ScoMo's 2018 Federal Budget

[Carn The Berries]

No one side gave up NOTHING while demanding gthe other side give up SOMETHING. that's FACTS.

It;'s the definition of HYPOCRISY which you will not admit because you just have fixed point of view which is immune to FACTS.

You're going to choke if you continue to keep your head in the sand like that. Again if you could answer my question that would be great. If the indexation built into the enterprise agreement was removed would you consider that "losing something"? If so, can you please also tell us how that is different to executives agreeing to waive annual pay reviews and freeze their salaries? Clearly you are working a much higher intellectual level than me as I can't for the life of me see what the difference is.

 

[pugsville]

You're going to choke if you continue to keep your head in the sand like that. Again if you could answer my question that would be great. If the indexation built into the enterprise agreement was removed would you consider that "losing something"? If so, can you please also tell us how that is different to executives agreeing to waive annual pay reviews and freeze their salaries? Clearly you are working a much higher intellectual level than me as I can't for the life of me see what the difference is.

Yup keep weasalling justifications going. One was expected to cut take home paid the other was not. If you can't admit the hypocrisy well I guess you just wanto keep the fantasy goiung.

 

[pugsville]

If you could articulate to us all how double time penalty rates on Sundays help small businesses I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.

It's certainly helps small family run businesses like your corner shop. But it was introduced and protected for the sake of workers, it was not like the the unions sat down and said how we can screw small business. It was the introduction of Sunday trading that hurt small businesses, the decline of the strip shop[s and shopping centers where the leases are draconian. The on going domination of sectors by oligarchies of big corporations that are willing to conclude against small business.

 

[Carn The Berries]

It's certainly helps small family run businesses like your corner shop. But it was introduced and protected for the sake of workers, it was not like the the unions sat down and said how we can screw small business. It was the introduction of Sunday trading that hurt small businesses, the decline of the strip shop[s and shopping centers where the leases are draconian. The on going domination of sectors by oligarchies of big corporations that are willing to conclude against small business.

I'll assume you mean collude but that is by the by... I never said it was introduced deliberately to try and harm workers, that is just a frivolous extrapolation of my actual argument. Regardless of what the INTENT of it was the REALITY today is that by holding onto it so tight fistedly it is harming smaller businesses because they don't have the same ability to wear the cost.

Its all well and good to hold onto your ideological position but at some point you actually have to be pragmatic and assess whether it is truly in the best interests of the people you are allegedly trying to protect.

Can you please point me in the direction of my corner shop? Its lunchtime and I'd kill for a burger with the lot. Don't even have to pay for since I'm apparently the boss!

 

[pugsville]

I'll assume you mean collude but that is by the by... I never said it was introduced deliberately to try and harm workers, that is just a frivolous extrapolation of my actual argument. Regardless of what the INTENT of it was the REALITY today is that by holding onto it so tight fistedly it is harming smaller businesses because they don't have the same ability to wear the cost.

yes it was Power raid who said union hates small business and individuals.

Big business has lots of polices and effects which harm small business. Why not look at them rather than workers?

Its all well and good to hold onto your ideological position but at some point you actually have to be pragmatic and assess whether it is truly in the best interests of the people you are allegedly trying to protect.

It's not ideological it's people trying to hold on to their standing of living. Why is it that it's workers and predominately the lowest paid workers which are repeated asked to make sacrifices. There standard of living is going backwards.

It seems to be a one way street, those who are well off repeatedly ask for th epoor and struggling to bear a bigger burden with demanding massive increases for themselves as somehow it's good for everyone. Why is making the rich richer and poor poorer good policy?

 

[Taylor]

Small business owners aren't rich.

 

[AM]

 

[AM]

You mean the reactionaries tell porkies? Heaven forefend!

 

[Benny78]

Small business owners aren't rich.

That's their own fault. Maybe they should be better at their job or get a job in hospitality/'retail.

You can't carry every overambitious plodder with tax concessions at the expense of the PAYG worker. It's morally outrageous. A PAYG earner pays 1/3 of his income in tax whereas a small business earning 1mil p.a. most certaintly does not pay 333.3k in tax!

 

[Taylor]

That's their own fault. Maybe they should be better at their job or get a job in hospitality/'retail.

