Politics Centrelink

[SaintsSeptember]

They know Jack.
They choose to ignore it.

Everyone knows why they do.

Lets see, i could pay less tax , and it would help me pay for my house etc etc.
Or the money could be taken from me and given to some arseh*le.

I'm sorry it doesn't make any difference to the economy.

Its not being ignored.

If you look at some of the unemployed hotspots its a lie to say it all goes into the economy.
Anyone ever paid GST on their ICE.

AND

If i've got any issue with Bosses, its the small business owners who pay cash to "Unemployed" at less than the legal rate. Its rampant.
I suspect that Authorities are ignoring it because , after killing large business, they are worried that all of these small businesses will go bust.

It would be so easy for the cops to bust these companies just by recruiting people to apply for the jobs and report the details.

 

[NSWCROW]

Lets see, i could pay less tax , and it would help me pay for my house etc etc.
Or the money could be taken from me and given to some arseh*le.

I'm sorry it doesn't make any difference to the economy.

Its not being ignored.

If you look at some of the unemployed hotspots its a lie to say it all goes into the economy.
Anyone ever paid GST on their ICE.

AND

If i've got any issue with Bosses, its the small business owners who pay cash to "Unemployed" at less than the legal rate. Its rampant.
I suspect that Authorities are ignoring it because , after killing large business, they are worried that all of these small businesses will go bust.

It would be so easy for the cops to bust these companies just by recruiting people to apply for the jobs and report the details.

Yeah that's all nice and flashy but it's not why people on THAT side of the fence shit on " bludgers "
None of them have enough sack to say it out aloud though lol


Keep spouting numbers and chit though brah
It's a human condition , usually campaigners browbeaten by their missus and needing an ego boost.

This has been established already.


Something something gst

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Yeah that's all nice and flashy but it's not why people on THAT side of the fence shit on " bludgers "
None of them have enough sack to say it out aloud though lol


Keep spouting numbers and chit though brah
It's a human condition , usually campaigners browbeaten by their missus and needing an ego boost.

This has been established already.


Something something gst

Is probs why you on dah dole brah.
If it wasn't for us having nice people in our society dey be dead from hunger brah.

 

[NSWCROW]

Is probs why you on dah dole brah.
If it wasn't for us having nice people in our society dey be dead from hunger brah.

Seems i've struck a nerve.

Twice actually , 1st time was when i was posting to Jack and you saw my post and go SOOOOOOOOO MAD ya just had to chime in with some shit that had NOTHING to do with what i was saying to Jack.

you've basically proven what i was saying.
You campaigners are so thick lol

 

[JackOutback]

Anyone ever paid GST on their ICE.

But what do the dealers do with the money?

 

[Power Raid]

But what do the dealers do with the money?

bang whores?

 

[Maggie5]

Hopefully the last post on my friend's saga...

Went to Centrelink with her pay slips and found out that they had paid $11K into her account and because she has earned income, she has to refund $5K which is no biggie but if only they had accepted her pay slips when she first offered, this shouldn't have happened.

The sad part about all this is imagine if it was someone that because her employer went bankrupt owing back wages, current wages, holiday leave, normal superannuation, salary sacrificing extra into super, had a mortgage and family and her salary was just covering all expenses. Almost $50K gone!

What would she have lived on because it had taken so long to process her claim?

As an aside, apparently she has options paying back the extra amount, I suggested she take her time like they did as apparently no interest is charged, but she just wants to give it back asap.

End

 

[Furn2]

Low income earners cant do much to stimulate economic growth other than purchase a few basic low cost commodities. Its the rich who deliver real economic growth that improves the quality of our lives by investing in new businesses, wages and new commodities.

Thats just what the rich want you to think. Research has shown time and time again that money through tax breaks given to the rich is absorbed into their wealth through stock buy backs and investment in automation etc, while money given to the poor is spent. Spending is how you boost economic growth. Giving a company money doesn't increase demand for their product it just increase profits. Only giving money to people who buy that product does.

