cost, replace them with an import on a "skilled visa" to do 75% of their work, and the other 25% is "backfilled" to another company with a small monthly retainer? 50% savings, right there.

Why pay for guards to sit on trains and look after the safety of passengers when they can be replaced by cameras and an alarm button? A few hundred jobs saved.

Why pay for a workforce of 100 people, when you only need to employ the 15 who are core to your business, and everyone else is on a casual contract or supplied through a labour hire company? Recession? Who gives a * - if the economy nosedives, we don't have to find work to keep 80 people busy like the bad old days, we can just reduce hours until the casuals quit, or even better just ring the labour hire and say we don't need anyone from Monday onward. Not our problem.

It's all about short term profit. That's all. And get the government to give handouts and support so the business does not fail. Privatise the profits, socialise the losses. That's been the mantra since Reagan and Thatcher.

Regrettably, JobKeeper is part of that. Artificially diverting cash to larger businesses, and propping up unsustainable small businesses to hide the true extent of unemployment.
 
Last edited:
Power Raid said:
yep we should enshrine a class system. The wealthy deserve to have deductions and ordinary workers should go fk themselves.


It is important to tax the middle class to buggery, just in case they forget their place.





and taxing revenue rather than profits, may result in more tax than profit. That sounds sensible.




You have brilliant ideas!
Click to expand...


I'm disappointed you didn't throw in a mention of that glass ceiling you were prattling on about for ages.

No deductions for you.
 
And before anyone gives me grief about being anti-small-business, I'm not. I've been there. Many, many businesses are run by people who invest all their time and money and get bugger all back. Most businesses fail to survive their first five years, even in a boom time. Unfortunately, times like these put the acid on what is and what is not a viable business. It's not their fault covid came along. Or the 1987 stock market crash, or the dot-com crash, or the 2008 recession. It just is. For way too many of them, instead of taking the hard decision of shutting their doors and walking away, JobKeeper has simply prolonged the agony.

Watch the figures over the next three months.
 
Over The Post said:
Yes, yes it would.

The current system incentivises the wealthy to create business entities with as few employees, especially skilled employees, as possible.

Every time technology creates an increase in productivity, it equates to fewer people doing the same work, or lower cost to have the same number of people. Up until the mid-late 70s the extra wealth created in the business was shared with those doing the work, principally through the (generally cooperative) union structure.

But why pay for bank tellers when you can replace three with a machine that sits in a hole in the wall and works 24 hours a day? We're used to this one by now, it's been a feature from the mid-80s.

Why pay kids and the unemployed to man checkouts when you can install a bank of self-checkout machines and have the customers do it? They're only a couple of grand each, pay for themselves in a month. Anything after that is cream.

Why pay a technical guru to provide specialised computer support when, for a third of the cost, replace them with an import on a "skilled visa" to do 75% of their work, and the other 25% is "backfilled" to another company with a small monthly retainer? 50% savings, right there.

Why pay for guards to sit on trains and look after the safety of passengers when they can be replaced by cameras and an alarm button? A few hundred jobs saved.

Why pay for a workforce of 100 people, when you only need to employ the 15 who are core to your business, and everyone else is on a casual contract or supplied through a labour hire company? Recession? Who gives a fu** - if the economy nosedives, we don't have to find work to keep 80 people busy like the bad old days, we can just reduce hours until the casuals quit, or even better just ring the labour hire and say we don't need anyone from Monday onward. Not our problem.

It's all about short term profit. That's all. And get the government to give handouts and support so the business does not fail. Privatise the profits, socialise the losses. That's been the mantra since Reagan and Thatcher.

Regrettably, JobKeeper is part of that. Artificially diverting cash to larger businesses, and propping up unsustainable small businesses to hide the true extent of unemployment.
Click to expand...

the goal should no longer be "let's create work for people" rather it should be "let's create less work", so we can:
1) allocate resources more wisely; and
2) mobilise under utilised resources

this is the beginning of UBI. It will be a long journey but an important one.
 
Over The Post said:
Yes, yes it would.

The current system incentivises the wealthy to create business entities with as few employees, especially skilled employees, as possible.

Every time technology creates an increase in productivity, it equates to fewer people doing the same work, or lower cost to have the same number of people. Up until the mid-late 70s the extra wealth created in the business was shared with those doing the work, principally through the (generally cooperative) union structure.

But why pay for bank tellers when you can replace three with a machine that sits in a hole in the wall and works 24 hours a day? We're used to this one by now, it's been a feature from the mid-80s.

Why pay kids and the unemployed to man checkouts when you can install a bank of self-checkout machines and have the customers do it? They're only a couple of grand each, pay for themselves in a month. Anything after that is cream.

Why pay a technical guru to provide specialised computer support when, for a third of the cost, replace them with an import on a "skilled visa" to do 75% of their work, and the other 25% is "backfilled" to another company with a small monthly retainer? 50% savings, right there.

Why pay for guards to sit on trains and look after the safety of passengers when they can be replaced by cameras and an alarm button? A few hundred jobs saved.

Why pay for a workforce of 100 people, when you only need to employ the 15 who are core to your business, and everyone else is on a casual contract or supplied through a labour hire company? Recession? Who gives a fu** - if the economy nosedives, we don't have to find work to keep 80 people busy like the bad old days, we can just reduce hours until the casuals quit, or even better just ring the labour hire and say we don't need anyone from Monday onward. Not our problem.

It's all about short term profit. That's all. And get the government to give handouts and support so the business does not fail. Privatise the profits, socialise the losses. That's been the mantra since Reagan and Thatcher.

Regrettably, JobKeeper is part of that. Artificially diverting cash to larger businesses, and propping up unsustainable small businesses to hide the true extent of unemployment.
Click to expand...
While I understand this and have lived this and mostly agree ; there is one forgotten aspect

''I am a button pusher and my old man was a button pusher before me - I refuse to accept any other job but button pushing ''
 
I agree to a limited extent. The school-leaver aspiring button pusher cannot expect to follow his natural calling if those jobs no longer exist.

The situation is the skilled third-generation button masher has been thrown out on his arse in his late 40s, has a mortgage and two teenaged kids, and is competing for entry-level jerbs at Woolies and Bunnings in a market where there are 17 unemployed people for every job vacancy. What a bludger.
 
Over The Post said:
I agree to a limited extent. The school-leaver aspiring button pusher cannot expect to follow his natural calling if those jobs no longer exist.

The situation is the skilled third-generation button masher has been thrown out on his arse in his late 40s, has a mortgage and two teenaged kids, and is competing for entry-level jerbs at Woolies and Bunnings in a market where there are 17 unemployed people for every job vacancy. What a bludger.
Click to expand...
1. He shouldn't be competing at entry level
2. He is only a bludger if he refuses retraining because "button pushing is my trade"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top