The Politics Thread 2018

[T_R]

Gangrenous, just out of interest....GE gets a free pass on this?

[Dibbers]

I don’t think it is reasonable that 40 percent of the population doesn’t contribute in net terms to the community. That is nothing like a safety net. There are choices about where people live, but that’s up to them. I shouldn’t be subsidising people’s choice to live in Sydney or Melbourne.

Its not a choice when the bulk of the jobs are in sydney or melbourne. People gravitate to where the jobs are... Barnaby Joyce can spruik the merits of property prices in townsville or armidale or wherever, but there arent decent employment options there which is why houses are so cheap.



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Dibbers]

So, you can whinge and moan that too many people are net negative contributors, but unless the above and more changes which wont happen, then its neccessary to keep the country going.

That makes no sense to me. It would be just as easy to argue that middle class welfare artificially inflates house prices.

So? Argue it... it won't change the fact youre spruiking a system that robs from the poor to give to the rich... you can **** all you want but its still just a ****

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Northern Raider]

So, you can whinge and moan that too many people are net negative contributors, but unless the above and more changes which wont happen, then its neccessary to keep the country going.

That makes no sense to me. It would be just as easy to argue that middle class welfare artificially inflates house prices.

So? Argue it... it won't change the fact youre spruiking a system that robs from the poor to give to the rich... you can polish a **** all you want but its still just a ****

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

I think I missed the bit where TR was spruiking that. What system was he spruiking?

[T_R]

I dont remember spruiking anything. Mouthing off, whining, carrying on and, I'm reliably informed, being smug, but no spruiking.

For the record, I believe a society is best served by everyone having a sense of ownership and contribution. I fully understand that some will be in a position to contribute financially more than others.

And payroll tax. Im spruiking to have that buried in a tar pit forever.

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Northern Raider]

I’ve never understood payroll tax. Taxing businesses for employing people seems counterproductive to me. I’ve known of a number of small businesses that deliberately remain under the threshold to avoid paying it. Those one or two more people on the payroll costs them far too much to justify the return. It’s a tax that disincentivises employment.

[greeneyed]

I cannot see how 40 per cent of the population can reasonably expect not to contribute in net terms to the community. This is not a safety net, this is reasonable support and welfare, this is out of control. I struggle to see how anyone can think it is reasonable.

[Green eyed Mick]

I don’t think it is reasonable that 40 percent of the population doesn’t contribute in net terms to the community. That is nothing like a safety net. There are choices about where people live, but that’s up to them. I shouldn’t be subsidising people’s choice to live in Sydney or Melbourne.

You didn’t answer my question. I agree 40% of people being on welfare is too many but what subsidies and benefits would you cut in order to right the ship?

Would you cut back on private health and education funding?

Would you cut money for single mothers?

Childcare?

Pharmaceutical benefits for preventable lifestyle diseases?

Diesel subsidies for farmers and miners?

Corporate welfare?

Negative gearing?

[greeneyed]

I think a thorough investigation would be needed so as to ensure that welfare is focused on the needy. I don't have the resources needed to do that analysis. I believe it could be done within the next year, relatively easily.

[Schifty]

As a single idiot living by himself all I ask is that cheese becomes a tax deductible expense.

[Green eyed Mick]

I think a thorough investigation would be needed so as to ensure that welfare is focused on the needy. I don't have the resources needed to do that analysis. I believe it could be done within the next year, relatively easily.

It could be done tomorrow. The government has within the relevant departments more than enough information and expertise to reform a myriad of government policies and programs to make them more efficient and effective.

The problem is governments don't actually care what the experts have to say on issues that matter. Instead they take their policy direction from corporate and other vested interests and govern for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the majority.

[papabear]

Depends on your definition of “make something of themselves”, personally I’d look at a cop protecting people or a nurse saving lives as “making more of themselves” than a millionaire businessman.

I am not arguing importance, I am saying he made something of himself in reference to income.

I obviously meant no slight on no other profession and am shocked and disillusioned that you have tried to turn it into that, with your moral conscience and all.

[papabear]

As a single idiot living by himself all I ask is that cheese becomes a tax deductible expense.

I’m all for it, and it will be for everyone not just a protected few.

[papabear]

I’ve never understood payroll tax. Taxing businesses for employing people seems counterproductive to me. I’ve known of a number of small businesses that deliberately remain under the threshold to avoid paying it. Those one or two more people on the payroll costs them far too much to justify the return. It’s a tax that disincentivises employment.

100 percent

It is probably the most counter productive tax.


