Hypocrisy of The Left - part 2

[geelong_crazy26]

Except I don't get free cover. I pay taxes and the Medicare rebate and we live in a country where that is our healthcare system. I'm also happy to cover other costs that may occur. You seem to also be under the impression that by having private health you're always going to be in the private sector, that's not going to happen.

You can always go live in the States as you seem to prefer their system.

Its not just about private vs public. Its about less money being spent by the collective on healthcare via taxes and more money being spent by the individual via insurance and direct fees.

The system we currently has is unfair were some are just spongin of others.

 

[Gethelred]

You do realise that half the working age population pay just 2% of all income tax in this country and that half of all households pay no net tax ? this does not include the elderly or children just working age people. Thin basically means half the population is paying for the healthcare of the other half.

If someone can not afford to make any contribution via insurance or a direct fee than they go on a cashless welfare card that means they are eligible for free cover, however not luxury's at all. This will weed our those who can afford to pay but choose not to.

Again half the working age population pay no net tax.
https://theconversation.com/factche...ia-paid-by-10-of-the-working-population-45229

That is a decent source, but did you notice the distribution for where that 50% lies when the author extrapolates all tax sources distribution by age? That 50.2% of tax borne by higher income earners is, in a majority, people who are over 50 years of age.

This age group has had good conditions upon which to set up their lives, and they have enjoyed the beneficial social policies including free education, limited competition in the housing market, the jobs market, and have had a succession of governments enshrine their rights to earn money in perpetuity via specific tax breaks in property ownership. They have partaken of progressive social benefits, and now are paying for the next generation's turn and their opportunities, just as the generation previous to them did.

Sorry but people do not have a right to have someone else pay their healthcare, no person is forced to have a cashless welfare card however if you want other people to pay for you healthcare costs one is required. No more privacy is invaded than a concession card.

Shame is not really the key factor, the key factor is preventing these people from spending money on non essential luxury items.

A libertarian believes people work and keep their own money to spend on themselves. A libertarian does not believe people have some entitlement to take money that other people have worked for, you have to earn your own money.

... except they're using it every single time they go to purchase anything, from food to milk to petrol. They're using it to buy their kid's school books; they're using it to buy cold and flu tablets over the counter; they're using it to buy tampons or pads, condoms or toilet paper.

A libertarian should believe that there is no place for the government in dictating to an individual what to do with their time, or their money. By imposing limitations on what a person can do with either of those things, you are advocating a policy that is remarkably pro-big government, and is actively limiting an individual's freedom and choices, as well as actively removing their privacy by revealing to anyone around any time they go to pay for anything they need that they are on an income support payment.

It isn't about whether or not the concept of welfare is a libertarian one, it's about whether your policy is a libertarian one, which it certainly isn't. It's the sort of thing you might see in a big government collectivist society, where the government wants to see what their citizens are purchasing and to keep track of spending areas, kind of like a government version of flybuys.

And, seeing as you're trying to disincentivise any form of welfare, shame is the definitive factor in your solution. You're trying to shame people into getting a job, getting off the dole, and getting away from demonstrating their poverty every single time they pay for something.

Sounds like the key factor to me.

 

[GreyWind]

Its not just about private vs public. Its about less money being spent by the collective on healthcare via taxes and more money being spent by the individual via insurance and direct fees.

The system we currently has is unfair were some are just spongin of others.

So your whole argument comes down to the old "lifters vs leaners" philosophy? Where you think some people don't deserve healthcare because they can't afford it?

I'd much rather live in a country with exceptional healthcare that won't send people broke by accessing it. If anything we need to increase the spending on healthcare, especially with the rapidly growing population and an ageing one at that.

 

[FireKrakouer]

Hypocrisy of the left: prominent MeToo activist Asia Argento is a sexual predator herself. MeToo founder Rose Mcgowan, who has stated that "victims should be believed", has said:


Unbelievable.


https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-45253993

 

[Rob R]

Its time to start increasing taxes on people who don't have private health insurance.

I am sick of paying well over $200 a month towards my healthcare while other people pay nothing and sponge of others.

If someone doesn't work take it out of their welfare payments.

How about if someone injures themselves through their own fault eg. drunk or on drugs, then both private health insurance and medicare are void and they are responsible for their own costs.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

That is a decent source, but did you notice the distribution for where that 50% lies when the author extrapolates all tax sources distribution by age? That 50.2% of tax borne by higher income earners is, in a majority, people who are over 50 years of age.

This age group has had good conditions upon which to set up their lives, and they have enjoyed the beneficial social policies including free education, limited competition in the housing market, the jobs market, and have had a succession of governments enshrine their rights to earn money in perpetuity via specific tax breaks in property ownership. They have partaken of progressive social benefits, and now are paying for the next generation's turn and their opportunities, just as the generation previous to them did.

