Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)

[FreoRicci]

Ugh. When will this weak af PM just declare a lockdown and save us from these smirk, primary school assembly speeches? Literally listening to a guy talking to Australians like we’re 5..

Thank you Australians? For what? Everyone’s just doing their privileged walks to the park and beaches like nothing is happening

 

[Inveigh Slang]

Ugh. When will this weak af PM just declare a lockdown and save us from these smirk, primary school assembly speeches? Literally listening to a guy talking to Australians like we’re 5..

Thank you Australians? For what? Everyone’s just doing their privileged walks to the park and beaches like nothing is happening

Gotta love the coles advert

Saying how respectful and responsible we all are while people are stockpiling.

 

[Monument Hills]

I'm pretty sure we spend more as a nation on franking credits then education?

of course we do! Sort of, as "spend" isn't really the right word. More likely 'generate' is.

Every dollar paid in tax by every private and public company in this country creates a franking credit or an IOU as it is sometimes referred. That's because when all is said and done, companies don't effectively pay tax, the owner's of the company (i.e. the shareholders) do (gets a little more complicated when shareholders are foreigners so won't go into that).

Example.

• Aust. Company X pays $100 in tax over a year as 4 PAYG installments of $25.
• ATO issues $100 worth of franking credits (FCs) to X.
• A and B are Australians who own X and are equal shareholders. A and B each take $50 worth of FCs.
• A and B distribute $100 profits each to themselves from X during the same year
• A goes to do their tax. Assuming no other source of income, the numbers are A effectively earnt $150 gross with $50 of that already paid in tax.
  • If the combined personal tax rate for $150 is 33.33c in the dollar, A has paid the required amount of tax and no refund or bill is required
  • If the combined personal tax rate for $150 is 50c in the dollar, A will get a tax bill for $25 so that the correct amount of personal tax has been paid
  • If the combined personal tax rate for $150 is 25c in the dollar, A will get a tax refund for $12.5 so that the correct amount of personal tax has been paid

Likewise, for an employee, X will pay the salary of employee C fortnightly, and as the salary is known for the year, X will hopefully put aside the correct amount of tax to be collected by the ATO as PAYG in four installments at the same time that X pays the company PAYG (and GST). When employee C does their tax, the same calculation above will be done, and most likely, they will get a refund from any deductions if the tax put aside was correct.

As you can see, the tax paid by company X is only relevant as far as it's use in determining personal tax of the owners of the company A and B (excluding foreign owners which is more complicated) as it is with tax collected on behalf of C. The ATO is very specific in making sure that only the correct amount of tax is paid by a person which is enshrined in a very large Tax Act.

What Shorten effectively said at the last election to a bunch of oldies was that the tax collected on your behalf from the company you part own, well even though we owe it to you as we do with with every other tax paying Australian that deserves a refund when personal tax is calculated, well tough sh5t, we're keeping it.

It would be no different (from a tax point of view) to a teenager who works at Maccas while studying at uni and would have earnt over 18,200 if they'd worked the whole year (so Maccas sent the determined tax they should pay in PAYG installments to the ATO) but they quit after 6 months to focus on exams. Then the ATO says to the kid, even though you didn't end up earning over the $18,200 tax free threshold, suck sh5t but we're keeping the tax paid so far this year cause we want to even though you deserve a refund.


Here's my rant as I'm bored:
Of all the ways of collecting more revenue, IMO (and obviously others) trying to take money off people who have left the workplace and can no longer earn to top off their retirement savings is one of the most pathetic. Same with altering super rules for those now retired. They played by the rules, tried to put money aside to support themselves in retirement, then when they can no longer earn, d'head politicians (from all persuasions) try and move the goalposts. Pathetic. Pick on those of us who still have years to earn and can adjust accordingly. I certainly no longer have any faith in putting money into super. The govts have their greedy little eyes all over it and I don't expect any decent tax benefits to exist within super by the time I retire.

 

[Ben The Donkey]

I'm pretty sure we spend more as a nation on franking credits then education?

I'd say that you are correct.
The amount of times you see "then" substituted for "than" on these forums alone is a fairly clear indication our education system is not up to the task.

 

[DeanS]

I'd say that you are correct.
The amount of times you see "then" substituted for "than" on these forums alone is a fairly clear indication our education system is not up to the task.

And the number of times you see "amount of times" substituted for "number of times" is another.

 

[Ben The Donkey]

And the number of times you see "amount of times" substituted for "number of times" is another.

Actually, either one is correct.