Try some will argue that taxes don’t effect people’s motivation and choices simply because it doesn’t effect their own.

[Dibbers]

I am not arguing importance, I am saying he made something of himself in reference to income.

I obviously meant no slight on no other profession and am shocked and disillusioned that you have tried to turn it into that, with your moral conscience and all.

Its a bid hard not to take it as a slight when you're basically telling all people in those professions that they should take home less money so that people on a significantly higher wage can have more... Or that they're the only ones who know what "fair" is... Maybe all Cops, Nurses, Teachers etc should quit and become corporate high flyers, you know, with their new found motivation... what a wonderful world that would be?

[Dibbers]

Try some will argue that taxes don’t effect people’s motivation and choices simply because it doesn’t effect their own.

Well you're arguing that reducing the taxes on higher wages will motivate the entire population to become CEOs because it'd motivate you, so same same really.

FTR, i agree payroll tax is stupid...

[papabear]

So, you can whinge and moan that too many people are net negative contributors, but unless the above and more changes which wont happen, then its neccessary to keep the country going.

That makes no sense to me. It would be just as easy to argue that middle class welfare artificially inflates house prices.

So? Argue it... it won't change the fact youre spruiking a system that robs from the poor to give to the rich... you can polish a **** all you want but its still just a ****

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

****, you are seriously being critical of others arguments when you come up with a gem such as you’re sprouting a system that robs from the poor to give to the rich.

The poor that pay no tax until 20k
Get hospital / healthcare paid for
Housing paid for
Education paid for
Childcare 85 percent paid for even though they aren’t working.
Published c transport heavily subsidised
Back to work programs paid for
DSP Centrelink study allowance all paid for

Plus a myriad of other services provided to them all paid for by those who are net contributors.

But a suggestion that the income tax rates should be slowly shifted to a more fairer equal level for earners is robbing the poor and giving to the rich?

Giving them what exactly? The opportunity to carry others less?? Well yay!!!

[papabear]

Try some will argue that taxes don’t effect people’s motivation and choices simply because it doesn’t effect their own.

Well you're arguing that reducing the taxes on higher wages will motivate the entire population to become CEOs because it'd motivate you, so same same really.

FTR, i agree payroll tax is stupid...

labor shifted the no tax rate forum 6k to 20k for the same reason.

Once declining benefits and taxes came into play there wasn’t enough reason to work...

Lots of us like to think we will do our best regardless but net pay does make a difference. Hence why people use pay reviews as motivational tools.

[papabear]

Try some will argue that taxes don’t effect people’s motivation and choices simply because it doesn’t effect their own.

Well you're arguing that reducing the taxes on higher wages will motivate the entire population to become CEOs because it'd motivate you, so same same really.

FTR, i agree payroll tax is stupid...

Ftr I am glad we are as one on payroll tax

[Dibbers]

The poor that pay no tax until 20k - Neither do the wealthy, everyone is eligible for the tax free threshold
Get hospital / healthcare paid for - so do the wealthy
Housing paid for
Education paid for - so do the wealthy, if they choose the public system
Childcare 85 percent paid for even though they aren’t working. - so do the wealthy, just not as much, and up to a certain point. I agree if you don't work or study you shouldn't be eligible though
Published c transport heavily subsidised
Back to work programs paid for
DSP Centrelink study allowance all paid for

So of the others, you'd deny people a house, a means of getting to work, take away a program that will potentially get them work, and a program that enables them to study in order for them to get work?

Whether people use these benefits appropriately or not is another argument altogether, they should be policed more thoroughly. But removing them because people on a certain level of income are deemed to be able to afford it themselves thus aren't eligible is just insane. If you increase the tax that the lowest income earners pay, you'll need to provide even more govt assistance then you do now.

[papabear]

The poor that pay no tax until 20k - Neither do the wealthy, everyone is eligible for the tax free threshold
Get hospital / healthcare paid for - so do the wealthy
Housing paid for
Education paid for - so do the wealthy, if they choose the public system
Childcare 85 percent paid for even though they aren’t working. - so do the wealthy, just not as much, and up to a certain point. I agree if you don't work or study you shouldn't be eligible though
Published c transport heavily subsidised
Back to work programs paid for
DSP Centrelink study allowance all paid for

So of the others, you'd deny people a house, a means of getting to work, take away a program that will potentially get them work, and a program that enables them to study in order for them to get work?

Whether people use these benefits appropriately or not is another argument altogether, they should be policed more thoroughly. But removing them because people on a certain level of income are deemed to be able to afford it themselves thus aren't eligible is just insane. If you increase the tax that the lowest income earners pay, you'll need to provide even more govt assistance then you do now.

