Why this country is stuffed

[HairyO]

A family on 350 thousand contributes about 120,000 roughly to the tax base. A family on 100,000 contributes about 25,000 (probably less given the other means tested family subsidies thry get).

One contributes nearly 5 times the amount of income to provide government services and the ironical thing is that you think they are the ones who should be denied childcare. unbelievable. Neither families are living in poverty. How about we give the families who basically provide all the public funding to society a fair go and the same basic rights as other families who mostly freeride off those government services. A persons income isnt created through a lottery or locj through bloodlines. We live in a society of equal opportunity or close to it. Income is created through hard work, sacrifice and often talent.

And your massive tax contribution pays for a police force which stops your poor neighbours from coming over and taking all your stuff.

See, you do get value for tax money !!

Not to mention the ability to enjoy the spoils of the world.

Governments exist to take care of needs. Exactly why does someone on $351k need money back from the government?

Socialism and Conservatism are no longer things. They have been replaced by avarice and envy.

 

[RupieDupie]

A family on 350 thousand contributes about 120,000 roughly to the tax base. A family on 100,000 contributes about 25,000 (probably less given the other means tested family subsidies thry get).

One contributes nearly 5 times the amount of income to provide government services and the ironical thing is that you think they are the ones who should be denied childcare. unbelievable. Neither families are living in poverty. How about we give the families who basically provide all the public funding to society a fair go and the same basic rights as other families who mostly freeride off those government services. A persons income isnt created through a lottery or locj through bloodlines. We live in a society of equal opportunity or close to it. Income is created through hard work, sacrifice and often talent.

The irony comes in when you state income is created through hard work, sacrifice and often talent. Apparently the poor soul in the article needed an ATAR of 96+, 4 years of university to get into a job that is extremely important to society and she can only clear, what, $60,000...? What does her husband do? Is he an investment w***er... I mean banker?

 

[RupieDupie]

The irony comes in when you state income is created through hard work, sacrifice and often talent. Apparently the poor soul in the article needed an ATAR of 96+, 4 years of university to get into a job that is extremely important to society and she can only clear, what, $60,000...? What does her husband do? Is he an investment w***er... I mean banker?

But let’s get serious here, I actually did mean w***er when I was referring to an investment banker.

 

[Present Not Past]

But let’s get serious here, I actually did mean w***er when I was referring to an investment banker.

We are currently having a Royal Commission into the Wanking Industry. And boy oh boy, has there been some serious wanking going on.

 

[cartwright]

Imagine earning $350K and thinking spending $45 a day on your kid was excessive.

 

[Seeds]

Yeah, sure - want to a buy a Harbour Bridge?

Used. High kilometres.

Which kids arent getting free acces to education between the ages of 5 and 18? Can you point us out to which part of society doesnt get this?

 

[Kram]

 

[Seeds]

Imagine earning $350K and thinking spending $45 a day on your kid was excessive.

And who would imagine that? Certainly not the author who says her net payment after losing all her income is 45 dollars a day which means she is probably paying 250 dollars per day on childcare or 70000 per year.

 

[Seeds]

A lot of deep rooted sexists in this thread who believe a womens income is her mans and women should get out of the workplace and look after the kids if their man can fund them. Work isnt just about money. Its the same attitude that used to make it illegal for women to work if they got married.

 

[Seeds]

The irony comes in when you state income is created through hard work, sacrifice and often talent. Apparently the poor soul in the article needed an ATAR of 96+, 4 years of university to get into a job that is extremely important to society and she can only clear, what, $60,000...? What does her husband do? Is he an investment w***er... I mean banker?

Who the fu*** knows what he does and who knows at what level of qualification she is at. Most high income earners who have kids are in their early to mid thirties. They are still in the early years of their profession. Husband may of only been on big bucks for the past couple of years. Probably have a giant mortgage given high income jobs are almost always inner city unlike most unskilled work. Low income earners never appreciate this fact and on top of that they pay well over 100000 in tax a year.

