Rorschach wrote:Australia is different to the USA our people are different to Americans... sorry Bobby YOU are wrong.
Carlin is a Comedian. Ridicule and exaggeration are the tools of a Satirist they ain't reality.
You want to discuss Carlin and Comedy etc... start a topic on it.
Got nothin'?Malcolm_hates_your_kids wrote:No they aren't: Business brought down an Australian Prime Minister and gave us copper internet so we would keep selling rocks forever!Rorschach wrote:Australia is different to the USA our people are different to Americans... sorry Bobby YOU are wrong.
Carlin is a Comedian. Ridicule and exaggeration are the tools of a Satirist they ain't reality.
You want to discuss Carlin and Comedy etc... start a topic on it.
You can't say i'm wrong... you can only sell the propaganda of business telling Australia that selling rocks is the only way it can survive.
You're a fraud brother
Back on topic please... and stop wasting my time.Rorschach wrote:Got nothin'?Malcolm_hates_your_kids wrote:No they aren't: Business brought down an Australian Prime Minister and gave us copper internet so we would keep selling rocks forever!Rorschach wrote:Australia is different to the USA our people are different to Americans... sorry Bobby YOU are wrong.
Carlin is a Comedian. Ridicule and exaggeration are the tools of a Satirist they ain't reality.
You want to discuss Carlin and Comedy etc... start a topic on it.
You can't say i'm wrong... you can only sell the propaganda of business telling Australia that selling rocks is the only way it can survive.
You're a fraud brother
How unusual for you...
Personally I think that was a bit twisted... I agree that people should not have to lose more than a third of their money in tax... paying almost half your hard earned is way too much IMO. But we do know people who do earn an obscene amount for what they do. Perhaps sanity should come back into the wage system for these people. Then you have to ask is this just a government gambit to demand higher immigration numbers?Finally a tax plan to rally behind
The Australian
12:00AM May 12, 2018
Grace Collier
Thank goodness for small mercies. Mostly, it is depressing viewing — purely because of ignorant, whinging graspers in the audience — but this week, during ABC’s Q&A, a moment of clarity occurred.
Liberal MP Tim Wilson responded to a question about government welfare, brilliantly. A question was asked about the Newstart allowance, specifically for it to be increased, because it just wasn’t fair.
Wilson conceded the amount was basically a pittance, and it is, but he pointed out, quite correctly, that “every dollar that’s taken to give to some people has to be taken from other people”, and while people are always going to want more money from government, “the reality is, that money has to be taken from someone else”.
Judging by the questioner’s facial expression, Wilson’s argument hit home. Her features rearranged into a grimace, as though she had just sat on a wet whoopee cushion, and was thoroughly embarrassed.
This inconvenient fact — that all government money does not come off a magic tree in the sky, but comes off other people — obviously hadn’t occurred, or wasn’t at the front of mind.
Granted, this is a fact that is easy to forget, and politicians generally don’t bring it up. Nevertheless, it needs to be raised, at every opportunity, by every member of the Coalition team, and particularly when someone asks the government to do something for them, or to give them more.
It could also be followed up by asking: “And who would you like us to tax to pay for this?”
Let us agree that the cost of our civilised society is met with tax and, naturally, everyone who can is obligated to pay. There are people who cannot contribute, temporarily or permanently, because of age, illness or disability, and these people must be supported.
To provide this support, it is reasonable for government to take a certain amount of any able person’s income, but how much is reasonable and where do we draw the line?
A third of a person’s income is more than enough for them to lose in tax, don’t you think? Regardless of how wealthy someone is, surely to take more than a third of their income is to take too much.
In the Coalition’s new income tax plan, which takes until 2024 to fully implement, the vast bulk (94 per cent) of taxpayers will pay no more than 32.5c in the dollar. The new tax plan is not perfect (the remaining 6 per cent of people are still paying too much) but it is a giant step in the right direction.
Coalition types should rally behind the proposed changes and repeat, over and over, that nobody in this country should ever have to give more than about one-third of their income to everybody else.
It is not fair, they should say, for people to take more than one-third of any person’s income off them, under any circumstances whatsoever, no matter how “rich” someone appears to everyone else. To take a third of someone’s income is to take quite a significant amount, and to take more than that is unwarranted and unfair.