... except they're using it every single time they go to purchase anything, from food to milk to petrol. They're using it to buy their kid's school books; they're using it to buy cold and flu tablets over the counter; they're using it to buy tampons or pads, condoms or toilet paper.

A libertarian should believe that there is no place for the government in dictating to an individual what to do with their time, or their money. By imposing limitations on what a person can do with either of those things, you are advocating a policy that is remarkably pro-big government, and is actively limiting an individual's freedom and choices, as well as actively removing their privacy by revealing to anyone around any time they go to pay for anything they need that they are on an income support payment.

It isn't about whether or not the concept of welfare is a libertarian one, it's about whether your policy is a libertarian one, which it certainly isn't. It's the sort of thing you might see in a big government collectivist society, where the government wants to see what their citizens are purchasing and to keep track of spending areas, kind of like a government version of flybuys.

And, seeing as you're trying to disincentivise any form of welfare, shame is the definitive factor in your solution. You're trying to shame people into getting a job, getting off the dole, and getting away from demonstrating their poverty every single time they pay for something.

Sounds like the key factor to me.

When you talk about older Australians having better conditions your being selective. They didn't have the same level of healthcare for a start which is what we are talking about and less was spent on welfare. When you say free education your talking about higher education , while it was free far less people went to university than they do today.

The only so called progressive social policy was free higher education given to a smaller number of people, far more today is spent on health and welfare.

You talk about economic conditions being better in the past than they are today, wouldn't that be a good reason to cut taxes so investment and wages go up ?????

Its not just about the top 10% who pay half of all income tax its about the top 50% who pay 98% and that includes young adults trying to build up their wealth. The bottom half pay nothing after they get handouts.

If a person gets money from welfare than its not their money simple. If a person is on a wage than they should be able to make a contribution towards their own healthcare.

I will always put the rights of workers before people on the dole.

 

[Gethelred]

When you talk about older Australians having better conditions your being selective. They didn't have the same level of healthcare for a start which is what we are talking about and less was spent on welfare. When you say free education your talking about higher education , while it was free far less people went to university than they do today.

The only so called progressive social policy was free higher education given to a smaller number of people, far more today is spent on health and welfare.

You talk about economic conditions being better in the past than they are today, wouldn't that be a good reason to cut taxes so investment and wages go up ?????

Its not just about the top 10% who pay half of all income tax its about the top 50% who pay 98% and that includes young adults trying to build up their wealth. The bottom half pay nothing after they get handouts.

If a person gets money from welfare than its not their money simple. If a person is on a wage than they should be able to make a contribution towards their own healthcare.

I will always put the rights of workers before people on the dole.

GC, this post is a masterclass in how to avoid addressing anything said in my post.

Here's your formula: I argue X, you argue Y, I refute Y, you argue Z. I could literally argue with you forever, without end. If someone confronts you with what you're doing, you flip it back on them; I'm not dodging the issue, you're dodging the issue; I'm not making positive spin on fascism, you're putting a positive spin on fascism!

The last sentence is the closest you get to anything resembling addressing what I'm saying, as it at least answers the question I posed; you do not think the poor should have autonomy or privacy, and you're perfectly okay using shame as a motivator to attempt to find them a job, ergo you "will always put the rights of workers before people on the dole". Great spin, mate.

I do not see the point of continuing this much further. I've made the argument I wish to make.

 

[The Passenger]

Here's your formula: I argue X, you argue Y, I refute Y, you argue Z. I could literally argue with you forever, without end. If someone confronts you with what you're doing, you flip it back on them; I'm not dodging the issue, you're dodging the issue.

This is why most of us have stopped.

You need to stick with closed question such as.

Do you believe using the phrase "final solution" in a parliamentary speech about immigration deserves condemnation?

Remember freedom of speech isn't freedom from criticism.

Trust me, its easiest for your BigFooty sanity.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

GC, this post is a masterclass in how to avoid addressing anything said in my post.

Here's your formula: I argue X, you argue Y, I refute Y, you argue Z. I could literally argue with you forever, without end. If someone confronts you with what you're doing, you flip it back on them; I'm not dodging the issue, you're dodging the issue; I'm not making positive spin on fascism, you're putting a positive spin on fascism!

The last sentence is the closest you get to anything resembling addressing what I'm saying, as it at least answers the question I posed; you do not think the poor should have autonomy or privacy, and you're perfectly okay using shame as a motivator to attempt to find them a job, ergo you "will always put the rights of workers before people on the dole". Great spin, mate.

I do not see the point of continuing this much further. I've made the argument I wish to make.

You started talking about most of those people who were in the top 10% of income earners were over 50. You than said that they benefited from progressive social policies and that they were paying for the next generations turn just like the previous did for them.