You can't carry every overambitious plodder with tax concessions at the expense of the PAYG worker. It's morally outrageous. A PAYG earner pays 1/3 of his income in tax whereas a small business earning 1mil p.a. most certaintly does not pay 333.3k in tax!

A PAYG worker paying one third tax is making over $100,000. When I was paid that much my tax rate was 26-27% so not a huge amount over $100,000 though.

Small business trading as either partnerships or sole traders, or as a trading trust don't pay company tax at all. All the money earned is considered to have been earned by the individual so making $1,000,000 would see their tax bill closer to $400,000 than $333,333.

 

[Carn The Berries]

You mean the reactionaries tell porkies? Heaven forefend!

That tweet is misleading at best and a shameless lie at worst. Nowhere does it say anything about the budget having already been returned to surplus. There is a certain irony that lies are being used to try and expose lies. I completely agree that taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill for any of these types of things (especially when it's only for sitting members) but try and at least be balanced in what you're saying FFS.

 

[pugsville]

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...routine-bonuses-tone-deaf-investor-group-says

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...want-to-freeze-pay-or-offer-cut-in-real-terms

It's very much a two speed economy, those that are doing very very well getting large rises and those t the bottom getting next to nothing. Cuts to penalty rates will affect many of those working near the bottom. There has been a lot of cost shifting over the years, water rates are now paid by tenats, power bills are now dominated by fixed supply charges, which moved more payment to the lesser power uses, those not well off have had the biggest power rises. Casualisation of the work force. Rising Rents., Those at the bottom are actually going backwards

And This Government comes along and says you know what what we need to do is give billions to those at the top, they are just not being rewarded enough. And a a bunch of people cheer that as the being the right thing to do.

At least Labour under Gillard raised the tax free threshold in a signification matter.

For years. For years and years. The same people of been hysterically screaming about the deficit. And no having run up debt on a vast scale are chopping billions and billions from government income with no real indication about how this is going to be paid for at any stage. Wnating to lock government polciy on taxation for a decade.

It's beyond mere idiocy. It's beyond mere hypocrisy.

Has there been one right wing figure , politician, commentator or bulletin board poster had called the coalition government on this?

It seems to be every last word this people has said for decades has now been shown to absolutely worthless dribble as they never believed it for a second, they have no problem with debt and unsustainable debt as long it's going o them and their mates.

The Right's always been pretty darn dumb, pretty darn short of any introspection or self understanding, but what principles do they actually have beyond the golden rule? Nothing?

 

[Taylor]

The stats stagnated for five years and then it goes up one year and suddenly the sky is falling?

When salary growth stagnates the only way to increase your pay packet is to move around as they headhunt for people. Then your previous company has to up the deal to bring someone in to replace you.

But I'm sure it's a conspiracy to keep workers earning less.

 

[Carn The Berries]

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...routine-bonuses-tone-deaf-investor-group-says

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...want-to-freeze-pay-or-offer-cut-in-real-terms

It's very much a two speed economy, those that are doing very very well getting large rises and those t the bottom getting next to nothing. Cuts to penalty rates will affect many of those working near the bottom. There has been a lot of cost shifting over the years, water rates are now paid by tenats, power bills are now dominated by fixed supply charges, which moved more payment to the lesser power uses, those not well off have had the biggest power rises. Casualisation of the work force. Rising Rents., Those at the bottom are actually going backwards

And This Government comes along and says you know what what we need to do is give billions to those at the top, they are just not being rewarded enough. And a a bunch of people cheer that as the being the right thing to do.

At least Labour under Gillard raised the tax free threshold in a signification matter.

For years. For years and years. The same people of been hysterically screaming about the deficit. And no having run up debt on a vast scale are chopping billions and billions from government income with no real indication about how this is going to be paid for at any stage. Wnating to lock government polciy on taxation for a decade.

It's beyond mere idiocy. It's beyond mere hypocrisy.

Has there been one right wing figure , politician, commentator or bulletin board poster had called the coalition government on this?

It seems to be every last word this people has said for decades has now been shown to absolutely worthless dribble as they never believed it for a second, they have no problem with debt and unsustainable debt as long it's going o them and their mates.

