The Politics Thread 2018

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145096
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by greeneyed »

This shows 40 per cent of Australians pay no net tax, once welfare is factored in: http://resources.news.com.au/files/2016 ... 213tax.pdf

There are 3.6 million households that are net beneficiaries of the tax and transfer system out of 8.8 million and among the 1.9 million working age households, 608,509 of these are couples with dependent children.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation ... 48829f3dfe

I suspect this would come as a big surprise to most Australians.
Image
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R »

greeneyed wrote:This shows 40 per cent of Australians pay no net tax, once welfare is factored in: http://resources.news.com.au/files/2016 ... 213tax.pdf

There are 3.6 million households that are net beneficiaries of the tax and transfer system out of 8.8 million and among the 1.9 million working age households, 608,509 of these are couples with dependent children.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation ... 48829f3dfe

I suspect this would come as a big surprise to most Australians.
Uh oh. Here we go.

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

Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gangrenous »

I don’t have a problem with facts T_R. I have a problem with things that are false, misconstrued, or not given proper context.

A lot of Australians are negative net contributors to the tax system. I went further than accepting that in this thread, and discussed how that’s the way it works in a sensible system. Greeneyed is hinting perhaps that he might disapprove of this, if so I’m keen to hear why. Otherwise it is what it is.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gangrenous »

T_R wrote:
Green eyed Mick wrote: A flatter tax system wouldn't make things fairer, it will further entrench systemic inequality. This is self-evident for anyone with a reasonable grasp of economic reality.
How come GEM doesn't get a serve for being smug and superior? It's completely unfair. He's every BIT as smug as I am.
I find you get a bit more leeway to be smug and superior on occasions when you happen to be right.
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by papabear »

T_R wrote: February 14, 2018, 9:07 am
papabear wrote: He did answer you with as much as some can legitimately earn.
I was wrong. The answer had to be expressed in precise percentages.
A learning experience for us all😝
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by papabear »

gangrenous wrote: February 14, 2018, 5:16 pm
T_R wrote:
Green eyed Mick wrote: A flatter tax system wouldn't make things fairer, it will further entrench systemic inequality. This is self-evident for anyone with a reasonable grasp of economic reality.
How come GEM doesn't get a serve for being smug and superior? It's completely unfair. He's every BIT as smug as I am.
I find you get a bit more leeway to be smug and superior on occasions when you happen to be right.
Well that’s a bit of a matter of perspective.

I think you will find most people who know what it takes to make something of themselves would argue TR is in fact right.
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by papabear »

Dibbers wrote: February 14, 2018, 1:51 pm
Northern Raider wrote: February 14, 2018, 1:31 pm Dibbers I don't disagree with what you're saying. Its part of the reasoning behind my 2nd paragraph saying it would be virtually impossible to change to it from the current structure. My point was about perception of fairness. Equality is everybody paying the same % tax and earning the same wage. It just can't happen in reality.

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Sorry, i didn't mean to make out like i was disagreeing with you, i was more trying to emphasise the point you were making and add to it.

Even if it did start out being a flat tax rate, the higher income earners would still be complaining that they pay more tax and the lower income earners get all the govt assistance...

Man I wish i earned enough to be complaining about people getting more Childcare assistance then me...
I am complaining about fairness.

I could earn 1 dollar or 1 million dollars

It’s also the vibe.

If you want to earn more money, go and do it :) then you can retain your perspective and have a statue next nickman.

Don’t let the fact that you will be taxed out the wazoo lose ur child care benefits demotivate you or anything.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gangrenous »

papabear wrote:
T_R wrote: February 14, 2018, 9:07 am
papabear wrote: He did answer you with as much as some can legitimately earn.
I was wrong. The answer had to be expressed in precise percentages.
A learning experience for us allImage
He did also miss the mention of communism in the free response section. Please consider all components.
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by papabear »

He did??

