Society/Culture This Country Beats France

[nut]

Governments do not have money.

REALLY... the Norwegian Government has plenty...

They only hold onto taxpayer money - so if they don't borrow their only other option is tax.

Yes we need to pay TAX to pay for the services we want our Government to supply.

You are right to some degree. Value add is necessary. Pure manufacturing is difficult. We do need to do more, but emulating an enormous sovereign wealth fund is not it.

Government may as well just raise it directly from the market.

Super is not TAX??? Super has taken away the governments responsibility to supply people with an income once Retired. To me it's the same thing... The Norwegian Government gives the responsibility to the NORGE BANK to invest the peoples money, as opposed to our super schemes which milk os dry with fees.

At the end of the day isn't our 9% super contributions a TAX?? Why couldn't the government collect this "TAX" and invest it like the successful Norwegian model?

 

[nut]

It's arguable whether they are doing better than any country on earth.

Hmmmm... REAL debt free... and a War chest that just keeps getting bigger.
I love how people still argue that it's because they have the Oil... yes lots of private companies benefit from the oil industry so that would help the economy. But only a small proportion of the surplus from (%4) of the fund is used by the government. Te rest is Banked... and invested.

 

[DeanoT]

Super has taken away the governments responsibility to supply people with an income once Retired.

It's not the governments responsibility to provide you with an income when retired, it is your responsibility.

Hmmmm... REAL debt free... and a War chest that just keeps getting bigger.
I love how people still argue that it's because they have the Oil... yes lots of private companies benefit from the oil industry so that would help the economy. But only a small proportion of the surplus from (%4) of the fund is used by the government. Te rest is Banked... and invested.

$475.9 Bn in external debt isn't exactly debt free.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publica...orway&countryCode=no&regionCode=eu&rank=22#no

 

[nut]

What about Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Liechtenstein, Belgium, Luxembourg, Monte Carlo. And they haven't benefited from massive oil revenues.

Yes and how many times do you have to be told.... Norway banks it's revenue and only uses %4 of it's surplus.

Australia could be in exactly the same position if not in a better position. We have more naturaly wealth than they have. Arguing that Norway's position is not a good one is futile... To say otherwise is like wanting a situation like Hurricane Katrina to happen here. Do we want to reduce our living standards? if so WHY? why dont we want to secure everyone's future... not just those that can invest well. Why dont we want to protect our standard of living??? Why do we want to reduce our living standards so we can Compete with third world countries living standards???

Norway has low unemployment, High Taxes which pays for strong welfare system to keep it's standard of living. You pay for what you get.... pay less tax and you risk lowering our living standards. You onky have to look as far as asia which has ow tax and extremely low living standards for the poor..... do we want that?

I'd love to see what the figures were comparing Welfare payments per-capita combined with per capita of Law enforcement , security companies etc... then compare the total cost of Norway and the US.

I'd say Norway would pay less.

 

[DeanoT]

Yes and how many times do you have to be told.... Norway banks it's revenue and only uses %4 of it's surplus.

Australia could be in exactly the same position if not in a better position. We have more naturaly wealth than they have. Arguing that Norway's position is not a good one is futile... To say otherwise is like wanting a situation like Hurricane Katrina to happen here. Do we want to reduce our living standards? if so WHY? why dont we want to secure everyone's future... not just those that can invest well. Why dont we want to protect our standard of living??? Why do we want to reduce our living standards so we can Compete with third world countries living standards???

Norway has low unemployment, High Taxes which pays for strong welfare system to keep it's standard of living. You pay for what you get.... pay less tax and you risk lowering our living standards. You onky have to look as far as asia which has ow tax and extremely low living standards for the poor..... do we want that?

I'd love to see what the figures were comparing Welfare payments per-capita combined with per capita of Law enforcement , security companies etc... then compare the total cost of Norway and the US.

I'd say Norway would pay less.

Seeing as your so passionate about Norway, why don't you run for office and change the way the country is run ?

 

[nut]

It's not the governments responsibility to provide you with an income when retired, it is your responsibility.



$475.9 Bn in external debt isn't exactly debt free.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publica...orway&countryCode=no&regionCode=eu&rank=22#no

As of 30 September 2009 its total value is NOK 2.549 trillion ($455 billion)[2], holding 0.77 per cent of global equity markets.[3] With 1.25 per cent of European stocks,[4] it is said to be the largest stock owner in Europe.