Meanwhile, the average worker produces 300% more than they did 50 years ago and yet is less than 20% better off.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Thats just what the rich want you to think. Research has shown time and time again that money through tax breaks given to the rich is absorbed into their wealth through stock buy backs and investment in automation etc, while money given to the poor is spent. Spending is how you boost economic growth. Giving a company money doesn't increase demand for their product it just increase profits. Only giving money to people who buy that product does.

Meanwhile, the average worker produces 300% more than they did 50 years ago and yet is less than 20% better off.

LOL

 

[Big_Luch]

Thats just what the rich want you to think. Research has shown time and time again that money through tax breaks given to the rich is absorbed into their wealth through stock buy backs and investment in automation etc, while money given to the poor is spent. Spending is how you boost economic growth. Giving a company money doesn't increase demand for their product it just increase profits. Only giving money to people who buy that product does.

Meanwhile, the average worker produces 300% more than they did 50 years ago and yet is less than 20% better off.

To get people money they need strong jobs, to get strong jobs you need strong companies. Its can't be as simple as just giving people money (dole or not) to develop the economy.

Giving money back to a company either helps them make their product cheaper to be more competitive against their competitors or enables them to invest in new revenue channels. Businesses are based on growth so whilst a they do receive a short term bump if they bank the taxed money they would still need to find ways to grow to appease shareholders etc.

 

[RupieDupie]

To get people money they need strong jobs, to get strong jobs you need strong companies. Its can't be as simple as just giving people money (dole or not) to develop the economy.

Giving money back to a company either helps them make their product cheaper to be more competitive against their competitors or enables them to invest in new revenue channels. Businesses are based on growth so whilst a they do receive a short term bump if they bank the taxed money they would still need to find ways to grow to appease shareholders etc.

And to make a product cheaper they can i) automate production ii) fire staff iii) hire overseas, which means, the country needs a welfare system.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Thats just what the rich want you to think. Research has shown time and time again that money through tax breaks given to the rich is absorbed into their wealth through stock buy backs and investment in automation etc, while money given to the poor is spent. Spending is how you boost economic growth. Giving a company money doesn't increase demand for their product it just increase profits. Only giving money to people who buy that product does.

Meanwhile, the average worker produces 300% more than they did 50 years ago and yet is less than 20% better off.

Were do you think new business come from?

Who do you think pays workers wages ?

Who do you think develops new commodities ?

The money for this dosent come from thin air . When a rich person invests money it doesn't disappear it goes to the above .

Low income earners just purchase hamburgers and other low cost goods.

 

[Power Raid]

Thats just what the rich want you to think. Research has shown time and time again that money through tax breaks given to the rich is absorbed into their wealth through stock buy backs and investment in automation etc, while money given to the poor is spent. Spending is how you boost economic growth. Giving a company money doesn't increase demand for their product it just increase profits. Only giving money to people who buy that product does.

Meanwhile, the average worker produces 300% more than they did 50 years ago and yet is less than 20% better off.

I'm not sure about being just 20% off than 50 years ago. Is that referring to all workers globally or Australia?

but yes re tax. We need a proper taxation system that is fair for all and actually raises tax. but to achieve that, you need to understand tax and tax payer behaviour:

You can raise company tax to 100% or reduce it to 0% but it makes no difference to the actual tax collection for Australian companies owned by Australians. The franking system means companies only prepay and or collect tax rather than pay tax themselves. So doing some things might sound good but in reality they make no difference or worse, cause real damage or reduce tax collection.

The best thing we can do is reduce our reliance on income tax and increase our consumption tax and most importantly have a proper property tax that integrates with income tax. Oh and have responsible governments that spend less to.....but that's another debate.

 

[Furn2]

To get people money they need strong jobs, to get strong jobs you need strong companies. Its can't be as simple as just giving people money (dole or not) to develop the economy.

Giving money back to a company either helps them make their product cheaper to be more competitive against their competitors or enables them to invest in new revenue channels. Businesses are based on growth so whilst a they do receive a short term bump if they bank the taxed money they would still need to find ways to grow to appease shareholders etc.

