Society/Culture The tax system explained in beer

[geelong_crazy26]

Where would you be without daddy?

Successful. Non the less I was fortunate to have a dad who was wealthy, if you are not so fortunate than you need to make your own money.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Help I feel dirty, I agreeing with you

In all seriousness I will not be dictated to by a neo-con who wants to dismantle the things that have tried to make this a fair and equitable society all the whilst living of daddy's money

Government is suppose to do what is required liberate its people so they can live their life freely.

Government is not suppose to play the role of robin hood by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. This is called socialism.

If people come from a wealthy parents than they at benefiting from good decisions someone is their family has made who has than decided to share that money with his family. If your family is not wealthy than that is not someone else's problem and you got to get up of the couch and go and do some hard work.

 

[QuietB]

Successful. Non the less I was fortunate to have a dad who was wealthy, if you are not so fortunate than you need to make your own money.

What if I was born in a slum in India? Is it all my fault if I don't make it?

Government is suppose to do what is required liberate its people so they can live their life freely.

What on earth does that mean?

Do you need government to do everything for you or not?

 

[faible]

Well, if I were studying number theory and more specifically prime numbers, one method I might utilise is a sieve method, for example, except for the number 2 all even numbers are not prime, and therefore employing this sieve method I can ignore all even numbers when considering whether a number is prime or not. This statement, that all even numbers with the exception of the number "2" are not prime, is based on a structural characteristic of the number, this number would not pass through the sieve.

In a hierarchical society, I am looking at a similar problem, I am considering only that which can get through the sieve and through to the top, firstly, if a person cheats they are more likely to get to the top, secondly, if a person is less likely to be altruistic they will increase their chance to the top at the expense of others, thirdly, if there are laws, rules, or behaviours which favour some people over others these former people are more likely to get to the top, fourthly, if a person has a want for more than they can utilise at the expense of other people they are greedy, fifthly, if the person is a thug they are more likely to move up etc etc. The person ultimately has to possess certain characteristics to get to the top.

That's very nebulous.

So in summary;

• All people in white collar roles = greedy scum
• All people in blue collar roles = working class heroes

There's plenty of crappy people on both ends of the spectrum, and most people are self-interested (where the self also extends to relevant parties).

 

[faible]

Government is suppose to do what is required liberate its people so they can live their life freely.

Government is not suppose to play the role of robin hood by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. This is called socialism.

If people come from a wealthy parents than they at benefiting from good decisions someone is their family has made who has than decided to share that money with his family. If your family is not wealthy than that is not someone else's problem and you got to get up of the couch and go and do some hard work.

The funny thing is; your basic premises on some areas aren't that far wrong, you just seem to totally lack a grasp of reality in how you're arguing for them.

Plenty of people benefit from the success - and failures - of their parents. If you're fortunate enough to be given opportunities due to your parents, that doesn't make you therefore better, smarter, or more successful than anyone else, it makes you lucky.

Now, there's nothing wrong with being lucky, but benefiting from someone else's hard work is exactly what you're doing, yet exactly what you're arguing shouldn't happen at a societal level you do realise?

The argument that because daddy was successful somehow adds credibility to your opinion is very much false, and in all likelihood, his justifications for many of the arguments you put forward (if he were to hold similar views) would have a much firmer grasp of the reality of the world.

 

[RupieDupie]

That's very nebulous.

So in summary;

• All people in white collar roles = greedy scum
• All people in blue collar roles = working class heroes

There's plenty of crappy people on both ends of the spectrum, and most people are self-interested (where the self also extends to relevant parties).

So when I state “people on the top” you immediately think “receptionist”...

Your last paragraph demonstrates you don’t understand the sieve, if you put a poor person in front of me and asked me whether they were a piece of human garbage and I couldn’t tell, unless you gave me further information, if you put a person on the top in front of me (I’m not talking about a receptionist here...) and you asked me whether they are a piece of human garbage and I could definitively state “yes”. One reason why I could definitively state this is this person would have more money than they can possibly utilise at the expense of the other people within their own society.

 

[Bombermania]

Government is suppose to do what is required liberate its people so they can live their life freely.

Government is not suppose to play the role of robin hood by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. This is called socialism.