No one is saying they should not pay dramatically high tax rates to fund the rest of society. But how about their kids can get the same rights as everyone elses and get partially funded childcare. They are still funding everyone elses govt services. Not to mention can the wife be incentivised to actually work so she can contribute her skills to society and feel appreciated for what she does rather then be made to feel like a pariah that society wants to lock up in a house looking after kids because of the status of her husband.

 

[cartwright]

And who would imagine that? Certainly not the author who says her net payment after losing all her income is 45 dollars a day which means she is probably paying 250 dollars per day on childcare or 70000 per year.

If they’re spending $250 a day, they need to reassess if they made the right choice as to the centre that they selected.

A lot of deep rooted sexists in this thread who believe a womens income is her mans and women should get out of the workplace and look after the kids if their man can fund them. Work isnt just about money. Its the same attitude that used to make it illegal for women to work if they got married.

What?
Who has said that?

 

[RupieDupie]

Who the fu*** knows what he does and who knows at what level of qualification she is at. Most high income earners who have kids are in their early to mid thirties. They are still in the early years of their profession. Husband may of only been on big bucks for the past couple of years. Probably have a giant mortgage given high income jobs are almost always inner city unlike most unskilled work. Low income earners never appreciate this fact and on top of that they pay well over 100000 in tax a year. No one is not saying they should not pay dramatically high tax rates to fund the rest of society. But how about their kids can get the same rights as everyone elses and get partially funded childcare. They are still funding everyone else. Not to mention can the wife be incentivised to actually work so she can contribute her skills to society and feel appreciated for what she does rather then be made to feel like a pariah that society wants to lock up in a house looking after kids because of the status of her husband.

The article states her qualifications and the importance of her job, by your logic, if working hard, talent etc leads to a larger income she should be on more than 60K. Maybe the idea that hard work, talent etc means a person gets more money is based on bullshit?

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Did Seeds' doctor wife finish her studies in the last year so he's gone "*, we have money now!"?

 

[TimmeT]

The article states her qualifications and the importance of her job, by your logic, if working hard, talent etc leads to a larger income she should be on more than 60K. Maybe the idea that hard work, talent etc means a person gets more money is based on bullshit?

I really reckon there's tiny bit more to the story then was given out in that article.

 

[RupieDupie]

I really reckon there's tiny bit more to the story then was given out in that article.

I have seeds trapped in a paradigm paradox, that’s the reason I can quote her freely.

But what’s your thoughts (without me first casting aspersions)?

 

[TimmeT]

I have seeds trapped in a paradigm paradox, that’s the reason I can quote her freely.

But what’s your thoughts (without me first casting aspersions)?

I have a huge inkling she is in the work during the school hours type mum. Thus this enables her to work while the kids are at school for 5 or 6 hours and still look after them without needing to dsource care for them over the whole day while the husband is off doing the high load full time thing.

Recently I have observed that there are a number in the care and health professions who will do this because it allows them to do so such as going to a hospital and dealing with patients over a set time frame such as 10-2 9-3 8-1 or something or works 3 days part time and then going and maintaining their normaln s**t after. They then earn a nice salary for doing part time hours without it affecting their life too greatly and can use this to buy an additional house, pay fees for private schooling, go away while still getting a good salary from full time work from their husband.

Some hospital dietitians and physios earn $40-$50 or more per hour for their work meaning they can walk away with $250 for a day. Now this adds up to $1250 per week or around $64,000 a year. These people then want to eat their cake too by having free child minding to allow them to do this. These are exactly the types that will vote Liberal and the Liberal party is screwing over obviously to stop this nice gaming of the systems for their benefit.

There totally is no issue with what the Lib/Nats have done with these changes to stop the ones who should be paying from getting free care. I am all supportive of making them pay as they get *loads more than the average worker/family who wouldn't even earn more than half of the spouse's income.

