Theseventhhamster
Brownlow Medallist
Yep. Lolzers at the "small government" types pretending that being a campaigner is a legit economic stance. You're going to get eaten.
Society/Culture The tax system explained in beer
- Thread starter geelong_crazy26
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Nuggs Bunny
Moderator
Essendon Player Sponsor 2024 - Archie Perkins and Nic Martin
Essendon Player Sponsor 2023 - Archie Perkins and Nic Martin
Essendon Player Sponsor 2022 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Essendon Player Sponsor 2021 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Essendon Player Sponsor 2020 - Orazio Fantasia, Anthony McDonald Tipungwuti, Shaun McKernan
- Moderator
- #127
Unless you can explain how paying for other people's beer actually improves the environment that you drink your own beer in, if not allowing you to even buy your own beer in the first place, then this argument will only ever tell an extremely small fraction of the story.
OP should go and have a beer in Somalia. It's a free market, definitely not socialist, so there should be nothing to worry about
OP should go and have a beer in Somalia. It's a free market, definitely not socialist, so there should be nothing to worry about
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
I noticed there was still no mention on pulling back on negative gearing.... Shocked.
- Thread starter
- #129
China has a GDP per capita which is ranked number 106 in the world at $16,600 per person which is worse than Iraq at 103.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
The quality of life for most in china is not up to first world standard.
When Trump talks about china and others beating the US he is talking about the US having a trade deficit with those countries.
- Thread starter
- #131
When you only factor in how much tax people pay who are in the working age, so adults and children excluded this is what you get.
This is a ranking of how much tax the top 10% pay all the way down to the bottom 10%
10- 52%
9- 19%
8- 13%
7- 8%
6- 5%
5- 2%
4- 0%
3- 0%
2- 0%
1- 0%
The top end pay more than their fair share.
Attachments
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
Also work for the dole is a waste of time. I'm assuming this is what is meant by great mutual obligations.
My old man worked for the CES in the 70's and there was a trial of this. It was a disaster. Ended up fielding tons of phone calls from disgruntled employers who had been convinced to sign up for this pissed off they had blokes on site who clearly didn't want to be there.
Most people on the dole are off it pretty quickly so they wouldn't even be required to do work for the dole. The vast majority who are on it "full time" just don't want to work. As annoying as it can be, the easiest thing is to just give them their $270 a week (or whatever it is) and just let them be. Trying to force them to work just leads to the above situation. It's no good for anyone.
The "dole bludger" is such an easy target for conservatives but it's such a small minute percentage of the population it's not even worth worrying about. You're talking about maybe 1 to 1.5% of the population.
My old man worked for the CES in the 70's and there was a trial of this. It was a disaster. Ended up fielding tons of phone calls from disgruntled employers who had been convinced to sign up for this pissed off they had blokes on site who clearly didn't want to be there.
Most people on the dole are off it pretty quickly so they wouldn't even be required to do work for the dole. The vast majority who are on it "full time" just don't want to work. As annoying as it can be, the easiest thing is to just give them their $270 a week (or whatever it is) and just let them be. Trying to force them to work just leads to the above situation. It's no good for anyone.
The "dole bludger" is such an easy target for conservatives but it's such a small minute percentage of the population it's not even worth worrying about. You're talking about maybe 1 to 1.5% of the population.
Upgrayedd
A Vote for Clive is a Vote for Justice
People have used that excuse to me 4 times in 8 years. Im calling absolute bullshit
- Thread starter
- #134
Norway is not a socialist country, it still provides capitalist freedom.
It is a country that has high top tax brackets and high government spending. It also has a debt that is out of control so their current model will have to change.
They also are a country with a population of 5 million people, they are very homogeneous population, have a strong work ethic and are resource rich country. This does not accept maybe for being a resource rich country apply to Australia.
Norway is also a country that accepts mediocrity and totally sponges of the US for innovation and security.
- Thread starter
- #135
Who do you want to pay more tax in this country ?
If you look at how much tax working age people pay in this country you will find the top end pay way too much.
This is how much the top 10% pay in this country all the way down to the bottom 10%.
10- 52%
9- 19%
8- 13%
7- 8%
6- 5%
5- 2%
4- 0%
3- 0%
2- 0%
1- 0%
https://theconversation.com/factche...ia-paid-by-10-of-the-working-population-45229
- Thread starter
- #136
No the easiest thing is to actually just take the dole of them and make life as hard as can be. If they commit a crime than they will suffer the penalty for it.
The left need to understand if you want people to do something good such as invest lost of money and create jobs than you need to offer an incentive such as tax cuts. If you want to stop people from doing something bad you also need to offer deterrent such as taking the dole away from people who don't look for work.
Make life tougher for these people and they will get the message.
How much does each group of 10% earn?
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
People who are doing it tough don't think of consequences down the track. That is the reality of the situation. I know you have some sort of Utopian vision where good decisions and hard work are a guarantee to lift someone out of poverty but that is not how it works.