If people come from a wealthy parents than they at benefiting from good decisions someone is their family has made who has than decided to share that money with his family. If your family is not wealthy than that is not someone else's problem and you got to get up of the couch and go and do some hard work.

Not correct on two fronts, first in the Australian context we have never practiced socialism in the European form of socialism and the second is that the provision of welfare is one of the core functions of the federal government and has been since federation.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

What if I was born in a slum in India? Is it all my fault if I don't make it?



What on earth does that mean?

Do you need government to do everything for you or not?

People who are born in the slums of India are a matter for the Indian government, nothing to do with Australia.

Government is only suppose to wo what is needed to allow its people to live their life's freely. This means national security and law and order. Anything on top of this in an extra.

 

[sherb]

If people come from a wealthy parents than they at benefiting from good decisions someone is their family has made who has than decided to share that money with his family. If your family is not wealthy than that is not someone else's problem and you got to get up of the couch and go and do some hard work.

That's a pretty flimsy way of justifying having had things handed to you on a platter all your life.

And the easy ride you have had under no circumstances gives you the right to moralize about others as you continually do.

It would actually do you good to do it tough for a while so you can get a bit of a grasp on the real world.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

The funny thing is; your basic premises on some areas aren't that far wrong, you just seem to totally lack a grasp of reality in how you're arguing for them.

Plenty of people benefit from the success - and failures - of their parents. If you're fortunate enough to be given opportunities due to your parents, that doesn't make you therefore better, smarter, or more successful than anyone else, it makes you lucky.

Now, there's nothing wrong with being lucky, but benefiting from someone else's hard work is exactly what you're doing, yet exactly what you're arguing shouldn't happen at a societal level you do realise?

The argument that because daddy was successful somehow adds credibility to your opinion is very much false, and in all likelihood, his justifications for many of the arguments you put forward (if he were to hold similar views) would have a much firmer grasp of the reality of the world.

When parents give their children a head start in life they doing so because they choose to, a gun is not held to their heads forcing them to do so. I can guarantee that the limited number of people who carry the tax burden in this country as explained is this video are not happy to do so.

People will work hard and take risks for themselves, they will not work hard and take risks for big government.

 

[faible]

So when I state “people on the top” you immediately think “receptionist”...

Your last paragraph demonstrates you don’t understand the sieve, if you put a poor person in front of me and asked me whether they were a piece of human garbage and I couldn’t tell, unless you gave me further information, if you put a person on the top in front of me (I’m not talking about a receptionist here...) and you asked me whether they are a piece of human garbage and I could definitively state “yes”. One reason why I could definitively state this is this person would have more money than they can possibly utilise at the expense of the other people within their own society.

Again, that's a very nebulous explanation and relies on vast generalisations about people.

There's plenty of people with limited money that are terrible human beings, the same as there being plenty of wealthy people who aren't. It's a very extreme, black and white perspective to take.

Is there a dollar figure one must reach in order to be "human garbage"? Is that dollar figure as compared to the majority of the world's population, in which case all Australian's are human garbage?

Surely being able to afford the computer (or fancy smart phone) and internet access means you're human garbage along with the rest of us?

 

[Bombermania]

People who are born in the slums of India are a matter for the Indian government, nothing to do with Australia.

Government is only suppose to wo what is needed to allow its people to live their life's freely. This means national security and law and order. Anything on top of this in an extra.

Law and order is a state government responsibility wheres the federal government has five key responsibilities - the provision of welfare, immigration, trade, defense and foreign policy.

Howard added I.R but that like several areas were traditionally state government domains.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

That's a pretty flimsy way of justifying having had things handed to you on a platter all your life.

And the easy ride you have had under no circumstances gives you the right to moralize about others as you continually do.

It would actually do you good to do it tough for a while so you can get a bit of a grasp on the real world.

You are just being jealous, I suggest you take this jealousy up with your family and ask why they didn't leave you with more money.

Under my plan poor and middle income people will be better off, you cant have high wages and high taxes at the same time.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Law and order is a state government responsibility wheres the federal government has five key responsibilities - the provision of welfare, immigration, trade, defense and foreign policy.

Howard added I.R but that like several areas were traditionally state government domains.

Government has a role to play but outside of law and order and national security the ultimate responsibility belongs to the individual.