Thank you for illustrating out one of the causes of the problem, though - Australians have a bad habit of sticking up for the one who can't spell. So that one who can't spell never feels any need to address the problem because he feels he is in the right and his peers are supporting him.
Therefore, "then" and "than" continue to be substituted for each other because people like you make it ok.
It's a cultural issue.

 

[Square Peg]

Thank you for illustrating out one of the causes of the problem

Redundant word 'out' has been used here

 

[Ben The Donkey]

And, again.
I wonder if you stopped for one moment to consider that that might have been deliberate?
Look up the meaning of the word "Ad hominem". The original meaning, not the simplified version being bandied about more recently. Point being, you thinking you're being smart in pointing out what you perceive to be errors of mine does not make my original comment wrong.

My original comment was a wry note on one who clearly didn't know the difference between "than" and "then" commenting on the education system. Tongue in cheek, really. The alacrity with which you guys have come out in defence of ignorance is enlightening, though, isn't it?

 

[Square Peg]

And, again.
I wonder if you stopped for one moment to consider that that might have been deliberate?
Look up the meaning of the word "Ad hominem". The original meaning, not the simplified version being bandied about more recently. Point being, you thinking you're being smart in pointing out what you perceive to be errors of mine does not make my original comment wrong.

My original comment was a wry note on one who clearly didn't know the difference between "than" and "then" commenting on the education system. Tongue in cheek, really. The alacrity with which you guys have come out in defence of ignorance is enlightening, though, isn't it?

Yeah your first comment was pretty funny as in humorous.
Your subsequent comments are funny, but as in "you're a pompous git" funny. The irony of someone telling someone else off for their English skills when their own skills aren't up to scratch isn't lost on some of us. It has nothing to do with defending bad spelling.

 

[Kram]

Guys! Guys! Look at us! Squabbling, bickering, like children! What's happening to us? We never used to be like this!

 

[Ben The Donkey]

Yeah your first comment was pretty funny as in humorous.
Your subsequent comments are funny, but as in "you're a pompous git" funny. The irony of someone telling someone else off for their English skills when their own skills aren't up to scratch isn't lost on some of us. It has nothing to do with defending bad spelling.

Yeah, it does. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. And I'm not wrong.
Raffrox, by way of example, is going to wander off shrugging his shoulders and continuing to substitute words he doesn't know the meaning of, and why?
Because you think it's more important to whip your dick and a measuring stick out and come after me, rather then correcting him.
Have a look around the forum. It's becoming commonplace. Lemming learning, I call it.

Like I said, it's an Australian problem. You do see the same thing elsewhere, but it's not as commonplace. Most recent immigrants know our language better then we do. That's probably why they're getting all the good jobs and stealing all the woman.

 

[Square Peg]

I'm heading over to the sports movie thread yyou created to suggest the doco Spellbound.

 

[DeanS]

Actually, either one is correct.

Incorrect. "Number" is used for things that can be counted. "Amount" is used when they can't be counted.

Understanding The Difference Between Number and Amount - Enago Academy

The difference between the usage of numbers and amounts depends on the type of noun being used i.e. count or non-count.

www.enago.com

 

[Bigger]

He’s not called “the Donkey” for nothing.
I don’t think there is a bigger utensil on the board.

 

[dropbear101]

Yeah, it does. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. And I'm not wrong.
Raffrox, by way of example, is going to wander off shrugging his shoulders and continuing to substitute words he doesn't know the meaning of, and why?
Because you think it's more important to whip your dick and a measuring stick out and come after me, rather then correcting him.
Have a look around the forum. It's becoming commonplace. Lemming learning, I call it.

Like I said, it's an Australian problem. You do see the same thing elsewhere, but it's not as commonplace. Most recent immigrants know our language better then we do. That's probably why they're getting all the good jobs and stealing all the woman.

I regularly look at words that I know are spelt right but then sometimes change it anyway because it looks funny. The worst is reading things to quickly, the letters go walkabout. The other day I swear to you building looked so much like b$%ching.

Most of my family is dyslexic, funnily I don't notice if they have compromised english skills (trust me I would notice because of my own issues, like a pyramid of cards falling under a gentle breeze), however I do notice if someone has a poor vocabulary or compromised verbal communication skills (Perhaps because I'm rather strong in that regard).

Reading and writing skills are overrated but verbal skills are irreplaceable.

 

[peppy la pew]

Guys! Guys! Look at us! Squabbling, bickering, like children! What's happening to us? We never used to be like this!