The Right's always been pretty darn dumb, pretty darn short of any introspection or self understanding, but what principles do they actually have beyond the golden rule? Nothing?

I actually agree with you on the issue of spending in relation to the "debt emergency" (feel free to have a shower if it makes you feel dirty that you might share the same point of view as someone who has been called a RWNJ). The latest personal tax cuts, while personally beneficial to me, haven't yet been proved as sustainable and are a gamble on the economy continuing to recover (and subsequently prosper) which is dubious at best. While it's not strictly pork barreling the premise is the same and it's not just the Lib/Nats who are guilty of it. Sadly the current political environment is one of survival (i.e. win the next poll/election) rather than actually being in the best interests of the nation. It's great that the economy has rebounded but let's hold onto some of those savings in case the whole thing goes **** up again. The 3rd tranche of that legislation just smells so much like a political time bomb that the Libs have planted with the thought that there is a fair chance they won't be in power and can use it as leverage if (when) the ALP try to reverse it.

 

[pugsville]

Small business owners aren't rich.

If you look at the entire personal and business tax package as totally envisaged. The bulk of the money is not going to small business. The vast bulk of the tax cuts are not going to the middle class. It's going to small business first as a way of selling the package. But the vats majoirty of the money is going to big business, and the most profitable big business that are already doing well.

Where is the bulk of the Money going?

 

[Taylor]

If you look at the entire personal and business tax package as totally envisaged. The bulk of the money is not going to small business. The vast bulk of the tax cuts are not going to the middle class. It's going to small business first as a way of selling the package. But the vats majoirty of the money is going to big business, and the most profitable big business that are already doing well.

Where is the bulk of the Money going?

Most people are employed by that same group?

 

[pugsville]

Most people are employed by that same group?

The Bulk of the money in the personal tax cuts is going to the high end of income earners

The Bulk of the money in the business tax cuts is going to the big profitable businesses.

so saying small business owners are not rich actually has almost nothing to do with a proper evaluation of the packages in their totality. Yes small business gets something but they are being used as a justification for giving large profitable companies a massive windfall for what reason exactly?

 

[pugsville]

T
But I'm sure it's a conspiracy to keep workers earning less.

Right wing think tanks lobby the government to introduce legislation to reduce workers rights and bargaining power, similar thinking business people donate money to the liberal party, right minded politicians are preselected, legislation is watered down, unions are actively suppressed wherever possible, right thinking commissioners are appointed to various bodies.

A lot of rich and powerful people believe it's in thier interests to reduce workers wages, they have great access to politicians, and great influence. At what point would they actually need a formal conspiracy? I mean they have the liberal party and the institute of pubic affairs,

 

[Taylor]

The Bulk of the money in the personal tax cuts is going to the high end of income earners

The Bulk of the money in the business tax cuts is going to the big profitable businesses.

so saying small business owners are not rich actually has almost nothing to do with a proper evaluation of the packages in their totality. Yes small business gets something but they are being used as a justification for giving large profitable companies a massive windfall for what reason exactly?

It's going to be very difficult to stop the bulk of the money going to the place where most of the money is taxed from with a progressive system of taxation.

It's an example of selecting the story to suit the data, because those people could claim to also pay the majority of the tax in the nation. Paying for the majority of services they don't qualify for so the people who do can call them greedy for having the audacity to earn more than they do.

I believe the stats are that 2/3 Australians work in what would be called a big business and that 2/3 businesses in Australia are considered small businesses. That's a significant portion of the employed group of Australians who would be looking at a better deal by not having as much of the money they earned taken away.

I know it's all semantics and word play but reducing taxation isn't the government giving money to someone, it's the government not taking that person's money.

 

[Taylor]

Right wing think tanks lobby the government to introduce legislation to reduce workers rights and bargaining power, similar thinking business people donate money to the liberal party, right minded politicians are preselected, legislation is watered down, unions are actively suppressed wherever possible, right thinking commissioners are appointed to various bodies.

A lot of rich and powerful people believe it's in thier interests to reduce workers wages, they have great access to politicians, and great influence. At what point would they actually need a formal conspiracy? I mean they have the liberal party and the institute of pubic affairs,

Can you define "a lot"?