 

[faible]

When parents give their children a head start in life they doing so because they choose to, a gun is not held to their heads forcing them to do so. I can guarantee that the limited number of people who carry the tax burden in this country as explained is this video are not happy to do so.

People will work hard and take risks for themselves, they will not work hard and take risks for big government.

None of this addresses you benefiting from the hard work of someone else and yet also railing against other people benefiting from the hard work of someone else.

I think you'd find many people are quite OK with the concept of taxation, and the provision of various fundamental basics that are provided as a product of taxation, as part of making for a livable society.

What do you think should be provided outside of national security or law & order?

 

[sherb]

You are just being jealous, I suggest you take this jealousy up with your family and ask why they didn't leave you with more money.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

None of this addresses you benefiting from the hard work of someone else and yet also railing against other people benefiting from the hard work of someone else.

I think you'd find many people are quite OK with the concept of taxation, and the provision of various fundamental basics that are provided as a product of taxation, as part of making for a livable society.

What do you think should be provided outside of national security or law & order?

If your parents don't have much money than they cant give you much money , what do you want me to say? take it up with your parents or find someone else to give you lots of money if that's what your after.

People understand there is a need to pay tax however they are not going to be motivated to work hard and take risks by paying tax. This is why socialism has always failed.

Government should spend money on welfare ,health and education but that level of spending needs to be cut.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

This is not something I would like to do personally but for all you who say that we need to keep our current levels of government spending, how do you feel about the fact that 50% of working age adults just pay 2% of all income tax in Australia ? do you want these people to pay more ?

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Successful. Non the less I was fortunate to have a dad who was wealthy, if you are not so fortunate than you need to make your own money.

You can barely write and you're clearly a terrible human. Parking inspector would be your upper limit if you had to survive on your wits.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

You can barely write and you're clearly a terrible human. Parking inspector would be your upper limit if you had to survive on your wits.

If my ideas for a small government were implemented than the quality of life for the working and middle class would be improved.

 

[QuietB]

People who are born in the slums of India are a matter for the Indian government, nothing to do with Australia.

Government is only suppose to wo what is needed to allow its people to live their life's freely. This means national security and law and order. Anything on top of this in an extra.

Daddy is either a real estate agent or a car salesman. Or maybe an AMP financial advisor.

Your use of the word “life’s” has ruled out ambulance chasing lawyer.

ps. Is sounds like anything resembling civilisation is an extra

 

[Tassieboy]

Socialism does nothing for the poor and has always failed. At the moment we live in a country were 80% of a person income tax goes towards welfare, this is socialism.

If you want people on low incomes to get higher wages and you want lower costs of living than you need to lower taxes and government expenditure.

Our tax system creates all sorts of ridiculous incentive distortions to appease the lefty pen pushers.

We almost own our house so we don’t have huge expenses. Instead of whinging and whining we will soon each just work part-time, taking up little more than the tax free threshold. Depending on how far we go over the tax-free threshold, we will only pay $1-2k each in income tax. We will also get about $8k in FTB for our soon to be born daughter for choosing to do little work. We don’t have an extravagant lifestyle, and Shorten reckons he will look after low income earning with reduced taxes, so we can become ‘low income earners’ too, working a couple of days a week.

If we save for retirement we are just taking on market risk and making ourselves invalid for the pension/health card. So we will probably just make sure we spend our money (leaving us the max asset test limit) before pension age (if there is one) or we could just buy a bigger house.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Daddy is either a real estate agent or a car salesman. Or maybe an AMP financial advisor.

Your use of the word “life’s” has ruled out ambulance chasing lawyer.

ps. Is sounds like anything resembling civilisation is an extra

Don't you understand socialism has failed each and every single time ?

Look you have 2 options.

1.Big taxes and big government spending
OR
2.High wages and low costs of living

You can have one but not both.

 

[QuietB]

Don't you understand socialism has failed each and every single time ?

Look you have 2 options.

1.Big taxes and big government spending
OR
2.High wages and low costs of living

You can have one but not both.

Which utopia has this been successful in?

Or if no one has done it, who got closest?

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Which utopia has this been successful in?

Or if no one has done it, who got closest?

What is your question ?

A utopia does not exist and never will, nature doesn't work that way. However you just need to look at the quality of life in eastern Europe compared to western Europe or countries in Asia who adopted communism compared to those who adopted capitalism.