 

[RupieDupie]

I have a huge inkling she is in the work during the school hours type mum. Thus this enables her to work while the kids are at school for 5 or 6 hours and still look after them without needing to dsource care for them over the whole day while the husband is off doing the high load full time thing.

Recently I have observed that there are a number in the care and health professions who will do this because it allows them to do so such as going to a hospital and dealing with patients over a set time frame such as 10-2 9-3 8-1 or something or works 3 days part time and then going and maintaining their normaln s**t after. They then earn a nice salary for doing part time hours without it affecting their life too greatly and can use this to buy an additional house, pay fees for private schooling, go away while still getting a good salary from full time work from their husband.

Some hospital dietitians and physios earn $40-$50 or more per hour for their work meaning they can walk away with $250 for a day. Now this adds up to $1250 per week or around $64,000 a year. These people then want to eat their cake too by having free child minding to allow them to do this. These are exactly the types that will vote Liberal and the Liberal party is screwing over obviously to stop this nice gaming of the systems for their benefit.

There totally is no issue with what the Lib/Nats have done with these changes to stop the ones who should be paying from getting free care. I am all supportive of making them pay as they get ****loads more than the average worker/family who wouldn't even earn more than half of the spouse's income.

I thought you were also going to state;

The rebate is “only” ~$7600 per child, and IMU she’s going to be $45 out of pocket per day. 2 x children is ~15,200 which will only cover ~322 days @$45 per day subtract weekends and public holidays, which means she’ll be working for ~$3000 per year for all that university education and skill. She should be asking for $70K.

 

[TimmeT]

I thought you were also going to state;

The rebate is “only” ~$7600 per child, and IMU she’s going to be $45 out of pocket per day. 2 x children is ~15,200 which will only cover ~322 days @$45 per day subtract weekends and public holidays, which means she’ll be working for ~$3000 per year for all that university education and skill. She should be asking for $70K.

She shall probably get that too soon for working those types of hours anyhow due to the shortage/salary for that area. Moreso they'll then earn close to $120,000 for working full time when the kids go back to school and will do so on similar or slightly increased hours had they moved from doing hospital stuff to practice. Massive advantage from using the system if you are able to. This is why I don't value the Labor position on this change as they are being completely contradictory to their just say negative gearing policy which is all about stopping people taking advantage of the tax break who can afford to do so to buy 3rd houses.

 

[RupieDupie]

She shall probably get that too soon for working those types of hours anyhow due to the shortage/salary for that area. Moreso they'll then earn close to $120,000 for working full time when the kids go back to school and will do so on similar or slightly increased hours had they moved from doing hospital stuff to practice. Massive advantage from using the system if you are able to. This is why I don't value the Labor position on this change as they are being completely contradictory to their just say negative gearing policy which is all about stopping people taking advantage of the tax break who can afford to do so to buy 3rd houses.

Labor and Liberal, they both have their key stakeholders, as soon as a person applies morality or logic to discount one you will by default have to discount the other.

 

[RupieDupie]

I thought you were also going to state;

The rebate is “only” ~$7600 per child, and IMU she’s going to be $45 out of pocket per day. 2 x children is ~15,200 which will only cover ~322 days @$45 per day subtract weekends and public holidays, which means she’ll be working for ~$3000 per year for all that university education and skill. She should be asking for $70K.

Here’s a positive way to view this story!

My feeling is she’s not so much for wanting women to return to the workforce but rather more about wanting to have much much more munny. Munny at the expense of people who could use it. This is Australia’s soul stripped bare, a filthy heart of evil, that when inspected closer is further comprised of evil, like a Matryoshka doll.

When we observe Hobbe’s Leviathan the machinery is animated through greed, the essence of Australia is trying to attempt to fill these few peoples abysmal hearts, “I wouldn’t get out of bed for less than $10,000”.

That’s today’s lesson, the same lesson that we learned yesterday, and the day before that, scaled into a larger wheel, which is part of a set of wheels within another even larger wheel. Trampling on and defiling what was once known as The Australian Dream.

