Politics Centrelink

[RupieDupie]

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 .

I think I have hit a nerve, as your defence mechanism has gone into overdrive, the reason being - because I have got you in a bind, why don't the banks advertise the truth? Call out "Socialist!" all you want, doesn't improve your argument.

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.

Out of curiosity are you stating that Australians should accept, for example, China's money if this was more than someone offering from Australia?
Here's some random article http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/china-squeezes-we-cave/

No I don't think that people who rort the welfare system are equal in their rorting to the people at the top. The people at the top cause way more damage and are more educated with regards to the effects of their actions (they cannot claim ignorance). So when the NAB does a bit of bank bill swap rate rigging, and the Commonwealth Bank sets up a platform that people can use to launder money and fund terrorism, they do this knowing the effects (and how many people this will affect), thus I find this much worse than a relatively lower educated person rorting the welfare system.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I think I have hit a nerve, as your defence mechanism has gone into overdrive, the reason being - because I have got you in a bind, why don't the banks advertise the truth? Call out "Socialist!" all you want, doesn't improve your argument.



Out of curiosity are you stating that Australians should accept, for example, China's money if this was more than someone offering from Australia?
Here's some random article http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/china-squeezes-we-cave/

No I don't think that people who rort the welfare system are equal in their rorting to the people at the top. The people at the top cause way more damage and are more educated with regards to the effects of their actions (they cannot claim ignorance). So when the NAB does a bit of bank bill swap rate rigging, and the Commonwealth Bank sets up a platform that people can use to launder money and fund terrorism, they do this knowing the effects (and how many people this will affect), thus I find this much worse than a relatively lower educated person rorting the welfare system.

Not condoning money laundering. But how do you consider it damages the economy or the budget? Who are they rorting?
If the NAB ( and the other banks ) are rigging the swap rate, who is affected by it , and why are you concerned?

 

[RupieDupie]

Not condoning money laundering. But how do you consider it damages the economy or the budget? Who are they rorting?
If the NAB ( and the other banks ) are rigging the swap rate, who is affected by it , and why are you concerned?

I think the reason you are not condoning money laundering means you know the answer to this question, why do people launder money? But, if you are just talking about an all for "munny" economy, then why not? As I have argued before, Pablo Escobar did very well with creating a drug empire, so should have been lauded as well, not hunted down and killed. I think if this is the way Australia wants to go though, that the powers that be should be honest with the Australian public and let us know that this is the direction they are taking (rate rigging can artificially increase interest rates on personal loans, meaning that a few colluding banks can make millions in one day - if I understand correctly, well above their fine for doing so).

I don't give a shit if a person is greedy and their actions have no bearing on other people whatsoever, they can suck down fifty gallons of ice cream if it makes them happy, but absolutely when a person's want of munny and greed impacts other people it concerns me, for example, power prices, housing prices, interest rates etc - bottom and top - but my other concern is pleb mentality lauds the people on top, as if they cannot do any wrong, yet demonises the people on the bottom as scumbags. I don't think this should be the case, either laud both or demonise both.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I think the reason you are not condoning money laundering means you know the answer to this question, why do people launder money? But, if you are just talking about an all for "munny" economy, then why not? As I have argued before, Pablo Escobar did very well with creating a drug empire, so should have been lauded as well, not hunted down and killed. I think if this is the way Australia wants to go though, that the powers that be should be honest with the Australian public and let us know that this is the direction they are taking (rate rigging can artificially increase interest rates on personal loans, meaning that a few colluding banks can make millions in one day - if I understand correctly, well above their fine for doing so).

I don't give a shit if a person is greedy and their actions have no bearing on other people whatsoever, they can suck down fifty gallons of ice cream if it makes them happy, but absolutely when a person's want of munny and greed impacts other people it concerns me, for example, power prices, housing prices, interest rates etc - bottom and top - but my other concern is pleb mentality lauds the people on top, as if they cannot do any wrong, yet demonises the people on the bottom as scumbags. I don't think this should be the case, either laud both or demonise both.

