Opinion Tradedraft's Thoughts

[Saintly Viewed]

Very True. Billion Dollars for TV Rights is Just Way over the top but be Nothing Compared to Oversea's and what they Pay.

Just look at Soccer Players that get a 100's of Thousands for 1 weeks work.

No Wonder there are so many Poor People as the Rich just just keep it between them and there mates

They offer their services, the service in theory generates the revenue, they get their cut.
Up to individuals to decide what to do with their money.

To quote from the Godfather "after all we're not communists."

 

[MagpieBat]

Here is the 2017 Version of TradeDraft Thoughts Thread

 

[Schraderbrau]

I'm with you TD, horse talk (unless it's Mister Ed) is as boring as people banging on about cars.

or the scumps?

 

[mike123]

Okay - The Firworks of New Years is a Massive Waste of Money. You have People who are Homeless and Starving. They need the Money More

I don't even enjoy fireworks

 

[TradeDraft]

I don't even enjoy fireworks

2nd That mike123

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

I don't even enjoy fireworks

The Melbourne fireworks are not very good.

 

[mike123]

The Melbourne fireworks are not very good.

I don't live Melbourne I live in Canberra, but that's that not the point. I'd rather spend my time more productively then looking at a bunch of pretty colour in the sky, like rant about things on bigfooty.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

I don't live Melbourne I live in Canberra, but that's that not the point. I'd rather spend my time more productively then looking at a bunch of pretty colour in the sky, like rant about things on bigfooty.

Look I don't disagree with you at all. I was just making the point that whatever the Melbourne fireworks might have cost, they were not very exciting. Interestingly the homeless were out in force among the new years revellers on Saturday night asking for money. Kind of ironic really considering the comments here that the money would have been better spent on them in the first place.

 

[TradeDraft]

Look I don't disagree with you at all. I was just making the point that whatever the Melbourne fireworks might have cost, they were not very exciting. Interestingly the homeless were out in force among the new years revellers on Saturday night asking for money. Kind of ironic really considering the comments here that the money would have been better spent on them in the first place.

The Money they spent on Stupid Fireworks be better spent on Helping the Homeless

 

[Tarkyn_24]

I don't live Melbourne I live in Canberra, but that's that not the point. I'd rather spend my time more productively then looking at a bunch of pretty colour in the sky, like rant about things on bigfooty.

Hahahaha did lol.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

The Money they spent on Stupid Fireworks be better spent on Helping the Homeless

Nah not really.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

Good thread Dave, very thoughtful.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

The Money they spent on Stupid Fireworks be better spent on Helping the Homeless

We all could do more I am sure.
But surely it starts with ourselves.

People can be very generous with other people's money.

That said, fireworks is so last millenium

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I don't live Melbourne I live in Canberra, but that's that not the point. I'd rather spend my time more productively then looking at a bunch of pretty colour in the sky, like rant about things on bigfooty.

He he heh very good sir

 

[jefffff34]

No Wonder there are so many Poor People as the Rich just just keep it between them and there mates

If they work for it, why shouldn't they keep it? Rich people do get taxed more.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

If they work for it, why shouldn't they keep it? Rich people do get taxed more.

And on the flip side, welfare recipients barely if at all get taxed for next to no contribution to society...

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Food for thought, I won't profess to have written this- I've ripped it from a Facebook post and believe it was originally part of a speech given by an economics professor, but still the point remains pertinent....

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all tencomes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted thatfrom everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each endup being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s billby a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He
pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too.

It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get
anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. — Professor of Economics.

 

[TradeDraft]

We all could do more I am sure.
But surely it starts with ourselves.

People can be very generous with other people's money.

That said, fireworks is so last millenium

Well the Pollies could take less of a Pension like they are doing with the Old Age Pension. They have hay more Assests then normal Aussies

 

[TradeDraft]

If they work for it, why shouldn't they keep it? Rich people do get taxed more.

and Rich People have ways around the Tax System.

Especially OverSea Companies like IKEA.

Would you like to see the same thing happen in Australia like what happens in India. Where you have the Mega Rich and the People who live in Slums?

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Well the Pollies could take less of a Pension like they are doing with the Old Age Pension. They have hay more Assests then normal Aussies

Or you know we could let them have the fruits of their labour that they deserve. The ****ing around with superannuation that we currently observe is bad enough.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

and Rich People have ways around the Tax System.

Especially OverSea Companies like IKEA.

Would you like to see the same thing happen in Australia like what happens in India. Where you have the Mega Rich and the People who live in Slums?

