 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Everything I need is provided by my . |
|
|
|
 |
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Morrigu wrote: | David I actually wasn't having a go at you about how many hours your work - but you also need to understand that many jobs that pay 150K ( and less than that) require much more than the 40 hour week and can involve a lot of time travelling and there is often a requirement for further study etc to be juggled in your " free time".
Someone earning 150k may have a large family and a stay at home wife - lifestyle choice fair enough and may pay for assistance to enable them to enjoy some free time some home life - why is that a luxury??
I'm not prepared to pay anymore than I already do for other people's lifestyle choices especially those that breed at a rate that they cannot sustain them and then insist the guvenment should look after them! |
Exactly. Staying at school forever, to get more and more qualifications, having too many children than you can afford. These are choices. It's funny, David, you want to tell people their hired help is an uneccessary luxury they should live without in order to pay more tax, yep if I turn around and say it should be illegal to spend dole money on so one and alcohol, I'd get shot down in flames. Double standards.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | OK, your written work really seems to point at c. You even hinted at it above when you said people have more money than they need.
If you're goal/aim/problem really is A) you need to let go of C) and looking at the multiple root causes and multiple solutions that are to a degree intertwined but not totally.
C) may be one viable lever to pull to help fund those solutions but I think it's a poor one and to leap at it as a first option is naive and basically stupid.
Keep in mind, Newtons 3rd law doesn't just apply to physics, it has application in social settings, business and economics, basically everywhere you want to make a change to something. It's not absolute, the reaction may not always be equal, but their will be negative consequences that need to be considered and weighed against the potential real gains. |
Great post.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| HAL wrote: | | Everything I need is provided by my . |
....... Suckers paying taxes
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
TP, I think you're missing the 'sarcasm' font. 
| Morrigu wrote: | David I actually wasn't having a go at you about how many hours your work - but you also need to understand that many jobs that pay 150K ( and less than that) require much more than the 40 hour week and can involve a lot of time travelling and there is often a requirement for further study etc to be juggled in your " free time".
Someone earning 150k may have a large family and a stay at home wife - lifestyle choice fair enough and may pay for assistance to enable them to enjoy some free time some home life - why is that a luxury??
I'm not prepared to pay anymore than I already do for other people's lifestyle choices especially those that breed at a rate that they cannot sustain them and then insist the guvenment should look after them! |
Ah, if you're adding transport time then you can add another 10 hours or thereabouts to my weekly work commitments. I guess that's something we all have to put up with to some extent or other.
As for large families, they're generally already on assistance (which I support). My parents managed to raise no less than 9 children off a single income and government benefits, which was probably closer to $50k all up than $150k. We weren't far from the poverty line, relatively speaking, but we weren't exactly dying of starvation either. And we certainly didn't have any gardeners or maids to help out! So yeah, I kind of can't help but see those things as a luxury.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu 
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ no I wasn't talking about everyday transport time - I was talking about travel regional,interstate, international that is rarely factored into your " work hours" and trust me such travel for work is not enjoyable travel or a holiday!!
I don't support assistance for people who consciously breed more than they can afford - lifestyle choice - why should I be expected to pay more for such choices??
Oh and as my mum would say " in my day we walked miles to school barefoot no shoes etc etc etc" You are what close to 30? Costs have risen no doubt!
Sorry it may be the way you express it or the way I read it but you just sound envious to me and wrap it in a " social concern" dressing
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
Last edited by Morrigu on Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | TP, I think you're missing the 'sarcasm' font.
| Morrigu wrote: | David I actually wasn't having a go at you about how many hours your work - but you also need to understand that many jobs that pay 150K ( and less than that) require much more than the 40 hour week and can involve a lot of time travelling and there is often a requirement for further study etc to be juggled in your " free time".
Someone earning 150k may have a large family and a stay at home wife - lifestyle choice fair enough and may pay for assistance to enable them to enjoy some free time some home life - why is that a luxury??
I'm not prepared to pay anymore than I already do for other people's lifestyle choices especially those that breed at a rate that they cannot sustain them and then insist the guvenment should look after them! |
Ah, if you're adding transport time then you can add another 10 hours or thereabouts to my weekly work commitments. I guess that's something we all have to put up with to some extent or other.
As for large families, they're generally already on assistance (which I support). My parents managed to raise no less than 9 children off a single income and government benefits, which was probably closer to $50k all up than $150k. We weren't far from the poverty line, relatively speaking, but we weren't exactly dying of starvation either. And we certainly didn't have any gardeners or maids to help out! So yeah, I kind of can't help but see those things as a luxury. |
With 9 kids you shouldn't need gardeners, but many people employee people to maintain their garden because they're time poor, housekeepers are provided under government funding to people with disabilities.
