- Mar 16, 2002
- 21,726
- 13,437
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #126
Did I mention Norway's Unemployment level???
Society/Culture This Country Beats France
- Thread starter nut
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Did I mention Norway's Unemployment level???
Family history is early 1800s from Ireland/Scotland. Not sure how that is relevant.
I know how to lodge a tax return, I'm an accountant.
You need to update your knowledge of the tax system. You do realise that the principle of negative gearing is that you must LOSE money to offset your other earnings, in order to reduce your tax.
In your example, if I earn 80K per year, and I don't want to pay income tax, then I need to LOSE 80K per year through borrowing/investment ?
What has that got to do with Australian manufacturing competing with Asian manufacturing ?
- Mar 16, 2002
- 21,726
- 13,437
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #128
Why do we have to compete with Asia? Why can't we compete against high tech countries? Why is it that we are no longer the leaders in Solar energy??? because we spent the Howard years trying to compete with Asia and ignoring investing in high tech industries.
If you try to compete with Asia you will be on $2 a day
Norwegians arent trying to compete with Asia
Norway
Population
4,660,539 (July 2009 est.)
Population growth rate
0.341% (2009 est.)
National product real growth rate
2.6% (2008 est.)
6% (2007 est.)
4.4% (2006 est.)
GDP - per capita (PPP)
$59,300 (2008 est.)
$58,000 (2007 est.)
$54,900 (2006 est.)
note: data are in 2008 US dollars
Unemployment rate
2.6% (2008 est.)
2.5% (2007 est.)
Inflation rate (consumer prices)
3.8% (2008 est.)
0.8% (2007 est.)
Exports
$168.8 billion (2008 est.)
$137.3 billion (2007 est.)
Imports
$85.99 billion (2008 est.)
$77.03 billion (2007 est.)
Telephones - mobile cellular
5.192 million (2007)
Internet users
3.8 million (2007)
Finished in 1996 ? I'm not advocating no/reduced government funding of higher education, so what is your point ?
Uni was not free when I attended either.
You don't have to if you don't want to, you can just concede that we are not as cost efficient as Asia and leave it there if you want. I have no problem with that. Just don't complain when many blue collar industries disappear.
Keating was the architect of lowering tarrifs. If you want to talk about competing with Asia, you should start there. And by the way, it was a very good thing that we did.
Fine, don't try to compete with Asia then. I won't mind a bit. See point above about job losses for low income earners.
Consulted an atlas lately ?
Norway doesn't have low cost manufacturing in its region. Which is one of the primary reasons for the high cost of living in Europe in general, and Norway specifically.
Luck is far more pervasive than that. It's entirely possible that the reason you got into university/got your job hinged on something as trivial as what tie you were wearing rather than how hard you worked.
I'm certain you didn't teach yourself to read. It's very lucky you were born in a country with such a high literacy rate, otherwise your studying and hard work would mean nothing. I imagine you went to a public school, so by your logic you owe the government for teaching you to read and that's what your taxes are.
After some of the stories I've heard over the years, it wouldn't surprise me if this is entirely possible (though it would be rare).
My point is that if I shared the views of my family on university education, I would not have studied, not gone to university, not joined the profession I have today. Maybe I would have commenced a trade, and won lotto, and been filthy rich. Or maybe I would have been poor, or died in a workplace incident. Who knows.
I am aware of random chance in life, but I don't believe in fate, or that getting accepted into university, or my job was a result of the colour of my tie. If I didn't have the work ethic, and will to study, I would never have had a job interview for my current job, and it therefore wouldn't have mattered what colour ties I owned.
I do think that there is a good correlation between education, career choice and income that can't be explained totally by luck.
Agree, lucky to be born into Australia. Would be very difficult to do the things I do if I was born into a poor family in Somalia. Won't argue with that.
I realise my public education was paid for by taxes. I have never argued against government funding of education. Don't see why you or nut have raised this as a point.
I am an accountant, not a tax accountant, but an accountant nonetheless. I have two friends who are tax accountants, who know every tax loophole there is. I have seen their tax returns and they pay substantial amounts of tax every year, despite minimising tax to the maximum extent allowable by the law.
Don't confuse legal tax minimisation with people who outright cheat on their tax return. The latter category definitely isn't confined to the rich, although the impact on tax revenue is greater when they do it, compared to when low income earners do.
It would be easier to respond if you learnt how to quote properly.
And how would the government cope if its pension fund investment dropped like that? Just as many problems. If it was paid to people then they would not save for their retirement and that would cause far greater issues.