Who the * are you, and what have you done with Kram ?

 

[Square Peg]

In before the donkey corrects 'to quickly' to 'too quickly'

 

[raffrox]

Yeah, it does. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. And I'm not wrong.
Raffrox, by way of example, is going to wander off shrugging his shoulders and continuing to substitute words he doesn't know the meaning of, and why?
Because you think it's more important to whip your dick and a measuring stick out and come after me, rather then correcting him.
Have a look around the forum. It's becoming commonplace. Lemming learning, I call it.

Like I said, it's an Australian problem. You do see the same thing elsewhere, but it's not as commonplace. Most recent immigrants know our language better then we do. That's probably why they're getting all the good jobs and stealing all the woman.

Get stuffed. At least quote me or tag me if you are going to do me the indecency of point scoring using my name.

You're on a footy message board testing you intellect and boasting about how smart you are and who should be corrected. Really? Is this really the arena you need to assert your superiority?

Are you for real or really just scraping the bottom of the barrel of your existence right now? Do you feel like you need this to feel ok about yourself?

 

[Ben The Donkey]

Incorrect. "Number" is used for things that can be counted. "Amount" is used when they can't be counted.

Understanding The Difference Between Number and Amount - Enago Academy

The difference between the usage of numbers and amounts depends on the type of noun being used i.e. count or non-count.

www.enago.com

And if you put that much effort into correcting people who use then in place of than, you might actually achieve something in terms of educating those who clearly need it.
However, as I pointed out before, you chose not to - you attacked me instead, over what was originally a relatively harmless tongue in cheek comment.
Go back and have a look. Observe how this has escalated, and who escalated it. Which would be you, I believe.

So why don't you go and have a think about that, and consider your own motivation?

 

[Ben The Donkey]

He’s not called “the Donkey” for nothing.
I don’t think there is a bigger utensil on the board.

I think someone is still seething because I think his "don't eat meat" solution to the climate change problem was a bandaid.
I also think you need to get over it. Sometimes people don't agree with your opinions. That doesn't mean you should hold a grudge for the rest of your life.

For the record, though, my username is one I chose for myself. You didn't choose it for me.
Also - my utensil isn't very big at all. It's tiny, actually. I'm compensating for it as much as I can. You should see my car. Massive big SUV, you know?

 

[Ben The Donkey]

Get stuffed. At least quote me or tag me if you are going to do me the indecency of point scoring using my name.

You're on a footy message board testing you intellect and boasting about how smart you are and who should be corrected. Really? Is this really the arena you need to assert your superiority?

Are you for real or really just scraping the bottom of the barrel of your existence right now? Do you feel like you need this to feel ok about yourself?

I'll say it one more time - go and have a look at my original comment.
I did not insult you. I did not say I was smarter than you - although I think I probably am, I did not say that (until just then). I have not boasted about anything. I'm not doing it to feel ok about myself. I genuinely find this trend annoying, and I genuinely think it points to a problem with the way we're educating people. It's not a typo, it's not an issue of pronunciation. It's a simple herd mentality and a lack of understanding and education.

And no, I don't have to tag you. I've seen people's names mentioned plenty of times without them being tagged.
You tag people when you want their attention. I've seen your posts, I've heard your opinions, and you're not someone I'd regard as interesting enough to want to talk to. Sorry about that.

So, what. Are you angry? Did I hit a nerve? Feeling a bit defensive there, Raffy boy?
Tell you what. Why don't you address the issue. Why don't you explain why you continually mix up then and than. Address the argument.
If you think you have it in you to do so. Because apparently just admitting you made a mistake is beyond you.

 

[raffrox]

I'll say it one more time - go and have a look at my original comment.
I did not insult you. I did not say I was smarter than you - although I think I probably am, I did not say that (until just then). I have not boasted about anything. I'm not doing it to feel ok about myself. I genuinely find this trend annoying, and I genuinely think it points to a problem with the way we're educating people. It's not a typo, it's not an issue of pronunciation. It's a simple herd mentality and a lack of understanding and education.

And no, I don't have to tag you. I've seen people's names mentioned plenty of times without them being tagged.
You tag people when you want their attention. I've seen your posts, I've heard your opinions, and you're not someone I'd regard as interesting enough to want to talk to. Sorry about that.

So, what. Are you angry? Did I hit a nerve? Feeling a bit defensive there, Raffy boy?
Tell you what. Why don't you address the issue. Why don't you explain why you continually mix up then and than. Address the argument.
If you think you have it in you to do so. Because apparently just admitting you made a mistake is beyond you.