You wouldn't even notice that difference in rates on your mortgage though.
You've thrown up a few "bad" actions that big companies have done to try to make it seem that sucking money out of welfare is ok. Its not related.

So i consider:
The greed of those wanting to be paid for nothing is affecting everyone who pays PAYE tax. - you've stated that this sort of greed concerns you.

Power Pricing is an open market Supply /Demand. Poor regulation. The current situation was anticipated based on what had happened in the USA well before it was even privatised in Australia. Low capital Gas Turbines replacing cheap to run coal stations. High demand for gas = increased gas prices. The company that owns the transmission system was held responsible for Bush fires and penalised. Consequences more maintenance and more costs - passed on. No particular greed here apart from companies wanting to maximise profits. Its not like the oil cartel in the middle east.

A $5000 diesel engine could power your house more efficiently than those turbines , its pretty much at the point where its worth considering going off the grid , i'd go Solar with lead acid batteries, no point using flammable Lithium if weight and size is not an issue, you make be able to get a backup gas generator.

Housing prices are basically dictated by the people. Those willing to spend the most get the house. I maintain that no-one wins an Auction, the buyer is the person who thinks its worth more than everyone else does. Maybe we should stop clustering around the city. Places like Germany don't seem to have the need for everyone to cluster in one spot. If we could get industries to spread out a bit , there would be jobs for people in places with lower priced housing.
Its not like everyone in the USA can afford to live in an apartment overlooking central park.

If you want a lower interest rate shop around. Over three homes I've had my mortgage held by 4 different companies, only the first was through a "Major " Bank.

 

[RupieDupie]

You wouldn't even notice that difference in rates on your mortgage though.
You've thrown up a few "bad" actions that big companies have done to try to make it seem that sucking money out of welfare is ok. Its not related.

So i consider:
The greed of those wanting to be paid for nothing is affecting everyone who pays PAYE tax. - you've stated that this sort of greed concerns you.

Power Pricing is an open market Supply /Demand. Poor regulation. The current situation was anticipated based on what had happened in the USA well before it was even privatised in Australia. Low capital Gas Turbines replacing cheap to run coal stations. High demand for gas = increased gas prices. The company that owns the transmission system was held responsible for Bush fires and penalised. Consequences more maintenance and more costs - passed on. No particular greed here apart from companies wanting to maximise profits. Its not like the oil cartel in the middle east.

A $5000 diesel engine could power your house more efficiently than those turbines , its pretty much at the point where its worth considering going off the grid , i'd go Solar with lead acid batteries, no point using flammable Lithium if weight and size is not an issue, you make be able to get a backup gas generator.

Housing prices are basically dictated by the people. Those willing to spend the most get the house. I maintain that no-one wins an Auction, the buyer is the person who thinks its worth more than everyone else does. Maybe we should stop clustering around the city. Places like Germany don't seem to have the need for everyone to cluster in one spot. If we could get industries to spread out a bit , there would be jobs for people in places with lower priced housing.
Its not like everyone in the USA can afford to live in an apartment overlooking central park.

If you want a lower interest rate shop around. Over three homes I've had my mortgage held by 4 different companies, only the first was through a "Major " Bank.

Nah I'm pretty sure these few "bad" actions are just as bad as an individual welfare rorter rorting the system, and as I have said previously I'm pretty sure people notice they are paying their home loan off over thirty years at ~double the cost of the market value of the house (which is ~3.5x greater than actual value). Do many people notice when an individual welfare rorter rorts the system from their pay slip?

TIPS TO HELP PEOPLE PAY OFF THEIR MORTGAGE - FOR THE MODERN PLEB
"Hi I'm Jim, a financial advisor from one of the big banks. Having trouble paying off your mortgage? I knew this guy once who calculated how efficient his intestines were and found that if he ate a highly fibrous diet, he could recycle the same food back through his system, and therefore, he only had to eat every second day. Stay tuned for more exciting ways you can save money to pay off your home loan faster!"

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Nah I'm pretty sure these few "bad" actions are just as bad as an individual welfare rorter rorting the system, and as I have said previously I'm pretty sure people notice they are paying their home loan off over thirty years at ~double the cost of the market value of the house (which is ~3.5x greater than actual value). Do many people notice when an individual welfare rorter rorts the system from their pay slip?