This is misleading the government provides more via health, education and welfare than for todays young people than it did 30 years ago. Yes Uni was free but less people went to Uni.

Economic conditions are tougher today with house prices, energy prices and low wage growth. That's why we need to adopt sensible right wing polices such as reducing immigration intake, stop subsidising renewable energy and build a coal fired power station, tax cuts for all business and individuals.

 

[Gethelred]

You started talking about most of those people who were in the top 10% of income earners were over 50. You than said that they benefited from progressive social policies and that they were paying for the next generations turn just like the previous did for them.

This is misleading the government provides more via health, education and welfare than for todays young people than it did 30 years ago. Yes Uni was free but less people went to Uni.

Economic conditions are tougher today with house prices, energy prices and low wage growth. That's why we need to adopt sensible right wing polices such as reducing immigration intake, stop subsidising renewable energy and build a coal fired power station, tax cuts for all business and individuals.

...

And, around we go again!

 

[geelong_crazy26]

...

And, around we go again!

Buddy you just want me to agree with you, your working on a totally false premises.

 

[Gethelred]

Buddy you just want me to agree with you, your working on a totally false premises.

Mate, I don't actually. I accept - unlike some - that I alone don't have all the answers. But - unlike you - I am unwilling to argue past someone, so unless you are willing to actually confront what I'm saying I'm just not there for you to oppose.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Mate, I don't actually. I accept - unlike some - that I alone don't have all the answers. But - unlike you - I am unwilling to argue past someone, so unless you are willing to actually confront what I'm saying I'm just not there for you to oppose.

Buddy what exactly did I argue past ? honestly don't know because I though I addressed it.

What I took from your statement above is that older Australians had better conditions to set themselves up financially and that when they were younger they were supported by older Australians so today they should do the same, correct ?

 

[Gethelred]

Buddy what exactly did I argue past ? honestly don't know because I though I addressed it.

What I took from your statement above is that older Australians had better conditions to set themselves up financially and that when they were younger they were supported by older Australians so today they should do the same, correct ?

My contention is that the setting up of a welfare payment card violates the civil liberties of the poor, and that by suggesting it you are advocating a two tier society in which some - the wealthy, the employed - have more rights than those without, specifically the right to privacy and the right to spend their funds how they choose.

You got bogged down on the other stuff, but that's been my issue with you the whole time.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

My contention is that the setting up of a welfare payment card violates the civil liberties of the poor, and that by suggesting it you are advocating a two tier society in which some - the wealthy, the employed - have more rights than those without, specifically the right to privacy and the right to spend their funds how they choose.

You got bogged down on the other stuff, but that's been my issue with you the whole time.

The key point is that its not their money, its money that other people have worked for and has been redistributed by government.

A libertarian believes people are responsible for taking care of themselves, that goes 2 ways. Firstly people are not responsible for taking care of others and secondly they can not expect others to take care of them.

 

[Gethelred]

The key point is that its not their money, its money that other people have worked for and has been redistributed by government.

A libertarian believes people are responsible for taking care of themselves, that goes 2 ways. Firstly people are not responsible for taking care of others and secondly they can not expect others to take care of them.

I argue X (that the policy that you provided [a welfare card for the poor, limiting what they can purchase] contravenes their civil liberties) and you argue Y (that "A libertarian believes people are responsible for taking care of themselves").

You are arguing something different than what is stated in order to avoid saying yes, that is precisely what it does. Whether or not welfare is libertarian is completely not in issue; whether or not your welfare card for the poor creates a two tiered system of rights where some are more equal than others is the subject of discussion. I can understand why you wouldn't want to say that, as it indicates that you are not only right wing but pro-big government to a huge extent.

Do you recall how I said that I am completely not willing to engage with you if you argue past me? This is one of those times. Address what I'm actually saying and argue against it, instead of avoiding my argument to say whatever you like which doesn't make you sound awful.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

I argue X (that the policy that you provided [a welfare card for the poor, limiting what they can purchase] contravenes their civil liberties) and you argue Y (that "A libertarian believes people are responsible for taking care of themselves").

You are arguing something different than what is stated in order to avoid saying yes, that is precisely what it does. Whether or not welfare is libertarian is completely not in issue; whether or not your welfare card for the poor creates a two tiered system of rights where some are more equal than others is the subject of discussion. I can understand why you wouldn't want to say that, as it indicates that you are not only right wing but pro-big government to a huge extent.

Do you recall how I said that I am completely not willing to engage with you if you argue past me? This is one of those times. Address what I'm actually saying and argue against it, instead of avoiding my argument to say whatever you like which doesn't make you sound awful.