I don't even know what I need to clarify. That I said 'then' instead of 'than' on a message board while typing on my phone while sitting in the couch having some drinks? I haven't posted in this thread for days and that was a throw away line. Passionate about franking credits? Is that it? Why do I need to prove a thing to you?

I think I might have hit I nerve with you. I'm not the one pretending to be a Fisher Price intellectual on a footy board. Stating you're smarter than people on a footy board?

Really?

I see this board as a bit of fun. My user name should tell you that. I've got no problem taking the piss out of myself. What are you trying to prove to who?

How about you leave me out of your pissing contest?

 

[Beak_A]

of course we do! Sort of, as "spend" isn't really the right word. More likely 'generate' is.

Every dollar paid in tax by every private and public company in this country creates a franking credit or an IOU as it is sometimes referred. That's because when all is said and done, companies don't effectively pay tax, the owner's of the company (i.e. the shareholders) do (gets a little more complicated when shareholders are foreigners so won't go into that).

Example.

• Aust. Company X pays $100 in tax over a year as 4 PAYG installments of $25.
• ATO issues $100 worth of franking credits (FCs) to X.
• A and B are Australians who own X and are equal shareholders. A and B each take $50 worth of FCs.
• A and B distribute $100 profits each to themselves from X during the same year
• A goes to do their tax. Assuming no other source of income, the numbers are A effectively earnt $150 gross with $50 of that already paid in tax.
  • If the combined personal tax rate for $150 is 33.33c in the dollar, A has paid the required amount of tax and no refund or bill is required
  • If the combined personal tax rate for $150 is 50c in the dollar, A will get a tax bill for $25 so that the correct amount of personal tax has been paid
  • If the combined personal tax rate for $150 is 25c in the dollar, A will get a tax refund for $12.5 so that the correct amount of personal tax has been paid

Likewise, for an employee, X will pay the salary of employee C fortnightly, and as the salary is known for the year, X will hopefully put aside the correct amount of tax to be collected by the ATO as PAYG in four installments at the same time that X pays the company PAYG (and GST). When employee C does their tax, the same calculation above will be done, and most likely, they will get a refund from any deductions if the tax put aside was correct.

As you can see, the tax paid by company X is only relevant as far as it's use in determining personal tax of the owners of the company A and B (excluding foreign owners which is more complicated) as it is with tax collected on behalf of C. The ATO is very specific in making sure that only the correct amount of tax is paid by a person which is enshrined in a very large Tax Act.

What Shorten effectively said at the last election to a bunch of oldies was that the tax collected on your behalf from the company you part own, well even though we owe it to you as we do with with every other tax paying Australian that deserves a refund when personal tax is calculated, well tough sh5t, we're keeping it.

It would be no different (from a tax point of view) to a teenager who works at Maccas while studying at uni and would have earnt over 18,200 if they'd worked the whole year (so Maccas sent the determined tax they should pay in PAYG installments to the ATO) but they quit after 6 months to focus on exams. Then the ATO says to the kid, even though you didn't end up earning over the $18,200 tax free threshold, suck sh5t but we're keeping the tax paid so far this year cause we want to even though you deserve a refund.


Here's my rant as I'm bored:
Of all the ways of collecting more revenue, IMO (and obviously others) trying to take money off people who have left the workplace and can no longer earn to top off their retirement savings is one of the most pathetic. Same with altering super rules for those now retired. They played by the rules, tried to put money aside to support themselves in retirement, then when they can no longer earn, d'head politicians (from all persuasions) try and move the goalposts. Pathetic. Pick on those of us who still have years to earn and can adjust accordingly. I certainly no longer have any faith in putting money into super. The govts have their greedy little eyes all over it and I don't expect any decent tax benefits to exist within super by the time I retire.

If it’s about an individual paying the correct amount of tax then why isn’t it a tax offset instead of a payment


Official Buddy of The Cam 2020

 

[Ben The Donkey]

I regularly look at words that I know are spelt right but then sometimes change it anyway because it looks funny. The worst is reading things to quickly, the letters go walkabout. The other day I swear to you building looked so much like b$%ching.

Most of my family is dyslexic, funnily I don't notice if they have compromised english skills (trust me I would notice because of my own issues, like a pyramid of cards falling under a gentle breeze), however I do notice if someone has a poor vocabulary or compromised verbal communication skills (Perhaps because I'm rather strong in that regard).