How dare he
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gangrenous »

papabear wrote:
gangrenous wrote: February 14, 2018, 5:16 pm
T_R wrote:
Green eyed Mick wrote: A flatter tax system wouldn't make things fairer, it will further entrench systemic inequality. This is self-evident for anyone with a reasonable grasp of economic reality.
How come GEM doesn't get a serve for being smug and superior? It's completely unfair. He's every BIT as smug as I am.
I find you get a bit more leeway to be smug and superior on occasions when you happen to be right.
Well that’s a bit of a matter of perspective.

I think you will find most people who know what it takes to make something of themselves would argue TR is in fact right.
Well yes and no, sometimes there actually is a right answer and not everyone’s opinion is a valuable snowflake.

What exactly is T_R right about? Being a successful businessman is not a catchall for being right ya know!
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gangrenous »

papabear wrote:He did??

How dare he
See, now I know you don’t even try to read my posts Image
User avatar
Schifty
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16467
Joined: March 14, 2010, 4:00 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Schifty »

Cory Bernardi was driving around Parliament house this morning with a bunch of pro vaping activist in a "#VapeforceOne" bus and it hasn't been mentioned here?

What kind of politics thread is this!

No wonder TR now stalks me elsewhere.



https://twitter.com/LegaliseVaping/stat ... 3868033024
User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24869
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Manbush »

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 bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24869
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Manbush »

Schifty wrote: February 14, 2018, 6:26 pm Cory Bernardi was driving around Parliament house this morning with a bunch of pro vaping activist in a "#VapeforceOne" bus and it hasn't been mentioned here?

What kind of politics thread is this!

No wonder TR now stalks me elsewhere.



https://twitter.com/LegaliseVaping/stat ... 3868033024
Schifty is back!!!! :welcome:
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
User avatar
Dibbers
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 978
Joined: November 4, 2010, 1:11 pm
Favourite Player: Brad Clyde

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Dibbers »

papabear wrote: I think you will find most people who know what it takes to make something of themselves would argue TR is in fact right.
I think people with a superiority complex will think you and T_R are right.

I suppose you dont donate to charity either? Why should your hard earned help amybody in need? Lazy people with disabilities and terminally ill folk are just not motivated enough to do it themselves huh?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

I found a moon rock in my nose....
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R »


Schifty wrote:Cory Bernardi was driving around Parliament house this morning with a bunch of pro vaping activist in a "#VapeforceOne" bus and ...

Who the **** are you?
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R »

Manbush wrote: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 think you're all idiots, quite honestly.

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

Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145096
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by greeneyed »

gangrenous wrote: February 14, 2018, 5:12 pm I don’t have a problem with facts T_R. I have a problem with things that are false, misconstrued, or not given proper context.

A lot of Australians are negative net contributors to the tax system. I went further than accepting that in this thread, and discussed how that’s the way it works in a sensible system. Greeneyed is hinting perhaps that he might disapprove of this, if so I’m keen to hear why. Otherwise it is what it is.
I think it is far too big a proportion of people who effectively pay no contribution to public goods. I think most Australians, if they realised, would agree. I think they’d be stunned by it.

I want to see the genuinely needy people protected. I do not believe 40 per cent of our population could be considered genuinely needy.

This is massive churn, it’s inefficient, and I don’t think it is good for work incentives.

Now I’m in retirement, I see a significant proportion of my income being ripped away for what is essentially middle and higher income welfare. I can understand why high income earners in work pay a lot of tax, to help people in need. I agree with it. But now I’m in retirement, I’ve provided for my own retirement... but I’m still paying a big net tax contribution... and so what is the idea? That I am paying so much tax that I am eventually forced onto government support myself? Just to help middle income earners now?
Image
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R »

gangrenous wrote:
papabear wrote:
T_R wrote: February 14, 2018, 9:07 am
papabear wrote: He did answer you with as much as some can legitimately earn.
I was wrong. The answer had to be expressed in precise percentages.
A learning experience for us allImage
He did also miss the mention of communism in the free response section. Please consider all components.
Figured the politics in here were communist enough