I'd say thats pretty close....

 

[nut]

Seeing as your so passionate about Norway, why don't you run for office and change the way the country is run ?

Run for "Office".... the states are too screwed or did you mean Australian Politics.
I'd have to change how people think first.... and with the attitudes of greed and the "look after my self" type thinking that is threaded into the middle and upper class of Australia it would take generations.... or a complete failure of the present system.

 

[DeanoT]

I'd say thats pretty close....

$455bn - $475bn = neg $20bn. So much for a 'war chest'.

Run for "Office".... the states are too screwed.
I'd have to change how people think first.... and with the attitudes of greed and the "look after my self" type thinking that is threaded into the middle and upper class of Australia it would take generations.... or a complete failure of the present system.

Hilarious that you identify the middle and upper class as selfish. The working class is the most selfish class of all. Pay absolutely bugger all in income tax, and expect the world in government services. They are a net drain on the economy, and somehow the most productive classes of society are the selfish.

The middle and upper class already subsidise the lives of the working and welfare classes to an extraordinary degree. That you want them to contribute more only highlights the greed of such thinking.

 

[nut]

$455bn - $475bn = neg $20bn. So much for a 'war chest'.



Hilarious that you identify the middle and upper class as selfish. The working class is the most selfish class of all. Pay absolutely bugger all in income tax, and expect the world in government services. They are a net drain on the economy, and somehow the most productive of society are the selfish.

The middle and upper class already subsidise the lives of the working and welfare classes to an extraordinary degree. That you want them to contribute more only highlights the greed of such thinking.

If you are smart in Australia and you earn more than the average wage than you have the ability to pay zero income tax because of negative gearing etc... low income workers dont have that luxary because they need every cent to pay for it's living and there for pay arguably a higher percentage of TAX compared to income.

I used to hate the GST.... now I think it's a better tax because it's un-avoidable.

It's a bit rich to complain that low income workers are a drain on the economy when your investments are probably benefiting from this low level of pay. I love the cry of "we have to become more competitive"...ie. reduce workers conditions, then complain that these same workers a burden on society by increasing crime and relying on welfare.

Where is your social conscience? thats right "I look after my self".

 

[nut]

$455bn - $475bn = neg $20bn. So much for a 'war chest'.

well it's a lot better than %90 of the world...

 

[DeanoT]

If you are smart in Australia and you earn more than the average wage than you have the ability to pay zero income tax because of negative gearing etc

Garbage. If the middle and upper class are all negative gearing to the point that they pay zero income tax, then where does the government get its tax revenues from ? It sure doesn't collect $250bn per annum from the working class.

... low income workers dont have that luxary because they need every cent to pay for it's living and there for pay arguably a higher percentage of TAX compared to income.

More lies. I am a product of the welfare/working class. It is easy to get yourself out of it, but it requires an aptitude for work, and a willingness to rid yourself of the self-fulfilling "glory of the working class" motto.

I used to hate the GST.... now I think it's a better tax because it's un-avoidable.

The introduction of the GST and associated tax cuts has hurt low income earners and benefited middle and upper income earners. How you could come to the opposite conclusion is unfathomable. Low income earners spend all of their income, meaning they are most affected by the GST. Higher income earners spend less of their total income, and therefore banked much of their tax cuts.

It's a bit rich to complain that low income workers are a drain on the economy when your investments are probably benefiting from this low level of pay. I love the cry of "we have to become more competitive"...ie. reduce workers conditions, then complain that these same workers a burden on society by increasing crime and relying on welfare.

Where is your social conscience? thats right "I look after my self".

The working class contribute little in the way of tax revenue, but consume (at least) the same amount of government services as any other person. They are a negative net contributor to the tax pool. The government then bails out industries in which the working class are employed (car manufacturing, primary producers, textiles, clothing, etc). This bailout money comes from tax revenue provided by middle/high income earners.

Then the consumer, you, I and everyone else pays higher prices for locally manufactured items, costing us all once again. The "worker" is subsidised so many times, over and over again, and yet you claim that middle to high income earners only look out for themselves. You have a funny view of reality.

The fact is that successful increases in the minimum wage in this country has killed manufacturing to the point that the working class are finding their industries dying before their eyes. It's not the middle and upper class joining the unemployment queue each week.