20k threshhold, I am sure the wealthy would be happy enough to pay a bit more on this 20k if it meant more people were sharing the tax burden. The wealthy can be a bit more benevolent like that.
Hospital - wealthy have private health insurance covering most things, entrenched by our tax system.
Housing - Do I think public housing is a great thing no. I am all for emergency housing, but entrenching people into public housing, nup I am sorry it enables / disables way more then it helps.
Education - oddly enough, the wealthy are paying for the public system then tending to use the private system. IMO no public money should go to the private system only to the public system, but there can be no doubt that only net contributors are paying for this.
Childcare - either even or not at all, no favourites
public transport - I am all for it, but make no mistake again, the net contributors are paying for it, and tbh probably not using it and don't need it.

The main point I am making is the rich are not robbing the poor. The poor are legally taking from the rich, so spare me your class warfare bull when you have it the wrong way around.

[papabear]

I am not arguing importance, I am saying he made something of himself in reference to income.

I obviously meant no slight on no other profession and am shocked and disillusioned that you have tried to turn it into that, with your moral conscience and all.

Its a bid hard not to take it as a slight when you're basically telling all people in those professions that they should take home less money so that people on a significantly higher wage can have more... Or that they're the only ones who know what "fair" is... Maybe all Cops, Nurses, Teachers etc should quit and become corporate high flyers, you know, with their new found motivation... what a wonderful world that would be?

No I just complimented TR and noted he had made something of himself.

I am sure teachers and nurses and cops all have opinions just as valid as his.

You are the one drawing a negative inference as you continue to drown in your negativity.

[Manbush]

Try some will argue that taxes don’t effect people’s motivation and choices simply because it doesn’t effect their own.

Well you're arguing that reducing the taxes on higher wages will motivate the entire population to become CEOs because it'd motivate you, so same same really.

FTR, i agree payroll tax is stupid...

labor shifted the no tax rate forum 6k to 20k for the same reason.

Once declining benefits and taxes came into play there wasn’t enough reason to work...

Lots of us like to think we will do our best regardless but net pay does make a difference. Hence why people use pay reviews as motivational tools.

Makes a difference to some people, personally I’ve taken less pay to work for a company I believe is more ethical and cares for their patients than I could earn elsewhere, money isn’t everything.

If I had my life to live again yes I’d be more motivated and be in a different job but I’d have studied science and tried to be a scientist which isn’t exactly a high paying job but it’s a job which can make a huge difference.

[Green eyed Mick]

So, you can whinge and moan that too many people are net negative contributors, but unless the above and more changes which wont happen, then its neccessary to keep the country going.

That makes no sense to me. It would be just as easy to argue that middle class welfare artificially inflates house prices.

So? Argue it... it won't change the fact youre spruiking a system that robs from the poor to give to the rich... you can polish a **** all you want but its still just a ****

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Polish a ****, you are seriously being critical of others arguments when you come up with a gem such as you’re sprouting a system that robs from the poor to give to the rich.

The poor that pay no tax until 20k
Get hospital / healthcare paid for
Housing paid for
Education paid for
Childcare 85 percent paid for even though they aren’t working.
Published c transport heavily subsidised
Back to work programs paid for
DSP Centrelink study allowance all paid for

Plus a myriad of other services provided to them all paid for by those who are net contributors.

But a suggestion that the income tax rates should be slowly shifted to a more fairer equal level for earners is robbing the poor and giving to the rich?

Giving them what exactly? The opportunity to carry others less?? Well yay!!!

Everything I have bolded is factually incorrect so please do us all a favour and stop posting nonsense.

[Schifty]

Poor people don't pay GST? Or Rates? That's news to me!

Anyway Australian Politics now has a #bonkban.

Ignoring how that's pretty much impossible to police the next question will be what is classed as a bonking..

I'm sure the Australian Conservatives will argue that only straight missionary under the sheets meets their requirements of the definition.

[T_R]

Ignoring how that's pretty much impossible to police the next question will be what is classed as a bonking..

I'm sure the Australian Conservatives will argue that only straight missionary under the sheets meets their requirements of the definition.

This is now legitimate political discourse

[papabear]

Try some will argue that taxes don’t effect people’s motivation and choices simply because it doesn’t effect their own.

Well you're arguing that reducing the taxes on higher wages will motivate the entire population to become CEOs because it'd motivate you, so same same really.

FTR, i agree payroll tax is stupid...

labor shifted the no tax rate forum 6k to 20k for the same reason.