TIPS TO HELP PEOPLE PAY OFF THEIR MORTGAGE - FOR THE MODERN PLEB
"Hi I'm Jim, a financial advisor from one of the big banks. Having trouble paying off your mortgage? I knew this guy once who calculated how efficient his intestines were and found that if he ate a highly fibrous diet, he could recycle the same food back through his system, and therefore, he only had to eat every second day. Stay tuned for more exciting ways you can save money to pay off your home loan faster!"

If you noticed that the banks were doing it , you move your money to a bank/mortgage company that does't do it.
I don't know why anyone gets their home loan through a Major Bank.

Meanwhile .... i noticed i'm paying too much tax. Can i move my income to a system that doesn't pay parasites?

 

[RupieDupie]

If you noticed that the banks were doing it , you move your money to a bank/mortgage company that does't do it.
I don't know why anyone gets their home loan through a Major Bank.

Meanwhile .... i noticed i'm paying too much tax. Can i move my income to a system that doesn't pay parasites?

Only if I can move to a system where median housing prices are commensurate with median salary. Then we have a deal. In fact the two of us, with other Australians who are interested can start a social contract, we all work hard, and all enjoy the fruits of the harvest, with no parasites (top or bottom).

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Only if I can move to a system where median housing prices are commensurate with median salary. Then we have a deal. In fact the two of us, with other Australians who are interested can start a social contract, we all work hard, and all enjoy the fruits of the harvest, with no parasites (top or bottom).

A Social Contract :/ A Median house where? In a median Suburb? Who is going to give you a median job? How are you going to get the homes off the people who currently own them. Yeah Fred i know you paid a million, but i work hard at my job in MacDonalds so you need to sell it to me for $100 000.

It would be two median salary's these days. Oh and they are asking for more welfare so they can look after their kids. ( the move from single income family's to dual over the years has resulted in a) more expensive houses, b) less parent /child time c) a shortage of jobs d) frustration with the price of childcare.

Now working hard shouldn't automatically reap benefits.
You've been working hard on this thread, but its hard to give that work any benefit.

Do you consider that a Doctor who has had to "work hard " for the best part of a decade just to be Qualified, should not get more reward when he has a job than a guy who has worked hard picking things up and putting them down a lot?

 

[RupieDupie]

A Social Contract :/ A Median house where? In a median Suburb? Who is going to give you a median job? How are you going to get the homes off the people who currently own them. Yeah Fred i know you paid a million, but i work hard at my job in MacDonalds so you need to sell it to me for $100 000.

It would be two median salary's these days. Oh and they are asking for more welfare so they can look after their kids. ( the move from single income family's to dual over the years has resulted in a) more expensive houses, b) less parent /child time c) a shortage of jobs d) frustration with the price of childcare.

Now working hard shouldn't automatically reap benefits.
You've been working hard on this thread, but its hard to give that work any benefit.

Do you consider that a Doctor who has had to "work hard " for the best part of a decade just to be Qualified, should not get more reward when he has a job than a guy who has worked hard picking things up and putting them down a lot?

Median salary doesn't equate to working at McDonalds and includes teachers, nurses, police etc

Do you know what a median is? Of course there would be median suburbs, but I'm stating median house prices should be commensurate with median salary so people who work can afford them. Below and around median salary we are talking about well over 50% of Australians. Should only doctors be allowed to afford housing?

Fred most likely didn't pay $1M but bought his house a long time ago in a more reasonable market, the house has now stood there for about 30 years and is now magically worth $1M. If Fred worked a median salaried job (and even if Fred had a full time working partner also at median income) the bank would laugh at him if he wanted to buy a house for $1M, because he couldn't afford it. Yet there are a lot of houses out there market valued at $1M.

Ah, so if working hard shouldn't automatically lead to benefits, why not allow people to rort the welfare system?

I never mentioned equal distribution, that's GC's opinion.

 

[Jello_B]

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.

You get it.

 

[Jello_B]

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.