Their revenues are not higher because it is state owned. The country has higher revenue because its export income per capita from natural resources is far higher than ours, as previously explained.
Ah… no!
Which works for a minority, but probably not for the majority once you factor in higher taxes and higher costs.
Again you resort to a weak strawman tactic.
I do think that there is a good correlation between education, career choice and income that can't be explained totally by luck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmad87
I'm certain you didn't teach yourself to read. It's very lucky you were born in a country with such a high literacy rate, otherwise your studying and hard work would mean nothing. I imagine you went to a public school, so by your logic you owe the government for teaching you to read and that's what your taxes are.
Agree, lucky to be born into Australia. Would be very difficult to do the things I do if I was born into a poor family in Somalia. Won't argue with that.
I realise my public education was paid for by taxes. I have never argued against government funding of education. Don't see why you or nut have raised this as a point.
Yes, but you've said time and again in this thread that the poor are selfish, don't deserve the benefit of taxes, are lazy etc. It has become increasingly apparent that this view is coloured strongly by your upbringing.
Rich people do not work harder than poor people. There are lazy rich people and extremely hard working poor people. When it isn't due to inheritance and the advantages of having a rich family, rich people are generally rich because they are more intelligent than poor people.
So taxing the rich is just taking from those who have been lucky enough to have the system work for them and giving it back to people who have been unlucky enough not to be blessed with intelligence, rich parents, good luck etc.
Sure there are always going to be freeloaders, just as there are always going to be corrupt politicians, greedy bankers, rapists and murderers. But that's life and those people are not the majority.
I was responding to nut's assertion that the middle and upper class were selfish. I responded by rightly pointing out that it is the middle and high income earners who provide the quality of life that the working class enjoy, including higher wages than what would exist if not for the extortionate minimum wage, universal healthcare and education, subsidisation of blue collar industries by government bailouts.
I think it is a little hypocritical to accuse those who fund this welfare of being selfish, when those who scream loudest for the government to look after them contribute the least to society and the economy. My view is not 'coloured', but influenced by my upbringing, and by my observations of the working class over time.
Yes, I have been lucky to be born into a country which allows one to get out of the poverty/welfare trap, through proper funding of public education and healthcare. The means to avoid being dependent upon the government is there to use, no excuse if you don't. I am neither a believer in equality of outcome, or equality of opportunity. I am a believer that there must be some minimum standard of opportunity, to allow someone, like myself, to break the dependence upon government assistance. And that is an economic argument, not a social justice argument.
I do not wish to change this system, but I also did not go around accusing those who funded this opportunity of being selfish at the expense of the working class.
No doubt there are lazy rich people, and hard working poor people. But in general, it is indisputable that the harder you work, and the more you educate yourself, the higher your income will be. And intelligence is a behaviour, not a randomly allocated gift. Aside from the disabled, we are all given a brain, how well it functions is up to the individual.
You seem to attribute a lot to luck, rather than hard work. I hope you do not use this as an excuse for any poor fortune that may have befallen you. Regardless of how fortunate someone is to accumulate wealth, that does not grant the government the right to arbitrarily allocate a portion of it to someone else, due to their needs. That is socialism at its worst. If you want to argue that such a transfer of wealth has economic benefits to society, in the form of reduced crime, lower insurance, etc, then that is an argument I can live with, but not for any socialist objectives of penalising the productive to reward the unproductive.
Maybe not the majority, but still far too great a proportion of society see the government's role to be to take care of them, when this was never the intention of the creation of government, in this country at least. Unfortunately, over time democracies have a habit of awarding greater and greater entitlements to society, leading to dependence. You only need to look at the unmitigated disaster that is the US, and wonder how it is going to get itself out of the mess it is in, which only gets worse by the day.
This is patently false. It must be very convenient to ignore facts when they don't suit your political opinion.
I actually have in general been quite fortunate and have often told people who congratulate me on any success I have that it is really just good luck.
The government has the right to arbitrarily do whatever it wants with your tax because you owe them for everything they've done for you.
Political opinion ? You wouldn't know what my politics are, you just assume.
You think intelligence is born ? It is not.
I am happy to contribute a reasonable share of my earnings to allow others to get the same opportunities I had, to reduce government dependence. As said, this is an economic justification, not a social justice argument. But to suggest that the government can arbitrarily take whatever it wants ? Pffft, maybe cold-war Russia was more your kind of thing, rather than a mostly free economy like Australia. Thankfully, successive governments on both sides of politics have correctly reduced income taxes to decrease this burden on society. In any case, I have long since re-paid any "debt" you may think I owe.