Once declining benefits and taxes came into play there wasn’t enough reason to work...

Lots of us like to think we will do our best regardless but net pay does make a difference. Hence why people use pay reviews as motivational tools.

Makes a difference to some people, personally I’ve taken less pay to work for a company I believe is more ethical and cares for their patients than I could earn elsewhere, money isn’t everything.

If I had my life to live again yes I’d be more motivated and be in a different job but I’d have studied science and tried to be a scientist which isn’t exactly a high paying job but it’s a job which can make a huge difference.

Quit with the generalisations.

Their are heaps of scientists who do really well for themselves who are well and truly in the top tax band.

But I agree with uyou8 that money isnt everything, so will heaps of people not kicking in their share, once the rules are changed for everyone, some might have a bit less money, but money isnt everything and we can all live in happiness that we are contributing more equally.

[Schifty]

These questions need to be asked! If they want to put through stupid ideas that completely ignore why the public is pissed off than we should get to ask equally stupid questions. I.e. is the person who sets up the buffet at caucus meetings considered staff?

Anyway Mathias Cormann has now Steven Bradburied his way the the job of Acting PM next week. Was really hoping he'd have to go on some delegation so next in line Christopher Pyne got the role.

[papabear]

Poor people don't pay GST? Or Rates? That's news to me!

Anyway Australian Politics now has a #bonkban.

Ignoring how that's pretty much impossible to police the next question will be what is classed as a bonking..

I'm sure the Australian Conservatives will argue that only straight missionary under the sheets meets their requirements of the definition.

tbh most companies don't really want you porking eachother in the office, it doesnt surprise me the parliament has moved this way.

[papabear]

The poor that pay no tax until 20k - Neither do the wealthy, everyone is eligible for the tax free threshold
Get hospital / healthcare paid for - so do the wealthy
Housing paid for
Education paid for - so do the wealthy, if they choose the public system
Childcare 85 percent paid for even though they aren’t working. - so do the wealthy, just not as much, and up to a certain point. I agree if you don't work or study you shouldn't be eligible though
Published c transport heavily subsidised
Back to work programs paid for
DSP Centrelink study allowance all paid for

So of the others, you'd deny people a house, a means of getting to work, take away a program that will potentially get them work, and a program that enables them to study in order for them to get work?

Whether people use these benefits appropriately or not is another argument altogether, they should be policed more thoroughly. But removing them because people on a certain level of income are deemed to be able to afford it themselves thus aren't eligible is just insane. If you increase the tax that the lowest income earners pay, you'll need to provide even more govt assistance then you do now.

or not.

people can choose to have less or work and have more.

Pretty much how life should be for everyone, rich poor , middle.

[papabear]

I don’t think it is reasonable that 40 percent of the population doesn’t contribute in net terms to the community. That is nothing like a safety net. There are choices about where people live, but that’s up to them. I shouldn’t be subsidising people’s choice to live in Sydney or Melbourne.

Its not a choice when the bulk of the jobs are in sydney or melbourne. People gravitate to where the jobs are... Barnaby Joyce can spruik the merits of property prices in townsville or armidale or wherever, but there arent decent employment options there which is why houses are so cheap.



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

speaking of armidale, with the uni there, there are a lot of good white collar jobs.

It is **** cold though.

[FuiFui BradBrad]

Poor people don't pay GST? Or Rates? That's news to me!

Anyway Australian Politics now has a #bonkban.

Ignoring how that's pretty much impossible to police the next question will be what is classed as a bonking..

I'm sure the Australian Conservatives will argue that only straight missionary under the sheets meets their requirements of the definition.

tbh most companies don't really want you porking eachother in the office, it doesnt surprise me the parliament has moved this way.

Quite right also, at least go home before you do that stuff. People have to work in the office

[reptar]

Poor people don't pay GST? Or Rates? That's news to me!

Anyway Australian Politics now has a #bonkban.

Ignoring how that's pretty much impossible to police the next question will be what is classed as a bonking..

I'm sure the Australian Conservatives will argue that only straight missionary under the sheets meets their requirements of the definition.

tbh most companies don't really want you porking eachother in the office, it doesnt surprise me the parliament has moved this way.

Quite right also, at least go home before you do that stuff. People have to work in the office

They don't HAVE to, but generally it is preferred

[gangrenous]

I think we can all agree the most antisocial segments are working from Home and then coming into the office just to “pork”

[reptar]

I think we can all agree the most antisocial segments are working from Home and then coming into the office just to “pork”

Is that pork or pork barrel?