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

Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
gerg
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12613
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gerg »

gangrenous wrote:Well, we’ve established a few things:
* Everyone is pretty keen on tax reform.
* I think everyone is keen to tax churches.
* Luckily papabear is not an Australian dictator, he would create a wealthy people’s utopia and probably collapse society.
* The top 20% do not pay 100% of the tax.
* Manbush can’t let drugs go, ever.
You forgot to mention that T_R is actually Joe Hockey.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R »

gergreg wrote:
gangrenous wrote:Well, we’ve established a few things:
* Everyone is pretty keen on tax reform.
* I think everyone is keen to tax churches.
* Luckily papabear is not an Australian dictator, he would create a wealthy people’s utopia and probably collapse society.
* The top 20% do not pay 100% of the tax.
* Manbush can’t let drugs go, ever.
You forgot to mention that T_R is actually Joe Hockey.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
I even look like him.

I think both of us secretly just want to be loved, too

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

Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
gerg
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12613
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gerg »

Manbush wrote:Do other states have issues with trains, in Brisbane I’d say my experience is they’re on time 95% of the time.

Side note good to see Barnaby possibly being pushed out.
I've been lurking in this very thread for the last few days hoping for some Barnaby banter. I think it's 'odd' that apparently the 'affair/relationship' was common knowledge at the house and she was moved out of his office because their 'relationship' was causing issues in his office but because they weren't actually in a 'relationship' he was able to sign off on a job at just under 200k p/a. Surely they followed all the necessary recruitment processes to ensure a fair and transparent process was adhered to. The relationship was common knowledge apparently, except to every single LIB politician.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
gerg
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12613
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gerg »

T_R wrote:
gergreg wrote:
gangrenous wrote:Well, we’ve established a few things:
* Everyone is pretty keen on tax reform.
* I think everyone is keen to tax churches.
* Luckily papabear is not an Australian dictator, he would create a wealthy people’s utopia and probably collapse society.
* The top 20% do not pay 100% of the tax.
* Manbush can’t let drugs go, ever.
You forgot to mention that T_R is actually Joe Hockey.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
I even look like him.

I think both of us secretly just want to be loved, too

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
I've had the *ahem* pleasure of meeting him several times and he's a tough man to tolerate, let alone love.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R »

gergreg wrote:
T_R wrote:
gergreg wrote:
gangrenous wrote:Well, we’ve established a few things:
* Everyone is pretty keen on tax reform.
* I think everyone is keen to tax churches.
* Luckily papabear is not an Australian dictator, he would create a wealthy people’s utopia and probably collapse society.
* The top 20% do not pay 100% of the tax.
* Manbush can’t let drugs go, ever.
You forgot to mention that T_R is actually Joe Hockey.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
I even look like him.

I think both of us secretly just want to be loved, too

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
I've had the *ahem* pleasure of meeting him several times and he's a tough man to tolerate, let alone love.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
My wife confirms that the parallels continue

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

Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13407
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Green eyed Mick »

greeneyed wrote: February 14, 2018, 7:05 pm
gangrenous wrote: February 14, 2018, 5:12 pm I don’t have a problem with facts T_R. I have a problem with things that are false, misconstrued, or not given proper context.

A lot of Australians are negative net contributors to the tax system. I went further than accepting that in this thread, and discussed how that’s the way it works in a sensible system. Greeneyed is hinting perhaps that he might disapprove of this, if so I’m keen to hear why. Otherwise it is what it is.
I think it is far too big a proportion of people who effectively pay no contribution to public goods. I think most Australians, if they realised, would agree. I think they’d be stunned by it.

I want to see the genuinely needy people protected. I do not believe 40 per cent of our population could be considered genuinely needy.

This is massive churn, it’s inefficient, and I don’t think it is good for work incentives.

Now I’m in retirement, I see a significant proportion of my income being ripped away for what is essentially middle and higher income welfare. I can understand why high income earners in work pay a lot of tax, to help people in need. I agree with it. But now I’m in retirement, I’ve provided for my own retirement... but I’m still paying a big net tax contribution... and so what is the idea? That I am paying so much tax that I am eventually forced onto government support myself? Just to help middle income earners now?
What do you consider middle and high income welfare? I suspect people have very different views.
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R »

Green eyed Mick wrote:
greeneyed wrote: February 14, 2018, 7:05 pm
gangrenous wrote: February 14, 2018, 5:12 pm I don’t have a problem with facts T_R. I have a problem with things that are false, misconstrued, or not given proper context.