They could leverage that money invest in new stores and hire more staff and make more money in the long term.
They could invest in their systems and processes to make their operation more efficient to compete with new international competitors planning to disrupt the market.
They could diversify their interests as a hedge to protect their current position.
In short you have no idea.

 

[Big_Luch]

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.

I am not arguing to remove a welfare system. I support reduction in welfare dependence by getting people working.

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.

If you have competitors you would want more business or market share, so you would reduce your prices to give the customer the best offer. You would benefit from a volume increase which would boost your profit.

Companies have a finite amount of resources so no they would not be investing in all available channels. Companies don't have bottomless pits of money to invest. They have to allocate funds to operating costs, tax, employees, suppliers, R&D and in a listed companies case return value to shareholders in the form of dividends.

RE Apple: the Iphone is competing against other phones so they still have market share to take. They are also pumping money into stuff like wearable technology to create the 'next Iphone'.

Good businesses invest that money into their businesses, customers aren't stupid and are value hungry currently due to stagnant wages. If you want people to shop with you, then you have to be competitive. Harvey Norman if they were a good business would invest in price to beat JB HIFI, Ebay etc etc.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Median salary doesn't equate to working at McDonalds and includes teachers, nurses, police etc

Do you know what a median is? Of course there would be median suburbs, but I'm stating median house prices should be commensurate with median salary so people who work can afford them. Below and around median salary we are talking about well over 50% of Australians. Should only doctors be allowed to afford housing?

Fred most likely didn't pay $1M but bought his house a long time ago in a more reasonable market, the house has now stood there for about 30 years and is now magically worth $1M. If Fred worked a median salaried job (and even if Fred had a full time working partner also at median income) the bank would laugh at him if he wanted to buy a house for $1M, because he couldn't afford it. Yet there are a lot of houses out there market valued at $1M.

Ah, so if working hard shouldn't automatically lead to benefits, why not allow people to rort the welfare system?

I never mentioned equal distribution, that's GC's opinion.

People work to survive. Always have.
I wonder what would have happened to an indigenous Australian pre-1788, who didn't help find food?

Because we have a "nice" society , we stop the unfortunate from dying.
So the question is, why would our society let lazy idiots "rort " the system.

 

[RupieDupie]

I am not arguing to remove a welfare system. I support reduction in welfare dependence by getting people working.


If you have competitors you would want more business or market share, so you would reduce your prices to give the customer the best offer. You would benefit from a volume increase which would boost your profit.

Companies have a finite amount of resources so no they would not be investing in all available channels. Companies don't have bottomless pits of money to invest. They have to allocate funds to operating costs, tax, employees, suppliers, R&D and in a listed companies case return value to shareholders in the form of dividends.

RE Apple: the Iphone is competing against other phones so they still have market share to take. They are also pumping money into stuff like wearable technology to create the 'next Iphone'.

Good businesses invest that money into their businesses, customers aren't stupid and are value hungry currently due to stagnant wages. If you want people to shop with you, then you have to be competitive. Harvey Norman if they were a good business would invest in price to beat JB HIFI, Ebay etc etc.

But there are two points here
1) what a system ought to be
2) what the system is

Question - Why do we have an unemployment welfare system in the first place?

Write your <Ans> here

Then substitute your answer into the following sentence

Ans = why your proposal will not work

 

[RupieDupie]

People work to survive. Always have.
I wonder what would have happened to an indigenous Australian pre-1788, who didn't help find food?

Because we have a "nice" society , we stop the unfortunate from dying.
So the question is, why would our society let lazy idiots "rort " the system.

I also wonder why a pre-1788 indigenous Australian couldn't just yell out one day "let interest rates be x%" and suddenly get, in one year, a profit equivalent to ~160,000 people's annual income?

Yet for some reason our society allows these dcikheads to rort the system.

 

[Big_Luch]

But there are two points here
1) what a system ought to be
2) what the system is

Question - Why do we have an unemployment welfare system in the first place?

Write your <Ans> here

Then substitute your answer into the following sentence

Ans = why your proposal will not work

Whats your solution for driving the economy and creating more jobs and reducing welfare dependence?