This simply isn't true. Why would you make products cheaper when you can just make more money ? Large companies are already investing in all the revenue channels they can. You think apple aren't selling as many iPhones as they could because they don't have the money to invest? Growth comes from increased sales. If you have money to put back into the market you give it to people who will spent it.

Lets look at an example. Lets say Harvey Norman gets a $5mil tax break.

They can do one of 4 things.

1. reduce prices and margins and not make the extra 5mil

2. employ more staff to make it easier on their current staff and not make the 5mil

3. give their staff a pay rise and not make the 5mil

4. Enjoy the juicy new $5mil after tax profit.

There's no reason to do any of the first 3.

 

[Furn2]

Were do you think new business come from?

Who do you think pays workers wages ?

Who do you think develops new commodities ?

The money for this dosent come from thin air . When a rich person invests money it doesn't disappear it goes to the above .

Low income earners just purchase hamburgers and other low cost goods.

New business comes from people buying more things, the money from those sales pays workers wages.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

New business comes from people buying more things, the money from those sales pays workers wages.

Real benefit to the economy comes from those "adding value " to things.
If you have a computer and you make it work better with software you "add value"
If you turn a lump of Bauxite into Aluminium you have added value.

Yes there is value added by the Harvey Normans of the world, that value can be easily calculated by the shipping costs from China.

Australia is getting more and more "low value added"
If there were only 20 coffee shops in the CBD ,they'd all be charging more and getting wealthy.
If we add more and more, the coffee gets cheaper but the owners make less.
We will end up with only easy , low value jobs.

It makes way more sense for the government to build a submarine or prop up a car industry than it does to throw it at welfare.

I also can't believe the outcry when they try to introduce methods of preventing the unemployed from spending all their cash on booze and gambling.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

New business comes from people buying more things, the money from those sales pays workers wages.

People can not buy things from a business that does not exist. A large amount of capital needs to be invested in most cases before a business can start to sell commodities.

When a business sells a commodity it is selling something that belongs to or is provided by the owner of the business. A business does not belong to the workers or society , that would be socialism which we know has failed every time .

 

[geelong_crazy26]

This simply isn't true. Why would you make products cheaper when you can just make more money ? Large companies are already investing in all the revenue channels they can. You think apple aren't selling as many iPhones as they could because they don't have the money to invest? Growth comes from increased sales. If you have money to put back into the market you give it to people who will spent it.

Lets look at an example. Lets say Harvey Norman gets a $5mil tax break.

They can do one of 4 things.

1. reduce prices and margins and not make the extra 5mil

2. employ more staff to make it easier on their current staff and not make the 5mil

3. give their staff a pay rise and not make the 5mil

4. Enjoy the juicy new $5mil after tax profit.

There's no reason to do any of the first 3.

When someone invests money it does not dissappear. For example when i put money into the bank that money is used to give out loans . When i purchase shares in West farmers the money is used to employ more people, when i buy shares in a tech company thst money is used to develop new technology.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

When someone invests money it does not dissappear. For example when i put money into the bank that money is used to give out loans . When i purchase shares in West farmers the money is used to employ more people, when i buy shares in a tech company thst money is used to develop new technology.

Multinationals love to play with the transfer pricing.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

If a person doesn't own a house, they are most likely paying rent and what can the rent be paying off? Once again, banks are the only way people can own a house, I also didn't think Australia was a serfdom, you are in your right to feel otherwise, maybe Bolt should break this news to the country?

Seems like purchasing cheeseburgers leads to new products more than lending from banks, McDonalds frequently changes and expands their range, and also provides something in exchange for the money. McDonalds, according to their packaging, rape... I mean utilise local produce etc

Why then does big business employ workers outside of the country? Surely the extra money they have to pay Australians would be worth it?

So why is your living arrangement the banks problem ? Just because they have something you want or need dosent mean they are required to give it to .

What you keep arguing for is socialism which has failed every single time .

You think businesses should work for the benefit of society rather than its owners.

You think private property owners should not decide what they sell their property for .