As in, can you provide ten examples for every claim you have made here?

 

[pugsville]

It's going to be very difficult to stop the bulk of the money going to the place where most of the money is taxed from with a progressive system of taxation.

It's not difficult in fact it's very easy. Raise the tax free threshold.

[

It's an example of selecting the story to suit the data, because those people could claim to also pay the majority of the tax in the nation. Paying for the majority of services they don't qualify for so the people who do can call them greedy for having the audacity to earn more than they do.

Hmm selecting the story to match the data. Such an extremely prejudicial way of saying my argument is supported by the facts.

Those of high incomes are supported by rest of society, they only have wealth because of the work of others, there is nothing wrong with asking those who benefit the most form society to contribute more to that society.

I believe the stats are that 2/3 Australians work in what would be called a big business and that 2/3 businesses in Australia are considered small businesses. That's a significant portion of the employed group of Australians who would be looking at a better deal by not having as much of the money they earned taken away.
.

But the bulk of these cuts are not going to the bulk of the population. Considerable number. The few are getting a massive benefit the many are getting a little. Average Australians should be more political aware ofamount of many going to the top end,

I know it's all semantics and word play but reducing taxation isn't the government giving money to someone, it's the government not taking that person's money.

You know it, but still do it anyway." yeah I know it's cheap lies and distortion but I'm going to do it anyway". It changes the nature and balance of taxation.

This is a radical and massive change to taxation. A considerable flattening and reduction in progressive nature of our tax system.

Over the last couple decades those at the higher ends have done extremely well on teh whole getting wages rises and a lot of them capital gains. Tehre has been changes in the economy which has meant the upper income earners have in general benefited a lot of the last couple of decades.

Be objectively how do you think the rich had been going the last two decades? losing ground?

These changes are just consolidated Australian society into different worlds , rich and poor. It's viscous class warfare.

 

[Kram]

Those of high incomes are supported by rest of society, they only have wealth because of the work of others

This is an absolutely idiotic statement.

 

[Taylor]

It's not difficult in fact it's very easy. Raise the tax free threshold.

That rewards everyone on the tax scale, in fact if it also bounces up the brackets then it means the people earning the most will have less tax taken off them still.

Hmm selecting the story to match the data. Such an extremely prejudicial way of saying my argument is supported by the facts.

Those of high incomes are supported by rest of society, they only have wealth because of the work of others, there is nothing wrong with asking those who benefit the most form society to contribute more to that society.

It's having your argument ready before you read the stats. I completely agree that those who can contribute the most should contribute the most, and they do. Those people who are required to have private health cover (more cost) so they don't pay even more tax to support a medicare system they aren't using any more than someone else. From their perspective they've supported the services those on lesser amounts have used while the nation has been in this slow growth period and now when the government is saying maybe we won't take as much off you as before then people like you decide that it isn't fair.

But the bulk of these cuts are not going to the bulk of the population. Considerable number. The few are getting a massive benefit the many are getting a little. Average Australians should be more political aware ofamount of many going to the top end,

If most people are employed by or are the business owner/sole trader then everyone benefits by more profitable businesses. That's on top of the tax cuts everyone is getting.

You know it, but still do it anyway." yeah I know it's cheap lies and distortion but I'm going to do it anyway". It changes the nature and balance of taxation.

This is a radical and massive change to taxation. A considerable flattening and reduction in progressive nature of our tax system.

Over the last couple decades those at the higher ends have done extremely well on teh whole getting wages rises and a lot of them capital gains. Tehre has been changes in the economy which has meant the upper income earners have in general benefited a lot of the last couple of decades.

Be objectively how do you think the rich had been going the last two decades? losing ground?

These changes are just consolidated Australian society into different worlds , rich and poor. It's viscous class warfare.

I'd need you to define rich for me first, because I consider the entire population of Australia rich.

If you want a system where people will have the exact same life no matter how much education or effort or training or hard work they have put into bettering their lives, just say so. Just remember that there are about 20,000x more people who look at you with the same envy while you complain that the free healthcare, free education etc your family enjoy (paid for by those on higher income) isn't enough fairness for this nation.

 

[pugsville]

If most people are employed by or are the business owner/sole trader then everyone benefits by more profitable businesses. That's on top of the tax cuts everyone is getting.
.