The government has given me the opportunity to get on with my life, and nothing more. I have capitalised on the opportunities afforded me, and not wasted them like many others. If the government is solely responsible for those who make a success of the system, then, by your argument, it is also responsible for all the failures too.
I prefer the personal responsibility model. You can't blame anyone for your misfortune then.
Low cost manufacturing doesnt have to be in your region,they put their products on boats.( I think you will find most of eastern europe is pretty low cost and in their region though.) Norway dont compete because they are a high wage country that produces premium goods that dont compete on price with inferior asian/eastern european goods.
They seem to do OK out of that policy too dont you think?
Yes, there are boats, but have a look at that atlas and see the route that has to be taken to get cheap cars, electronic goods from Asia to Europe, or the regions to be passed if rail is used. Then consider the enormous cost of transportation and you begin to understand why Europe has little access to low cost manufacturing like we, Asia, the Pacific, and the east coast of the Americas do. Have a look at the principal export markets of China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan, and you won't find much in the way of European nations among their top trading partners.
Eastern Europe is cheaper than Western Europe but is not comparable to Asia. Eastern Europe has also suffered inflation, and is getting more expensive too.
Norway don't compete because they don't have to. Despite what others have said here, a massive part of Norway's wealth is derived from its natural resources, oil in particular. Compare their GDP per capita to their neighbours Sweden, Finland and Denmark and note the huge differential.
Given the earlier transportation barriers, much of Europe is not really competing with Asian goods. This is a factor in the high European cost of living. Also, Norway has high tarriffs on its local agricultural markets, further exacerbating the high cost of living.
Norway does very well for its size, but like Australia, it will be interesting to see how they go if their resources begin to deplete. Years of expensive prices, high taxation, and little other competitive industry will test their market philosophies. That could be a few decades off yet though.
Yes it is. You can't just wake up one day and decide to be smarter. Sure you can read a few books, enroll in a TAFE/university course etc which will increase your knowledge, but it's not going to make you smarter.
They are rich and dont need cheap crap but they could afford the transportation costs if they wanted too.
They dont compete because they arent into competing with low wage countrys.We have more resources per head of population the major difference is ours is foriegn owned.
I dont think any one is exaceberated in Norway because they cant get a low tarriff Chinese TV or a Cheap Korean car I am sure they have the high wages to buy a German or Japaneese TV and A German Car and are happy to pay a little extra to eat French Cheese.
It would have been interesting if we had owned our own resources and invested it like the Norwegians did.It will be even more interesting to see the US have to maintain its philosophy of capitalism while state ownership is rife in the banking and auto industry,what do you think of there market philosophies being tested?
It isn't a matter of them not being able to afford the transportation costs, it is that the goods are no longer cost competitive, with respect to European made goods, once transportation costs and tarriffs are added.
We in the Asia Pacific region have an advantage in keeping our cost of living low due to having low cost manufacturing on our doorstep.
They don't attempt to compete because they generate the vast majority of their export income from oil, not manufacturing.
And our resources are NOT foreign owned.
And yet if they had the option to buy cheap goods, their cost of living would be lower, and they could save and invest the difference. How is that not an improvement in their financial wellbeing ?
Don't know what you are talking about with our resources being foreign owned, that is just crap.
The US likes to spruke that it is a capitalistic society, but the fact is it is anything but these days. State ownership of the banking and auto industries is a disgrace, and an utter waste of taxpayer money.
No-one is advocating copying the US system here.
You miss the point - higher transport costs means higher cost goods, which makes them less competitive.
They don't compete because they're not focussed on export-oriented manufactures. That's because they don't need to because they have oil revenue. Other countries, like Germany, do have export-oriented goods.
Our natural resources are not foreign owned. They're listed on the stock market and Australians can invest in them.
And the word is "countries"not "countrys".
I think you mean exasperated. Their take-home pay adjusted for cost of living is much the same as ours. So their ability to spend on non-essentials is not as good as you think.
We do own our resources. You and anyone else can invest directly in them and reap the benefit directly in your pocket, which you can choose to invest or spend. The government also benefits from the natural resources industry, which supplements its budgeted revenue.
There is a world of difference between ownership of the companies that do the mining, and the actual ownership of the resources themselves.
- Mar 16, 2002
- 21,726
- 13,437
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #148
Similar threads