You think people at the bottom should be equal to those at the top.

You want a big welfare state.

Your a socialist.

 

[RupieDupie]

So why is your living arrangement the banks problem ? Just because they have something you want or need dosent mean they are required to give it to .

What you keep arguing for is socialism which has failed every single time .

You think businesses should work for the benefit of society rather than its owners.

You think private property owners should not decide what they sell their property for .

You think people at the bottom should be equal to those at the top.

You want a big welfare state.

Your a socialist.

I'm not saying the bank has to give me anything, why do you keep stating I am? I'm stating that if a person wants to own a house in Australia they most likely need to go through a bank. I agree that banks (big business) do not give a shit about their customers, I'm arguing the same thing, they treat their customers like scum. They should put these sentiments into their next advertising campaign - that is, tell the truth.

I'm not arguing for socialism, that's your defence mechanism kicking in. I'm arguing that if it is ok for people to rort the system at the top and to be celebrated as innovators, that it should be also ok to do the same at the bottom. You cannot argue against this, because every argument you make is also an argument against your paperclipped mentality and morality. That's what is funny about this discussion - see for example what you inadvertently did to your argument above? You are now arguing from my perspective.

Similarly, as above, I've described a system whereby people can buy one million houses in a private housing market if it makes them happy, but without taking housing away from Australians. Australians are also more than welcome to sell private property for $3 billion if it makes them happy, but this will not increase the cost of housing for Australians. Therefore, guess how many investors will invest in private property in the above scenario, hint the answer is zero. Guess how many people will buy housing for an exhorbitant price, well above housing value, hint the answer is zero. Thus we get reality (the irony).

 

[RupieDupie]

Incidentally, the latter part of my post is called "competition", if the banks don't like it, they can always go back to the U.S.S.R. The communists.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

So why is your living arrangement the banks problem ? Just because they have something you want or need dosent mean they are required to give it to .

What you keep arguing for is socialism which has failed every single time .

You think businesses should work for the benefit of society rather than its owners.

You think private property owners should not decide what they sell their property for .

You think people at the bottom should be equal to those at the top.

You want a big welfare state.

Your a socialist.

Socialism can work, if you force people into it, and make it everywhere.
There's a reason why Stalin and others were such assholes, and why they try to spread it.
The reality is no leftist dream.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

I'm not saying the bank has to give me anything, why do you keep stating I am? I'm stating that if a person wants to own a house in Australia they most likely need to go through a bank. I agree that banks (big business) do not give a shit about their customers, I'm arguing the same thing, they treat their customers like scum. They should put these sentiments into their next advertising campaign - that is, tell the truth.

I'm not arguing for socialism, that's your defence mechanism kicking in. I'm arguing that if it is ok for people to rort the system at the top and to be celebrated as innovators, that it should be also ok to do the same at the bottom. You cannot argue against this, because every argument you make is also an argument against your paperclipped mentality and morality. That's what is funny about this discussion - see for example what you inadvertently did to your argument above? You are now arguing from my perspective.

Similarly, as above, I've described a system whereby people can buy one million houses in a private housing market if it makes them happy, but without taking housing away from Australians. Australians are also more than welcome to sell private property for $3 billion if it makes them happy, but this will not increase the cost of housing for Australians. Therefore, guess how many investors will invest in private property in the above scenario, hint the answer is zero. Guess how many people will buy housing for an exhorbitant price, well above housing value, hint the answer is zero. Thus we get reality (the irony).

What your describing is socialism, why should the greedy fat cats at the top have it easy when the downtrodden at the bottom live a hard life. This is full on socialism at its most extreme.

You are what is called a socialist who dosent have the guts to admit it .

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Incidentally, the latter part of my post is called "competition", if the banks don't like it, they can always go back to the U.S.S.R. The communists.

No your scenario is just some silly socialist rant . People sell houses for as much as someone else is willing to pay . If the highest offer is less than what they wanted they than decide if they want to sell or not.

You dont understand how capitalism works because you believe in socialism.

The idea dole bludgers should be equal to big banks is radical socialism.