You just want to cherry pick the facts about a welfare card that suits your agenda and ignore what you don't like, I am not going to engage in a conversation that only focuses what the far left consider important and ignores reality.

What don't you understand that a welfare card is used for welfare money which does not belong to the individual receiving it. This means no civil liberty has been violated.

My ideal situation would be to give people 6 months on the dole and than take it of them.

I don't believe in equality of outcomes, I believe in equality of opportunity. If someone finds life tough on the dole go and get a job, they have the opportunity to do so.

 

[Gethelred]

You just want to cherry pick the facts about a welfare card that suits your agenda and ignore what you don't like, I am not going to engage in a conversation that only focuses what the far left consider important and ignores reality.

What don't you understand that a welfare card is used for welfare money which does not belong to the individual receiving it. This means no civil liberty has been violated.

My ideal situation would be to give people 6 months on the dole and than take it of them.

I don't believe in equality of outcomes, I believe in equality of opportunity. If someone finds life tough on the dole go and get a job, they have the opportunity to do so.

That's a new one.

You argue X. I argue -X. You argue Y. I tell you you're arguing Y because your position on X is unpalatable. You accuse me of cherry picking, when I'm confronting your original position.

Like I said, I'm not here to oppose you mate. Feel free to not reply if you're not able to admit that what you're actually saying doesn't conform to your ideals. Consistency's the delight of a small mind.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

That's a new one.

You argue X. I argue -X. You argue Y. I tell you you're arguing Y because your position on X is unpalatable. You accuse me of cherry picking, when I'm confronting your original position.

Like I said, I'm not here to oppose you mate. Feel free to not reply if you're not able to admit that what you're actually saying doesn't conform to your ideals. Consistency's the delight of a small mind.

Consistency is your problem my friend not mine.

The civil rights of people are not violated when they are told their are limits placed on money that does not belong to them. This is where you lack consistency.

Like I said my ideal situation would be simply to chuck people of the dole after 6 months ,the welfare care is a 2nd options so does that make you feel better ?

 

[Benny78]

Which dope was it who said 50% of the nation doesn't pay tax? medusala , GuruJane?

I'm beginning to think you're right. Could you imagine how much revenue we'd have if Tradies couldn't claim mid/high spec cars? An FG ute is like 8k. A piece of s**t Ranger, Navara or Hilux is around 20k. and the old boomer *heads always buy brand new too.

Also they're just tax cheating alcoholics. Real tradies drive vans they have no need for Low Range and like to keep their tools locked up. The PAYG sector has to supplement this image and ego.

This isn't fair on the PAYG earner. Who should in contrast at the very least be able to claim public transport as a work expense.

 

[ShanDog]

This roundabout discussion regarding healthcare really isn't related to the thread topic and is going nowhere very fast.

Please move on. If people really want to discuss it, search for an appropriate thread or make a new one.

 

[Gethelred]

Consistency is your problem my friend not mine.

The civil rights of people are not violated when they are told their are limits placed on money that does not belong to them. This is where you lack consistency.

Like I said my ideal situation would be simply to chuck people of the dole after 6 months ,the welfare care is a 2nd options so does that make you feel better ?

Is the right to privacy a civil liberty?

As in, the right to choose to let people know you are on welfare, rather than being forced to do so?

 

[RobbieGray17]

How about if someone injures themselves through their own fault eg. drunk or on drugs, then both private health insurance and medicare are void and they are responsible for their own costs.

I've always considered this but it contradicts the social health care system's objectives. Would cause those most vulnerable to be unable to secure help. I'm not sure what the solution is.

 

[kranky al]

Consistency is your problem my friend not mine.

The civil rights of people are not violated when they are told their are limits placed on money that does not belong to them. This is where you lack consistency.

Like I said my ideal situation would be simply to chuck people of the dole after 6 months ,the welfare care is a 2nd options so does that make you feel better ?

Corporate welfare costs us a lot more than a few dole bludgers.


Regardless of how many people decide they want to work there is always going to be around 5% or more unemployed as the jobs arent out there.


If a “dole bludger” takes a job it just means someone else misses out.


So you have to analyse why they make such a big deal of this.


I mean if unemployment gets too low business screams that we need more immigration / 457’s


And they get it. Every single time.


So why are they pushing this - when they know it as well as anyone with half a brain?


Its the magicians trick - the distraction. Right at the moment they are giving seriously wealthy people - a lot of whom dont even live here.... a massive tax break.


This is going to blow the budget out more.


They need you to blame someone.


So they have presented you with a target.


If you are gullible that is....

 

[romeohwho]

Hypocrisy of the left: prominent MeToo activist Asia Argento is a sexual predator herself. MeToo founder Rose Mcgowan, who has stated that "victims should be believed", has said:


Unbelievable.


https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-45253993

What’s this got to do with the ‘left”?