Here is where the Coalition can really contrast itself with Labor and appeal to the vast majority of reasonably minded people.
The other issue the Coalition should elevate (because it is linked to the tax plan) is how desirable it is to have a society that allows for ease of social mobility.
Social mobility is experienced when a person can start out with nothing, at the bottom of the heap, and end up well off, through their own efforts, in their own lifetime. Social mobility occurs when people transcend any class barriers, and overcome other disadvantage, by their own efforts.
If there is any country that should be world famous for allowing ease of social mobility it should be Australia.
I am always pleased when I meet wealthy tradies because they are living proof that social mobility exists here.
Social mobility should be talked about in preference to social justice because social justice is all about redistribution and smacks of envy. Social justice is a negative concept, whereas social mobility is not.
Crucially, social mobility can occur only when government takes less money off people who have started out with nothing and are trying to get themselves up the ladder.
The Coalition’s new tax plan will increase our social mobility and the long-term plan should be to eliminate the top income tax bracket (45 per cent) altogether, to increase it further.
When people are allowed to keep more of their own earnings they will become wealthy and self-sufficient. The quicker this happens the better.
Once people provide for themselves, and their families, and have what they feel is enough, the quicker they turn to the pursuit of helping others, of directing their energy into sharing their fortune.
If government has only one job, it is to create the conditions where as many citizens as possible can become as wealthy as they wish.
We want Australia to be a wealthy nation and a wealthy nation is simply a nation full of wealthy people.
Therefore, it is about time we collectively got over our hatred of the wealthy, and instead cultivated an attitude of admiration and healthy respect.
You're being simplistic: why don't you tell those people to earn their money in the black market?Rorschach wrote:Personally I think that was a bit twisted... I agree that people should not have to lose more than a third of their money in tax... paying almost half your hard earned is way too much IMO. But we do know people who do earn an obscene amount for what they do. Perhaps sanity should come back into the wage system for these people. Then you have to ask is this just a government gambit to demand higher immigration numbers?Finally a tax plan to rally behind
The Australian
12:00AM May 12, 2018
Grace Collier
Thank goodness for small mercies. Mostly, it is depressing viewing — purely because of ignorant, whinging graspers in the audience — but this week, during ABC’s Q&A, a moment of clarity occurred.
Liberal MP Tim Wilson responded to a question about government welfare, brilliantly. A question was asked about the Newstart allowance, specifically for it to be increased, because it just wasn’t fair.
Wilson conceded the amount was basically a pittance, and it is, but he pointed out, quite correctly, that “every dollar that’s taken to give to some people has to be taken from other people”, and while people are always going to want more money from government, “the reality is, that money has to be taken from someone else”.
Judging by the questioner’s facial expression, Wilson’s argument hit home. Her features rearranged into a grimace, as though she had just sat on a wet whoopee cushion, and was thoroughly embarrassed.
This inconvenient fact — that all government money does not come off a magic tree in the sky, but comes off other people — obviously hadn’t occurred, or wasn’t at the front of mind.
Granted, this is a fact that is easy to forget, and politicians generally don’t bring it up. Nevertheless, it needs to be raised, at every opportunity, by every member of the Coalition team, and particularly when someone asks the government to do something for them, or to give them more.
It could also be followed up by asking: “And who would you like us to tax to pay for this?”
Let us agree that the cost of our civilised society is met with tax and, naturally, everyone who can is obligated to pay. There are people who cannot contribute, temporarily or permanently, because of age, illness or disability, and these people must be supported.
To provide this support, it is reasonable for government to take a certain amount of any able person’s income, but how much is reasonable and where do we draw the line?
A third of a person’s income is more than enough for them to lose in tax, don’t you think? Regardless of how wealthy someone is, surely to take more than a third of their income is to take too much.
In the Coalition’s new income tax plan, which takes until 2024 to fully implement, the vast bulk (94 per cent) of taxpayers will pay no more than 32.5c in the dollar. The new tax plan is not perfect (the remaining 6 per cent of people are still paying too much) but it is a giant step in the right direction.
Coalition types should rally behind the proposed changes and repeat, over and over, that nobody in this country should ever have to give more than about one-third of their income to everybody else.