What's the difference between you choosing to make a sandwich at home or buying one from a shop? Someone is being employed to do it for you, same as gardening and maids etc. It may be a luxury but the money being spent is providing employment to someone.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Morrigu wrote: | | Sorry it may be the way you express it or the way I read it but you just sound envious to me and wrap it in a " social concern" dressing |
Envious of what, exactly? I can assure you that if money or a certain lifestyle was my focus then I would have made very different choices in life so far. But I'd rather not talk too much about my own situation because I'm pretty aware by now that absolutely anything I say will be used to discredit my arguments somehow.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Y'all need to read Atlas Shrugged. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Socialists always running out of other people's money 
 |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I thought I'd come back to this one with an idea inspired in part by something Tannin once posted and something I heard on the radio. How can we solve poverty in Australia? Like this.
1. Every Adult Australian citizen on 1 July each year gets given $26,000. No means test, no assets test. That's roughly $500 per week but given in a lump sum.
2. Abolish centrelink
3. Abolish the tax free threshold. Every dollar you earn from 1$ gets taxed at 20%. We probably need a sliding scale so lets say for argument, without doing the maths, it climbs to 30% at $100,000 pa, 40% at $200,000 and 50% at $400,000.
4. Abolish income tax deductions. You pay a flat rate according to the scale above. You have work related expenses or other things you think should be deductible, take em out of the $26,000 we gave you
That's it.
$500 per week, if someone didn't want to work they could live on that. Someone going to uni wouldn't need to get a part time job but if they wanted extra income they could.
Unlike the current situation, you don't lose centrelink if you work, you don't have to jump through hoops to get it, all you have to be is alive, 18 or older and an Australian citizen.
Young couple with a kid now has $1000 per week if they budget it out. If they want more, either or both can work and pay 20c in the dollar tax.
If they have more kids, too bad. baby bonus and family support are gone. Want to breed a bunch of kids, get work to pay for it.
Don't want to work, can't afford to live in your preferred suburb and still eat and pay for ganga? Get a couple of mates and rent a place together. The 3 of you can live very comfortably smoking cones and reading philosophy and never having to think about actually working.
So everyone has access to a basic lifestyle with no hoops to jump through and everyone has incentive to work because it's the only way to get more money if they want it.
Abolishing centrelink and deductions saves a shitpile in administration so you may need to tweak the numbers around a bit but theoretically the government gets more revenue yet everyone is better off.
Poverty solvered boss. 
Thoughts?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Listened to the start of it, immediate difference is with our system of employers collecting and paying PAYG tax straight to the government, if you remove all income tax deductions there's no more tax returns so you save all the administration that goes with that.
Tweak the system a tad so that banks tax interest and companies tax dividends and you have it covered. No loopholes, no poor.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | I thought I'd come back to this one with an idea inspired in part by something Tannin once posted and something I heard on the radio. How can we solve poverty in Australia? Like this.
1. Every Adult Australian citizen on 1 July each year gets given $26,000. No means test, no assets test. That's roughly $500 per week but given in a lump sum.
2. Abolish centrelink
3. Abolish the tax free threshold. Every dollar you earn from 1$ gets taxed at 20%. We probably need a sliding scale so lets say for argument, without doing the maths, it climbs to 30% at $100,000 pa, 40% at $200,000 and 50% at $400,000.
4. Abolish income tax deductions. You pay a flat rate according to the scale above. You have work related expenses or other things you think should be deductible, take em out of the $26,000 we gave you
That's it.
$500 per week, if someone didn't want to work they could live on that. Someone going to uni wouldn't need to get a part time job but if they wanted extra income they could.
Unlike the current situation, you don't lose centrelink if you work, you don't have to jump through hoops to get it, all you have to be is alive, 18 or older and an Australian citizen.
Young couple with a kid now has $1000 per week if they budget it out. If they want more, either or both can work and pay 20c in the dollar tax.
If they have more kids, too bad. baby bonus and family support are gone. Want to breed a bunch of kids, get work to pay for it.
Don't want to work, can't afford to live in your preferred suburb and still eat and pay for ganga? Get a couple of mates and rent a place together. The 3 of you can live very comfortably smoking cones and reading philosophy and never having to think about actually working.
So everyone has access to a basic lifestyle with no hoops to jump through and everyone has incentive to work because it's the only way to get more money if they want it.
Abolishing centrelink and deductions saves a shitpile in administration so you may need to tweak the numbers around a bit but theoretically the government gets more revenue yet everyone is better off.
Poverty solvered boss.
Thoughts? |
sounds great, what about Medicare though? Would that come out of the rolling tax?
To be honest though, no, I don't think anyone should be able to choose to not participate and still get a wage to live on. Everyone that can, should participate in some way.
Did anyone notice with your tax bill you got a receipt that shows exactly where each of your tax dollars goes? Except the big green line at the bottom that says something like other expenses. Smart too, they put that one in green, it's colour coded so as not to offend!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | Listened to the start of it, immediate difference is with our system of employers collecting and paying PAYG tax straight to the government, if you remove all income tax deductions there's no more tax returns so you save all the administration that goes with that.
Tweak the system a tad so that banks tax interest and companies tax dividends and you have it covered. No loopholes, no poor. |
Are they exactly the same? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