A lot of Australians are negative net contributors to the tax system. I went further than accepting that in this thread, and discussed how that’s the way it works in a sensible system. Greeneyed is hinting perhaps that he might disapprove of this, if so I’m keen to hear why. Otherwise it is what it is.
I think it is far too big a proportion of people who effectively pay no contribution to public goods. I think most Australians, if they realised, would agree. I think they’d be stunned by it.

I want to see the genuinely needy people protected. I do not believe 40 per cent of our population could be considered genuinely needy.

This is massive churn, it’s inefficient, and I don’t think it is good for work incentives.

Now I’m in retirement, I see a significant proportion of my income being ripped away for what is essentially middle and higher income welfare. I can understand why high income earners in work pay a lot of tax, to help people in need. I agree with it. But now I’m in retirement, I’ve provided for my own retirement... but I’m still paying a big net tax contribution... and so what is the idea? That I am paying so much tax that I am eventually forced onto government support myself? Just to help middle income earners now?
What do you consider middle and high income welfare? I suspect people have very different views.
Those who get it tend to have different views from those who pay for it

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

Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145096
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by greeneyed »

Green eyed Mick wrote: February 14, 2018, 7:43 pm
greeneyed wrote: February 14, 2018, 7:05 pm
gangrenous wrote: February 14, 2018, 5:12 pm I don’t have a problem with facts T_R. I have a problem with things that are false, misconstrued, or not given proper context.

A lot of Australians are negative net contributors to the tax system. I went further than accepting that in this thread, and discussed how that’s the way it works in a sensible system. Greeneyed is hinting perhaps that he might disapprove of this, if so I’m keen to hear why. Otherwise it is what it is.
I think it is far too big a proportion of people who effectively pay no contribution to public goods. I think most Australians, if they realised, would agree. I think they’d be stunned by it.

I want to see the genuinely needy people protected. I do not believe 40 per cent of our population could be considered genuinely needy.

This is massive churn, it’s inefficient, and I don’t think it is good for work incentives.

Now I’m in retirement, I see a significant proportion of my income being ripped away for what is essentially middle and higher income welfare. I can understand why high income earners in work pay a lot of tax, to help people in need. I agree with it. But now I’m in retirement, I’ve provided for my own retirement... but I’m still paying a big net tax contribution... and so what is the idea? That I am paying so much tax that I am eventually forced onto government support myself? Just to help middle income earners now?
What do you consider middle and high income welfare? I suspect people have very different views.
Ask the question another way... do we really think 40 per cent of our population should be net welfare recipients? I’ve voted Labor for all my life in federal elections, but this seems disproportionate. Doesn’t it seem that way to most people?
Image
User avatar
Schifty
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16467
Joined: March 14, 2010, 4:00 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Schifty »

:hi Manbush.

T_R wrote: February 14, 2018, 6:56 pm
Schifty wrote:Cory Bernardi was driving around Parliament house this morning with a bunch of pro vaping activist in a "#VapeforceOne" bus and ...

Who the **** are you?
If you keep being rude I'll be forced to leak against you.. Definitely know of one shady lunch meeting you had.
Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13407
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Green eyed Mick »

greeneyed wrote: February 14, 2018, 7:57 pm
Green eyed Mick wrote: February 14, 2018, 7:43 pm
greeneyed wrote: February 14, 2018, 7:05 pm
gangrenous wrote: February 14, 2018, 5:12 pm I don’t have a problem with facts T_R. I have a problem with things that are false, misconstrued, or not given proper context.

A lot of Australians are negative net contributors to the tax system. I went further than accepting that in this thread, and discussed how that’s the way it works in a sensible system. Greeneyed is hinting perhaps that he might disapprove of this, if so I’m keen to hear why. Otherwise it is what it is.
I think it is far too big a proportion of people who effectively pay no contribution to public goods. I think most Australians, if they realised, would agree. I think they’d be stunned by it.