 

[cartwright]

Here’s a positive way to view this story!

My feeling is she’s not so much for wanting women to return to the workforce but rather more about wanting to have much much more munny. Munny at the expense of people who could use it. This is Australia’s soul stripped bare, a filthy heart of evil, that when inspected closer is further comprised of evil, like a Matryoshka doll.

When we observe Hobbe’s Leviathan the machinery is animated through greed, the essence of Australia is trying to attempt to fill these few peoples abysmal hearts, “I wouldn’t get out of bed for less than $10,000”.

That’s today’s lesson, the same lesson that we learned yesterday, and the day before that, scaled into a larger wheel, which is part of a set of wheels within another even larger wheel. Trampling on and defiling what was once known as The Australian Dream.

She has certainly framed it this way.

There’s a wider conversation we need to be having, which is the decision people earning far less than $350k need to make - is it financially worth it to return to work.

That’s what people who are living inner city and not making $350k are facing. Can their parents help out?
Will work be okay with me working 3/4 days instead of 5..?

By saying “We earn $350k want our subsidy”... you’ve lost the audience immediately.

 

[RupieDupie]

She has certainly framed it this way.

There’s a wider conversation we need to be having, which is the decision people earning far less than $350k need to make - is it financially worth it to return to work.

That’s what people who are living inner city and not making $350k are facing. Can their parents help out?
Will work be okay with me working 3/4 days instead of 5..?

By saying “We earn $350k want our subsidy”... you’ve lost the audience immediately.

But I think this also skirts the issue, this is one of those Gordian knot type problems, minus any kind of complexity, where it is much better to cut the problem in twain rather than try and “solve” it. Just like the French did. Australians shouldn’t be forced to adapt to rich people’s greed.

The issue is the people running the child care centre industry are evil twisted fruckers who shouldn’t legally be allowed near children. How did they even receive their working with vulnerable people?

If Australians start the conversation on this issue by pointing out that mothers could theoretically sell their organs to pay for childcare, or continue paying tax to subsidise greedy people’s filthy degenerate lifestyles, the issue won’t ever go away.

 

[RupieDupie]

But I think this also skirts the issue, this is one of those Gordian knot type problems, minus any kind of complexity, where it is much better to cut the problem in twain rather than try and “solve” it. Just like the French did. Australians shouldn’t be forced to adapt to rich people’s greed.

The issue is the people running the child care centre industry are evil twisted fruckers who shouldn’t legally be allowed near children. How did they even receive their working with vulnerable people?

If Australians start the conversation on this issue by pointing out that mothers could theoretically sell their organs to pay for childcare, or continue paying tax to subsidise greedy people’s filthy degenerate lifestyles, the issue won’t ever go away.

Furthermore, and this is appropriate given the title, most issues Australians are having conversations on originate from greed. It is a cancer on this society and the only solution the Gubmint has (the vector and in Turnbull’s case the cause of this disease) is to continually feed it. It’s not just going to go away.

 

[Reynolds Number]

There's plenty of comments in the comments section supporting her.

On Facebook she is copping the same reactions as most on here. Not buying into her grief.

 

[QuietB]

There was a time here when the welfare net was there for the needy.

But when Howard shat his pants in 2001, the curtain went up on ever increasing middle class family welfare largesse. And payments to the unemployed fell behind.

Howard did it, and then it just got bigger under each successive govt and now today we have this.

Check out this whinging bitch - her household earns more than $351,000 and she is complaining she will no longer get a govt handout for childcare!

No wonder this country is stuffed



https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...g-45-a-day-to-go-to-work-20180701-p4zouo.html

Middle class welfare is a disgrace. I would argue $350K is too high for the means testing.

Not much team work going on in that relationship

I can remember a couple telling me how much they were struggling on $180k a year a few years back...really, they were serious

My family could not live on $180k a year - come at me