Write your <ans> here.

 

[RupieDupie]

Whats your solution for driving the economy and creating more jobs and reducing welfare dependence?

Write your <ans> here.

There have been an extremely large number of smarter people preceeding me, contemporary with me, and who will proceed me who have, and will, grapple with this question, and not in vain - many of them have created theoretical solutions that would work, capitalism being one of them, IF society was not ruled over by a bunch of greedy assholes (= ans). Why reward these cnuts?

I could give a few solutions if you want me to, but they will always be unrealistic due to the answer above.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I also wonder why a pre-1788 indigenous Australian couldn't just yell out one day "let interest rates be x%" and suddenly get, in one year, a profit equivalent to ~160,000 people's annual income?

Yet for some reason our society allows these dcikheads to rort the system.

Because they don't. It only seems that simple to a simpleton.
In a simple society if you weren't contributing you would die, though if you were injured or sick they may assist you if you'd previously contributed.

Even in communist or socialist societies your idea's probably wouldn't hold weight. If you refused to contribute, you'd be punished.

 

[Run n Spread]

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.

Don't know about that. When was the last time you went hunting? Farmed some produce? Purified water? Built a house?

We live in a highly technical and specialised society with a lot of supporting industries. Yes we still need to eat but we trade our knowledge/skill for said food and drink. In todays world only very few currently have the skill, resources and know how to feed us.

Your argument that non contributors in Indigenous Societies would be done away with or nice people giving the dole to unemployed ignores the fact people are hard wired for survival. The shunned indigenous/dole bludger is simply going to survive anyway they can and that is not always pretty for "nice society."

 

[Run n Spread]

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.

1. Start up Capital. Predominantly bank loans. Occasionally a private investor.

2. A guess. 50% Private. 50% Public. Even massive engineering and infrastructure projects are mostly government contracts so there pay comes from the public purse.

3. Innovators and Scientists. Those on the ground doing the work.

Money comes from a loan or an investor. The real risk is coming from the developer.

Low income earners can't afford as much as high. So what? What is your solution? Make everyone equal? That would just inflate everything.

Money moves in a circle. Not top down. The Low earners putting the money in will see it moved around and spent.

 

[Run n Spread]

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

You want a big welfare state.
.

Under the law and how they are treated? Absolutely.

The welfare state in part drives the economy. Most wages somehow or another are 50% coming from the public purse. Engineering, new technological innovations, transport - these private companies started with/hold a government contract. Perfectly fine in itself as the money will re circulate out of public hands into private.

Now the dole thing. Yes there are some bludgers. Also some sick/unskilled/not good enough. Let them starve in the street they may just come and rob your house. 175000 vacancies and 750000 unemployed.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Pre-Gillard you'd be correct.
Then the Libs/Murdoch kicked up a stink for years over it until Gillard blinked and tightened restrictions.

1 - Get your GP to sign whatever
2 - Show said note to centrelink assessor
If deemed eligible -

3 - Consult with govt appointed doctor

True, the last time I was in that position was in 2005.

 

[Run n Spread]

Were do you think banks get the money from to give out the billons of dollars of loans they give , from thin air ?
.

Fiat currency after Woods/Bretton agreement. So pretty much yes.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Under the law and how they are treated? Absolutely.

The welfare state in part drives the economy. Most wages somehow or another are 50% coming from the public purse. Engineering, new technological innovations, transport - these private companies started with/hold a government contract. Perfectly fine in itself as the money will re circulate out of public hands into private.

Now the dole thing. Yes there are some bludgers. Also some sick/unskilled/not good enough. Let them starve in the street they may just come and rob your house. 175000 vacancies and 750000 unemployed.

I don't think anyone's suggesting letting them starve ,but its kind of galling to see a disabled ( fat ) guy on TV , who is getting enough money to keep himself really fat as well as send money to Terrorist groups.

 

[radiojake]

out of all the polemic, satirical, exaggerated, 'troll' posts that I have read online over the past 15 years, I don't think there has been a bigger shill than geelongcrazy