The greed of the working class in demanding higher and higher wages, more and more government services and asking higher income earners to subsidise their standard of living is classic "me, me, me". You want to see selfishness, take a photo of the working class, the most greedy of all. Want something for nothing, or the rich to pay for it for them.

It's an ugly class. As I said, I grew up seeing it first hand. I know how the working class think, and it is pitiful that people have such attitudes in a country like Australia. Watch new migrants to this country (especially Asians), and see how they complain about nothing, get on with working their buts off, make plenty of $$$, all the while the working class complain about them taking their jobs.

 

[placebo]

Run for "Office".... the states are too screwed or did you mean Australian Politics.
I'd have to change how people think first.... and with the attitudes of greed and the "look after my self" type thinking that is threaded into the middle and upper class of Australia it would take generations.... or a complete failure of the present system.

And whats wrong with this type of thinking? Why shouldn't people look after themselves?

 

[medusala]

Where is your social conscience? thats right "I look after my self".

Presumably you are against scrapping the min wage, unfair dismissal etc in order that more people are able to be employed.

 

[pmad87]

It's not the governments responsibility to provide you with an income when retired, it is your responsibility.

I'm not so sure about this. I mean by all means if you want to take responsibility for it then you should be able to. But id say a lot of people who aren't overly familiar with investment and perhaps in lower skilled work would expect that after a lifetime of hard work, their society gives them something back. And this is what happens, through the 9% super contribution. (Though I still think more should be done to protect people form exorbitant fees). You're not saying we should abolish the 9% contribution and just give everyone the cash now and tell them to do what they want are you?

The greed of the working class in demanding higher and higher wages, more and more government services and asking higher income earners to subsidise their standard of living is classic "me, me, me". You want to see selfishness, take a photo of the working class, the most greedy of all. Want something for nothing, or the rich to pay for it for them.

It's an ugly class. As I said, I grew up seeing it first hand. I know how the working class think, and it is pitiful that people have such attitudes in a country like Australia. Watch new migrants to this country (especially Asians), and see how they complain about nothing, get on with working their buts off, make plenty of $$$, all the while the working class complain about them taking their jobs.

I reckon I can find people who are just as greedy if not more so on Wall St.

But DeanoT I would like to hear where you draw the line between what's freely chosen by a person and what is determined for him. It sounds like you got out of a working class life and made improvements. I'm sure it must feel good to think you did ALL BY YOURSELF but I wouldn't be surprised if sheer luck played a role as well.

I'm not anti-capitalist especially; I generally sit on the fence, but I find it interesting that capitalism cheerleaders are forever ignoring luck and claiming that "I did it ALL MYSELF" and "everyone who didn't, it's their own fault!"

And whats wrong with this type of thinking? Why shouldn't people look after themselves?

Nothing, ordinarily. But some people on here push it to the extreme. I don't think any sane person wants a Nozickian minimal state and once you acknowledge that that position is just as absurd as complete and total communism, you need to start thinking about what roles the government should have in looking after its citizens.

 

[TheBloods]

Super is not TAX??? Super has taken away the governments responsibility to supply people with an income once Retired. To me it's the same thing... The Norwegian Government gives the responsibility to the NORGE BANK to invest the peoples money, as opposed to our super schemes which milk os dry with fees.

At the end of the day isn't our 9% super contributions a TAX?? Why couldn't the government collect this "TAX" and invest it like the successful Norwegian model?

It's paid by the employer. The employee has a choice of where it goes and what type of funds it is invested in. It follows the employee and the employee has the choice of putting in more money. The government has sensibly outsourced it to the private sector. Why would the government take on that responsibility? It works much better with super.

Hmmmm... REAL debt free... and a War chest that just keeps getting bigger.
I love how people still argue that it's because they have the Oil... yes lots of private companies benefit from the oil industry so that would help the economy. But only a small proportion of the surplus from (%4) of the fund is used by the government. Te rest is Banked... and invested.

And that is how they built up a huge wealth fund. Without oil they would not have a wealth fund. Their proportional oil revenues are much higher than Australia's natural resources revenues.

Yes and how many times do you have to be told.... Norway banks it's revenue and only uses %4 of it's surplus.

Australia could be in exactly the same position if not in a better position. We have more naturaly wealth than they have. Arguing that Norway's position is not a good one is futile... To say otherwise is like wanting a situation like Hurricane Katrina to happen here. Do we want to reduce our living standards? if so WHY? why dont we want to secure everyone's future... not just those that can invest well. Why dont we want to protect our standard of living??? Why do we want to reduce our living standards so we can Compete with third world countries living standards???