It is not fair, they should say, for people to take more than one-third of any person’s income off them, under any circumstances whatsoever, no matter how “rich” someone appears to everyone else. To take a third of someone’s income is to take quite a significant amount, and to take more than that is unwarranted and unfair.
Here is where the Coalition can really contrast itself with Labor and appeal to the vast majority of reasonably minded people.
The other issue the Coalition should elevate (because it is linked to the tax plan) is how desirable it is to have a society that allows for ease of social mobility.
Social mobility is experienced when a person can start out with nothing, at the bottom of the heap, and end up well off, through their own efforts, in their own lifetime. Social mobility occurs when people transcend any class barriers, and overcome other disadvantage, by their own efforts.
If there is any country that should be world famous for allowing ease of social mobility it should be Australia.
I am always pleased when I meet wealthy tradies because they are living proof that social mobility exists here.
Social mobility should be talked about in preference to social justice because social justice is all about redistribution and smacks of envy. Social justice is a negative concept, whereas social mobility is not.
Crucially, social mobility can occur only when government takes less money off people who have started out with nothing and are trying to get themselves up the ladder.
The Coalition’s new tax plan will increase our social mobility and the long-term plan should be to eliminate the top income tax bracket (45 per cent) altogether, to increase it further.
When people are allowed to keep more of their own earnings they will become wealthy and self-sufficient. The quicker this happens the better.
Once people provide for themselves, and their families, and have what they feel is enough, the quicker they turn to the pursuit of helping others, of directing their energy into sharing their fortune.
If government has only one job, it is to create the conditions where as many citizens as possible can become as wealthy as they wish.
We want Australia to be a wealthy nation and a wealthy nation is simply a nation full of wealthy people.
Therefore, it is about time we collectively got over our hatred of the wealthy, and instead cultivated an attitude of admiration and healthy respect.
Personally I think the tax free threshold should be higher, that will help the poorer workers in our society.
I also think real tax reform should be looked into.
Fair distribution of the GST.
I don't however think Labor's claims are affordable, the past has shown that in the end they create more spending that is never covered by their higher taxing where they give with one hand and take with the other.
Both major parties do not have the answers and we are poorly served by both of them.
As for Unbelievabill... makes him sound like an atheist... more likely Unbillievable if you want to toss childish name calling about.
Funny that the hypocrisy of Shorten and Labor have not been pointed out.... 3 word slogans.... seems to me they have been using them quite a lot...
But simply posting and using Bill Shorten... will get the message across re his credibility...
Honestly both major parties need to be honest with us and grow up.
People pay a lot more than that in tax.It is not fair, they should say, for people to take more than one-third of any person’s income off them, under any circumstances whatsoever, no matter how “rich” someone appears to everyone else. To take a third of someone’s income is to take quite a significant amount, and to take more than that is unwarranted and unfair.
Oh I agree Bobby, there are many hidden "taxes"; GST, petrol levies, etc... that is why taking more than 33% as income tax is wrong...Bobby wrote:People pay a lot more than that in tax.It is not fair, they should say, for people to take more than one-third of any person’s income off them, under any circumstances whatsoever, no matter how “rich” someone appears to everyone else. To take a third of someone’s income is to take quite a significant amount, and to take more than that is unwarranted and unfair.
There are so many hidden taxes -
you also indirectly pay GST on everything you do at work -
you make GST money at work which the Govt. gets when something you make
or do is charged to a customer.
That GST can even be more than your wages.
Businesses pay about 40 different hidden taxes such as payroll tax just
for the privilege of employing you,
then there's land tax -
it goes on & on & it's all money that can't go into your pocket.
Then whenever you buy some good or service you pay GST - more tax.
Why doesn't the Govt, just take 90% of what you earn -
abolish all other taxes and then at least it would be honest?
We finally agree on something.Rorschach wrote: Oh I agree Bobby, there are many hidden "taxes"; GST, petrol levies, etc...
that is why taking more than 33% as income tax is wrong...
Would you rather live in Africa?Bobby wrote:We finally agree on something.Rorschach wrote: Oh I agree Bobby, there are many hidden "taxes"; GST, petrol levies, etc...
that is why taking more than 33% as income tax is wrong...
The taxes we pay in Australia are extraordinary.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 59 guests