So the reason Ikea and other multinationals shift their profits legally way from Australia is because Australia already taxes corporates too heavily compared to the rest of the world. Why would they leave their income in our jurisdiction when the same earnings could be moved elsewhere and taxed at a better rate?

Australian taxation policy is directed at making a conscious effort to reduce corporate tax so as to reduce the incentive for companies to move profits artificially offshore. As usual, small business get the breaks primarily, and then eventually it'll extend to all.

 

[doodles98]

Food for thought, I won't profess to have written this- I've ripped it from a Facebook post and believe it was originally part of a speech given by an economics professor, but still the point remains pertinent....

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all tencomes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted thatfrom everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each endup being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s billby a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He
pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too.

It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get
anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. — Professor of Economics.

Your professor of economics has based his summation of tax fairness on what happens to salaried employees within our scaled tax system. He's not being very honest. The problem with his example is that all the wealthiest people in the world do not rely on taxed salaries for income and wealth generation. They have companies and businesses and partnerships and investments that make their money. Whatever salary they may get is a pittance to them. They have funds all over the world in complex structures, trusts and tax havens. They also spread them throughout family members to minimize tax. They are allowed to stockpile profit and then release it in years when they have to take a hit (e.g global financial crisis).

This allows them to earn huge sums of money and pay absolutely F@ck all tax compared the salaried taxpayers on a percentage comparison. This allows them (and the majority are wealthy by inheritance.. not "fruits of labour") to continue to stockpile the worlds wealth and we have the situation where 5% own 80% of the worlds wealth... this then get passed on to their kids because we have no inheritance tax.
You think this is a good situation for humanity?

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Your professor of economics has based his summation of tax fairness on what happens to salaried employees within our scaled tax system. He's not being very honest. The problem with his example is that all the wealthiest people in the world do not rely on taxed salaries for income and wealth generation. They have companies and businesses and partnerships and investments that make their money. Whatever salary they may get is a pittance to them. They have funds all over the world in complex structures, trusts and tax havens. They also spread them throughout family members to minimize tax. They are allowed to stockpile profit and then release it in years when they have to take a hit (e.g global financial crisis).

This allows them to earn huge sums of money and pay absolutely F@ck all tax compared the salaried taxpayers on a percentage comparison. This allows them (and the majority are wealthy by inheritance.. not "fruits of labour") to continue to stockpile the worlds wealth and we have the situation where 5% own 80% of the worlds wealth... this then get passed on to their kids because we have no inheritance tax.
You think this is a good situation for humanity?

Yeah I do actually, because it is due to these families that most of the wealth in Australia is being created in the first place.

I agree our tax system isn't perfect but there needs to be the incentive for the super wealth to make these investments in the first place.

I can accept your argument though. Much better than the wahhh I want more handouts course that the thread was otherwise taking.

 

[doodles98]

Yeah I do actually, because it is due to these families that most of the wealth in Australia is being created in the first place.

I agree our tax system isn't perfect but there needs to be the incentive for the super wealth to make these investments in the first place.

I can accept your argument though. Much better than the wahhh I want more handouts course that the thread was otherwise taking.

Wouldn't have thought they'd need much incentive to invest in businesses that make them even wealthier. You do realize the extent to which Governments (taxpayers) have subsidized business investments by the super wealthy and then also bailed them out when they get in trouble? It's funny but when you talk about handouts.. the handouts made during the gfc throughout the world were the biggest handouts in history. We will be repaying them for decades to come.
The Government is giving an Indian billionaire a 50% concessional loan of $1 billion to help him build his coal mine infrastructure here in QLD. I'm an Australian citizen, I have a business and employ people. I could employ lots more too if I got a 50% discounted loan of $1billion. What do you think of my chances?

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Wouldn't have thought they'd need much incentive to invest in businesses that make them even wealthier. You do realize the extent to which Governments (taxpayers) have subsidized business investments by the super wealthy and then also bailed them out when they get in trouble? It's funny but when you talk about handouts.. the handouts made during the gfc throughout the world were the biggest handouts in history. We will be repaying them for decades to come.
The Government is giving an Indian billionaire a 50% concessional loan of $1 billion to help him build his coal mine infrastructure here in QLD. I'm an Australian citizen, I have a business and employ people. I could employ lots more too if I got a 50% discounted loan of $1billion. What do you think of my chances?

If you had the equity behind you he did then I'd say your chances are exceptionally good. Do you?