Norway has low unemployment, High Taxes which pays for strong welfare system to keep it's standard of living. You pay for what you get.... pay less tax and you risk lowering our living standards. You onky have to look as far as asia which has ow tax and extremely low living standards for the poor..... do we want that?

I'd love to see what the figures were comparing Welfare payments per-capita combined with per capita of Law enforcement , security companies etc... then compare the total cost of Norway and the US.

I'd say Norway would pay less.

I've gone though this in great detail before and you just ignore it. You didn't even address the specifics. Norway's oil revenues per capita are much higher than Australia's. Norway's cost of living is higher than Australia's. There is no evidence that the community is better off with high taxes and a huge sovereign wealth fund.

 

[TheBloods]

If you are smart in Australia and you earn more than the average wage than you have the ability to pay zero income tax because of negative gearing etc... low income workers dont have that luxary because they need every cent to pay for it's living and there for pay arguably a higher percentage of TAX compared to income.

You live in a fantasy land fuelled by propaganda. The vast majority of high income, salary earners still pay large amounts of tax. There is minimal ability of a salary earner to reduce tax to anything near zero.

 

[TheBloods]

I'd say thats pretty close....

Australian government also had zero net debt.

 

[nut]

You live in a fantasy land fuelled by propaganda. The vast majority of high income, salary earners still pay large amounts of tax. There is minimal ability of a salary earner to reduce tax to anything near zero.

If you earn above 80k a year and you pay tax then you are plan stupid with the way our tax system can help you with negative gearing.

 

[nut]

Presumably you are against scrapping the min wage, unfair dismissal etc in order that more people are able to be employed.

Yer that would help how? Bring us down to Asia's level? where you can get a maid for 6d/24hrs per week for $150au . Thats just the society that you want?

 

[DeanoT]

I'm not so sure about this. I mean by all means if you want to take responsibility for it then you should be able to. But id say a lot of people who aren't overly familiar with investment and perhaps in lower skilled work would expect that after a lifetime of hard work, their society gives them something back.

Actually, society has been giving to them all their lives. Access to healthcare, education, welfare, etc. As mentioned in one of my earlier posts, low income earners are a net beneficiary from the tax system. The notion that they have contributed to the tax pool, and now in retirement are entitled to something back is a fallacy. Those who contribute the most get the least back in retirement. That is a fraud.

And this is what happens, through the 9% super contribution. (Though I still think more should be done to protect people form exorbitant fees). You're not saying we should abolish the 9% contribution and just give everyone the cash now and tell them to do what they want are you?

I never made any comment about super, but people should take an interest in their retirement, agreed. If you don't have the skill to do it, you can hire someone to do it for you. Those who use the "can't afford it, I don't understand it" routine, are really just wanting to rely on the government.

I reckon I can find people who are just as greedy if not more so on Wall St.

Greed, selfishness, etc is everywhere in society, Wall St too. You won't get any argument from me there. The issue is that when a wealthy person is greedy, there is an outcry. When the poor get greedy, there is not the same level of public anguish. Look at low income earners in the US who lied on mortgage applications for massive housing loans they could never afford, then cried out for the government to bail them out when the s**t hit the fan. It's easy to point fingers at banks, Wall St, brokers, etc, and none of them should avoid criticism, but it isn't seen to be as politically correct to accuse a poor person of greed, despite the obvious hypocrisy.

But DeanoT I would like to hear where you draw the line between what's freely chosen by a person and what is determined for him. It sounds like you got out of a working class life and made improvements. I'm sure it must feel good to think you did ALL BY YOURSELF but I wouldn't be surprised if sheer luck played a role as well.

Well, I don't believe in fate if that is what you are asking. I believe what you get out of life, is directly proportional to what you put in. Yes, I also believe in the element of luck, in that I believe that luck is where opportunity meets preparation and hard work.

I was one of the first in my family to go through university. You wouldn't believe the tall poppy syndrom exhibited by some relatives when I announced that I was going to university. Guess which relatives are the first to ring me for a loan, when they can't pay their bills ? It's the attitude of the working class that holds them back, not luck, or the big bad government, that they like to think.