Ah the trickle down crap Argument. In teh tax cuts targeted the poor, they would spend the money, creating more demand, employing people as well.

Everyone is not getting tax cuts, that statement is deceptive and misleading. Some people are getting massive tax cuts.

If you want a system where people will have the exact same life no matter how much education or effort or training or hard work they have put into bettering their lives, just say so. Just remember that there are about 20,000x more people who look at you with the same envy while you complain that the free healthcare, free education etc your family enjoy (paid for by those on higher income) isn't enough fairness for this nation.

Why is it that any argument or attmpet to sya the ruch should not be richer is immediately taken as flat socialism, totaly reductionof teh ecnomic system to total moneitary equality.

Just who has been advancing this argument? Total straw men of not relevance to the debate solely introduced to create an non existent emotion straw man. Clean up your game and bring something relevant.

As a statement of general principle do you think it's a good thing to make the rich richer and the poor poorer?


Let be clear the people who pay most of the tax also benefit greatly from society. Poor people the working poor do not benefit as much. If rich people don;y use the free state health an education systems (though less free every year) they still benefit greatly form those system. health and education bring general benefits to society, a healthier society , a better education society brings benefit to all those within society, and those benefiting the most are those at the very top. Without a healthily , educated workforce were would the material work come form to support them>? You run a business you need educated staff, healithiier people are more productive. Just because people on large incomes may not use the public education or health system does not mean they do not benefit greatly from it.. The Educated trained professionals used by the private system are generally trained in the public system too. Like public transport. You make not use it , but if do not exist those that drive cars would find commuting much harder and time consuming and the costs to society in time, pollution ,etc would be so much higher,

 

[Taylor]

As a statement of general principle do you think it's a good thing to make the rich richer and the poor poorer?

Historically? Yes.
The world you currently live in is the product of capitalist and expansionist doctrines, and it looks pretty good from the view of the western world. We could argue that the rest of the world hasn't seen as much benefit but that would require us to be mature about where we are at in the world and that tanks all the struggling poor arguments for anyone living in a western nation. It's very important to remember that when you define your group as being the underdog against the rich power it is not very far behind you that someone sees you as that same rich power - which we all are.

Why is it that any argument or attmpet to sya the ruch should not be richer is immediately taken as flat socialism, totaly reductionof teh ecnomic system to total moneitary equality.

Just who has been advancing this argument? Total straw men of not relevance to the debate solely introduced to create an non existent emotion straw man. Clean up your game and bring something relevant.

Who? You have. You say you're based in Leningrad. That's quite politically charged when you're also advocating the high incomes who already support the services of the lesser income should be paying even more.

Let be clear the people who pay most of the tax also benefit greatly from society. Poor people the working poor do not benefit as much. If rich people don;y use the free state health an education systems (though less free every year) they still benefit greatly form those system. health and education bring general benefits to society, a healthier society , a better education society brings benefit to all those within society, and those benefiting the most are those at the very top. Without a healthily , educated workforce were would the material work come form to support them>? You run a business you need educated staff, healithiier people are more productive. Just because people on large incomes may not use the public education or health system does not mean they do not benefit greatly from it.. The Educated trained professionals used by the private system are generally trained in the public system too. Like public transport. You make not use it , but if do not exist those that drive cars would find commuting much harder and time consuming and the costs to society in time, pollution ,etc would be so much higher,

Interesting that when you talk about tax cuts you use the total number of dollars no longer being taken from the small group of wealthy to make your point about them benefiting the most from it then when the situation is reversed and the lesser incomes (far more people and far more money) it's made out like it's also for their benefit.

Education and health are beneficial to the nation, that is all people. Not strictly to those who employ. Those poor people can't be considered individually benefiting from their children's education and their family's health - we are all the same there?

Ideologically I think the education and healthcare should be the same for everyone, giving everyone the chance to make what they want of themselves but once you've made your bed, it's made. You don't get to complain about someone else who worked harder, made better choices and smarter investments of their time and money having more than you as if it is unfair.

Human kind has seen the greatest lift in lifestyle in history in the last fifty years. Some people are along for the ride, some find that new way to make it better.