I want to see the genuinely needy people protected. I do not believe 40 per cent of our population could be considered genuinely needy.

This is massive churn, it’s inefficient, and I don’t think it is good for work incentives.

Now I’m in retirement, I see a significant proportion of my income being ripped away for what is essentially middle and higher income welfare. I can understand why high income earners in work pay a lot of tax, to help people in need. I agree with it. But now I’m in retirement, I’ve provided for my own retirement... but I’m still paying a big net tax contribution... and so what is the idea? That I am paying so much tax that I am eventually forced onto government support myself? Just to help middle income earners now?
What do you consider middle and high income welfare? I suspect people have very different views.
Ask the question another way... do we really think 40 per cent of our population should be net welfare recipients? I’ve voted Labor for all my life in federal elections, but this seems disproportionate. Doesn’t it seem that way to most people?
No I don't. So which parts should we be cutting back?
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R »

Schifty wrote: February 14, 2018, 7:59 pm :hi Manbush.

T_R wrote: February 14, 2018, 6:56 pm
Schifty wrote:Cory Bernardi was driving around Parliament house this morning with a bunch of pro vaping activist in a "#VapeforceOne" bus and ...

Who the **** are you?
If you keep being rude I'll be forced to leak against you.. Definitely know of one shady lunch meeting you had.
Look, I made a decision I regret. I was just experimenting and it's not something that I'd do again, OK? But I reckon a lot of guys have tried it at least once.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
Schifty
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16467
Joined: March 14, 2010, 4:00 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Schifty »

T_R wrote: February 14, 2018, 8:02 pm
Schifty wrote: February 14, 2018, 7:59 pm :hi Manbush.

T_R wrote: February 14, 2018, 6:56 pm
Schifty wrote:Cory Bernardi was driving around Parliament house this morning with a bunch of pro vaping activist in a "#VapeforceOne" bus and ...

Who the **** are you?
If you keep being rude I'll be forced to leak against you.. Definitely know of one shady lunch meeting you had.
Look, I made a decision I regret. I was just experimenting and it's not something that I'd do again, OK? But I reckon a lot of guys have tried it at least once.
Look, it's perfectly fine and I tried something similar just before Christmas last year.

I don't think a lot of the forum will share my views though.
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R »

Schifty wrote: February 14, 2018, 8:06 pm
T_R wrote: February 14, 2018, 8:02 pm
Schifty wrote: February 14, 2018, 7:59 pm :hi Manbush.

T_R wrote: February 14, 2018, 6:56 pm
Schifty wrote:Cory Bernardi was driving around Parliament house this morning with a bunch of pro vaping activist in a "#VapeforceOne" bus and ...

Who the **** are you?
If you keep being rude I'll be forced to leak against you.. Definitely know of one shady lunch meeting you had.
Look, I made a decision I regret. I was just experimenting and it's not something that I'd do again, OK? But I reckon a lot of guys have tried it at least once.
Look, it's perfectly fine and I tried something similar just before Christmas last year.

I don't think a lot of the forum will share my views though.
Sick puppy
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
Dibbers
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 978
Joined: November 4, 2010, 1:11 pm
Favourite Player: Brad Clyde

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Dibbers »


greeneyed wrote:
Ask the question another way... do we really think 40 per cent of our population should be net welfare recipients? I’ve voted Labor for all my life in federal elections, but this seems disproportionate. Doesn’t it seem that way to most people?
Nope it doesnt. When you consider the avg full time wage is $82k, and the average cost of a house is 8 times that (roughly), it doesnt surprise me at all. When you also consider the bulk of the nations population live in Sydney and Melbourne where the avg house price is much higher, commutes are longer thus more expensive, and general cost of living is through the roof, its actually surprising its only 40%.

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.



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


I found a moon rock in my nose....
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R »

Dibbers wrote: 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.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145096
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by greeneyed »

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.
Image
Post Reply