I'm not anti-capitalist especially; I generally sit on the fence, but I find it interesting that capitalism cheerleaders are forever ignoring luck and claiming that "I did it ALL MYSELF" and "everyone who didn't, it's their own fault!"

Some people believe in fate, luck, etc. Others believe you get back what you put in. I am in the latter category. If I have been lucky only, well I guess I have to hope to keep getting lucky. I don't think luck had much to do with my studying, hard work and career choice though.

Nothing, ordinarily. But some people on here push it to the extreme. I don't think any sane person wants a Nozickian minimal state and once you acknowledge that that position is just as absurd as complete and total communism, you need to start thinking about what roles the government should have in looking after its citizens.

The concept of government looking after its citizens is dangerous. Individuals have a responsibility to look after themselves, and not be a burden on the state. Also, the government can't be trusted to do what is in the best interests of its citizens. Take a look at what was once a thriving society, the US, and look at what it has become. A state which promises more and more benefits, for less and less tax, and which has literally gone down the shithole.

Governments are to blame for making promises it can't fund, and the public are to blame for buying into it. The greatest contribution any individual can make to society, is to not be a burden on it. Any encouragement by the government to become dependent upon it is inviting a repeat of the US' failings.

 

[DeanoT]

If you earn above 80k a year and you pay tax then you are plan stupid with the way our tax system can help you with negative gearing.

I'd like to meet the tax agent of this 80K per year person who pays no tax. Wonder if he can wave his magic wand, and make me pay no tax too.

Yer that would help how? Bring us down to Asia's level? where you can get a maid for 6d/24hrs per week for $150au . Thats just the society that you want?

If you can't compete with competition from Asia, you will be getting $0 per hour, no matter how good the minimum wage is.

 

[TheBloods]

If you earn above 80k a year and you pay tax then you are plan stupid with the way our tax system can help you with negative gearing.

Negative gearing is just as usable for people on lower incomes than that. They get a lower deduction because they pay a lower level of tax. But because of that they also have to borrow a proportionally lower amount to fully offset all their tax.

 

[1jasonoz]

If you earn above 80k a year and you pay tax then you are plan stupid with the way our tax system can help you with negative gearing.

Yep got me right there!

 

[nut]

It's paid by the employer. The employee has a choice of where it goes and what type of funds it is invested in. It follows the employee and the employee has the choice of putting in more money. The government has sensibly outsourced it to the private sector. Why would the government take on that responsibility? It works much better with super.

It's still Pay with held is it not?? Just like TAX. It;s just away government makes you think you are paying less TAX. Yer worked well especially for all those people who were planning on retiring last year that lost s**t loads with the GFC

And that is how they built up a huge wealth fund. Without oil they would not have a wealth fund. Their proportional oil revenues are much higher than Australia's natural resources revenues.

No s**t. WHY ARE THERE REVENUES HIGHER??????????????????????????????????????? Because it's state OWNED. Their future funds is set aside for it's pensions. But the rest of it's Welfare and Health, education etc... is paid from TAX. My Argument is that we should be in a similar position with our abundance of natural resources.

I've gone though this in great detail before and you just ignore it. You didn't even address the specifics. Norway's oil revenues per capita are much higher than Australia's.

BECAUSE IT"S STATE OWNED

Norway's cost of living is higher than Australia's. There is no evidence that the community is better off with high taxes and a huge sovereign wealth fund.

NO evidence??? Low unemployment. A high Health care for all, one of the Highest education standards in the world, a welfare system that supplies Loss of income protection for all (insurance)

"When working and paying taxes in Norway, you will most often be a member of the National Insurance Scheme and build rights in Norway. Your contribution to the insurance scheme is subtracted from your pay as tax. Your employer is responsible for making you a member of the insurance scheme and for making sure that the Norwegian tax authorities receive your contribution. You may be entitled to benefits such as child benefit, cash benefit, sickness benefit and unemployment benefit." It cost less for the government to do this for you than it would if you asked a Private insurance company to do it for you.

. The best standard of living in Europe, if not the world. Sounds crap???

If you want a user pays society go look at the states.

 

[nut]

I was one of the first in my family to go through university. You wouldn't believe the tall poppy syndrom exhibited by some relatives when I announced that I was going to university. Guess which relatives are the first to ring me for a loan, when they can't pay their bills ? It's the attitude of the working class that holds them back, not luck, or the big bad government, that they like to think.

Just wondering how long ago you went to university? Are your family immigrants?