Reading and writing skills are overrated but verbal skills are irreplaceable.

And finally onto something a bit more interesting.
I can relate to the first part - I'm not dyslexic, but most people have some blind spots when it comes to the spelling of some words, and there are a few I have to double check when I'm writing something as well. I was once a very good writer... I used to contribute to philosophy and politics boards years ago, and when I read what I wrote a decade ago I can hardly believe it was me who wrote those things. I put it down to my brain getting fat and lazy, a lack of exercise. There are times I'd like to go back and get into it again, but I'd be embarrassed now to have someone remember me and expect me to say something halfway intelligent. The thoughts are still there, but explaining why you can't articulate things the way you once did is a difficult thing to do. Writing is the same as playing football, if you don't keep at it and play in lower grades, you go to s**t.

I before E except after C (by way of example) is a bad one for me because that rule doesn't always hold. That's at least partially a fault of the language itself, due in no small way to our language being more a conglomeration of several languages. Latin, French, German and a few other bits and pieces thrown in which don't always follow the same rules. There's a fair amount of literature on the subject.
Long story short, there were some very good reasons English was "standardised" a few centuries ago, and one of those reasons was that, particularly with regard to formal communications, spelling things however you liked was causing some issues, particularly when two phonetically similar words could change the entire context of a sentence.

But this particular issue isn't one of misspelling (and I'll admit it was me who incorrectly used that description of it to begin with). Substituting than for then is an indication that the user doesn't actually know the definition of either - or, alternatively, is ignoring the definition in favour of following the crowd. It's not fat fingers on a keyboard, its not a typo - its just flat out wrong. The two words aren't related to each other at all. Moreover, its an error which has been pointed out time and again, but people continue to do it. And I'll reiterate, it's a peculiarly Australian thing, and its a fairly recent thing - which indicates to me that our education system is at fault. Could of, would of, two more examples which are occurring because people simply don't understand what the 've at the end of those words actually means. "Could of" doesn't even make sense, its a nonsensical pairing of words. Its phonetic basis can be easily discerned, which goes back to what you were saying about verbal communication. But what we're observing in society at this point in time is the meanings of words being changed purely as a result of ignorance, which is the part I find most interesting on a social level.
Especially when I'm forced to admit that even the origin of words like "could've" and "would've" would have had a purely phonetic basis to begin with, based on an abbreviation, so someone a few hundred years ago probably had a discussion similar to the one I'm having now. Hah.
I'm aware I'm pissing into the wind here. The reaction to my original tongue in cheek comment has been rather... extreme, but any attempt on my part to point to that original post and make a note of who actually started the pissing contest have been ignored, so... well. I'm bored.

I don't believe reading and writing skills are overrated. I think they're as important as they've ever been, and are becoming more so because most communication (in a business or corporate sense at the very least), is conducted non-verbally. Meetings are becoming a thing of the past, as is direct communication, particularly in larger organisations. Given the current situation, they're more important now than they were even last year.
So if I were in a position to hire someone, or choose someone for a task, and of the applicants one substitutes than for then, in spite of knowing it was wrong, I'd immediately assume a few things. One, that person doesn't listen when being corrected. Two, that person is adversarial. Three, that person is lazy, and four, that person has the potential to annoy a customer. Now any one or more of those assumptions might be wrong, but when choosing someone for a job and when faced with a pile of applications, we're forced to make assumptions and shortcuts.
That application goes to the bottom of the pile. Which is fine, because plumbers make a ton of cash these days.

 

[Ben The Donkey]

I don't even know what I need to clarify. That I said 'then' instead of 'than' on a message board while typing on my phone while sitting in the couch having some drinks? I haven't posted in this thread for days and that was a throw away line. Passionate about franking credits? Is that it? Why do I need to prove a thing to you?

I think I might have hit I nerve with you. I'm not the one pretending to be a Fisher Price intellectual on a footy board. Stating you're smarter than people on a footy board?

Really?

I see this board as a bit of fun. My user name should tell you that. I've got no problem taking the piss out of myself. What are you trying to prove to who?

How about you leave me out of your pissing contest?

Did you... read anything I said? At all?
Because there's virtually nothing up there which relates to my post, you're just ranting.

I have to admit, though, I did do a little spit-take when you said " I've got no problem taking the piss out of myself. What are you trying to prove to who?".
I mean, aren't you just bit embarrassed saying you don't have to prove anything to me when you're flat out failing to do exactly that?

I am a bit worried I'm the only one laughing though. Just a little.