It's worth pointing out my old man is a staunch conservative and was fully supporting of work for the dole during his time at the CES. Until it become clear during the implementation that it just doesn't work. It was a nightmare to manage and it wasn't beneficial to the employers who thought they were getting cheap labour. You can legislate for people to turn up for work for the dole, but you can't legislate them to be enthusiastic or good at what they've been assigned. And having people in an organisation who clearly don't want to be there has a killing affect on morale of those around them - even if it's something as mundane as packing boxes for a clothing company. Any employer who signs up for work for the dole is being very foolish.
In my early to mid 20's I did a fair bit of volunteering at various shelters and what not whilst living in Melbourne. Coming from a wealthy conservative family it really opened my eyes to how it's not all skittles and beers for a lot of people. It was a transformative few years and really changed my outlook on life for the better. I'd suggest you look to do the same. You'll really see how things are on the ground.
Outside of sucking from the family teat you mean, right?
- Thread starter
- #142
I don't know, but whatever each group earns it is their money. What on earth thinks you are entitled to someone else's money ?
The arrogance of the left is unbelievable.
sherb
Hall of Famer
You said this:
"We have a large government deficit and debt so we have no choice but to reduce expenditure."
That's blatantly untrue, bordering on deliberate lying and misinformation on your part.
Because we still have the choice to address the revenue side. It's just that you don't like the idea.
- Thread starter
- #144
8th richest nation in the world
They are not a socialist country and they cant keep on going on with their current levels of spending.
They are rich because they have a population of 5 million people, are homogenous, have a strong work ethic and are resource rich.
How rich do you think Australia would be if we had a population that was just 5 million people, homogenous and had a super strong work ethic ?
- Thread starter
- #145
We do have that choice but it would a bad choice. I like to make good choices, that's how my dad became wealthy and how I will increase that wealth even further . I also want to see Australia become wealthy by making a good choices.
The only tax we can possible increase is the GST, however given the relative high costs of living I don't like that option either but it would be the only way to increase tax revenue by any meaningful amount.
- Thread starter
- #146
I don't want to make life worse for the poor or middle class. However I don't agree that big government is the answer which seems to be where you and I disagree. If I could wave a wand and make life better for the poor I would do it.
With regards to people on the dole are you seriously suggesting that the dole should be a legitimate option for people ? Should people simply be able to choose to go and stay on the dole with no strings attached ?
This is just an ideological positon destined for disaster , the number of people on the dole will just explode especially with younger people. I am sorry but if you are an individual that doesn't have an intellectual disability you are capable of understanding that if you go on the dole you have to look for work.
Work for the dole serves as a deterrent for people to get of the dole and into work, that's why it is needed.
No, but if they earn 80% of all money earned and only pay 52% of the tax you'd say they're not paying their way or their share.
Let's face it, taxation is the price paid for living in a civilized society. I don't agree with some of the junk our governments seem to piss money away on (Workplace Gender Equality Agency for example) but I'd rather live where I do and pay the tax that I pay compared to what many around the world have to deal with.
The government could increase any tax they want to. This is such a BS statement.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
I'm going to assume we have differing views on big government. I think the level of government we see now in Australia and most European countries is roughly about right, give or take.
One thing I think everyone can agree on is it would be nice to cut down on government wastage.
This is so far from the truth it's not funny.
There are barely any strings attached to the dole now and there is hardly an "explosion" of younger people on the dole. The unemployment rate has hovered around 5-6% for the last 20 years with the only significant change just after the GFC.
Very few people actually want to be on the dole. Living on the dole is a nightmare for most people. Most of those who go on to the dole are off it within six months and roughly three quarters within a year. These are people who are looking for work.
The rest are what you would typically call "dole bludgers" who are long term dole recipients and the main targets of "work for the dole". But this is such a small percentage of society it's not even worth worrying about. It compromises about 1 to 1.5 of the overall population. Some people have made a decision to check out of society, either through choice or because life has thrown them a ton of problems they just can't overcome.
Your point about understanding that if you go on the dole you have to look for work is moot. This is already a thing. I don't know how strigintely it's enforced.
Better of putting more resources into finding work for those on newstart who genuinely want to work, and for those don't ensure they have what they need to survive.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
If you really want to help balance the government's books a Universal Basic Income to replace the majority of the current welfare system is the best way forward.
Provided the difference between taxes raised and welfare paid out remained the same, then the financials are in the same position then there is plenty of money to be saved by cutting out the bureaucracy of managing the welfare system.
The obvious retort is won't it discourage people from working but the UBI would be pretty much roughly equivalent to newstart. Once again - very few people want to live on $270 a week.
It would increase taxes (which is heart attack materials for most) but it's almost all circular tax anyway.
Provided the difference between taxes raised and welfare paid out remained the same, then the financials are in the same position then there is plenty of money to be saved by cutting out the bureaucracy of managing the welfare system.
The obvious retort is won't it discourage people from working but the UBI would be pretty much roughly equivalent to newstart. Once again - very few people want to live on $270 a week.
It would increase taxes (which is heart attack materials for most) but it's almost all circular tax anyway.
Similar threads
